4.3 Article

Polygenic Score x Intervention Moderation: An application of discrete-time survival analysis to modeling the timing of first tobacco use among urban youth

期刊

DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 111-122

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954579414001333

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH57005, T32 MH18834]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA R37 DA11796]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study examines the interaction between a polygenic score and an elementary school-based universal preventive intervention trial. The polygenic score reflects the contribution of multiple genes and has been shown in prior research to be predictive of smoking cessation and tobacco use (Uhl et al., 2014). Using data from a longitudinal preventive intervention study, we examined age of first tobacco use from sixth grade to age 18. Genetic data were collected during emerging adulthood and were genotyped using the Affymetrix 6.0 microarray. The polygenic score was computed using these data. Discrete-time survival analysis was employed to test for intervention main and interaction effects with the polygenic score. We found a main effect of the intervention, with the intervention participants reporting their first cigarette smoked at an age significantly later than controls. We also found an Intervention x Polygenic Score interaction, with participants at the higher end of the polygenic score benefitting the most from the intervention in terms of delayed age of first use. These results are consistent with Belsky and colleagues' (e.g., Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Belsky & Pleuss, 2009, 2013; Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2011) differential susceptibility hypothesis and the concept of for better or worse, wherein the expression of genetic variants are optimally realized in the context of an enriched environment, such as provided by a preventive intervention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据