Back

The current obesity “epidemic”: segregation of familial genetic risk in NHANES cohort supports a major role for large genetic effects

Jenkins, A. B.; Batterham, M.; Campbell, L. V.

2019-08-29 genetics
10.1101/749606 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The continuing increase in many countries in adult body mass index (BMI kg/m2) and its dispersion is contributed to by interaction between genetic susceptibilities and an increasingly obesogenic environment (OE). The determinants of OE-susceptibility are unresolved, due to uncertainty around relevant genetic and environmental architecture. We aimed to test the multi-modal distributional predictions of a Mendelian genetic architecture based on collectively common, but individually rare, large-effect variants and their ability to account for current trends in a large population-based sample. We studied publicly available adult BMI data (n = 9102) from 3 cycles of NHANES (1999, 2005, 2013). A first degree family history of diabetes served as a binary marker (FH0/FH1) of genetic obesity susceptibility. We tested for multi-modal BMI distributions non-parametrically using kernel-smoothing and conditional quantile regression (CQR), obtained parametric fits to a Mendelian model in FH1, and estimated FH x OE interactions in CQR models and ANCOVA models incorporating secular time. Non-parametric distributional analyses were consistent with multi-modality and fits to a Mendelian model in FH1 reliably identified 3 modes. Mode separation accounted for ~40% of BMI variance in FH1 providing a lower bound for the contribution of large effects. CQR identified strong FH x OE interactions and FH1 accounted for ~60% of the secular trends in BMI and its SD in ANCOVA models. Multimodality in the FH effect is inconsistent with a predominantly polygenic, small effect architecture and we conclude that large genetic effects interacting with OE provide a better quantitative explanation for current trends in BMI.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.