Back

Indirect Genetic Effects on Alcohol Use Disorder and Nicotine Dependence

Luo, M.; Trindade Pons, V.; Zakharin, M.; Pingault, J.-B.; Gillespie, N. A.; van Loo, H. M.

2026-04-19 addiction medicine
10.64898/2026.04.17.26351089 medRxiv
Show abstract

Substance use disorders run in families, yet the mechanisms underlying intergenerational transmission remain unclear. We investigated indirect genetic effects, pathways through which parental genotypes influence offspring phenotypes via the family environment, for alcohol use disorder (AUD), nicotine dependence (ND), and related quantitative outcomes, and aimed to identify family environmental factors through which such effects may operate. Using transmitted and non-transmitted polygenic scores (PGS) constructed for problematic alcohol use, tobacco use disorder, and general addiction liability, we analyzed 5972 European-ancestry adult offspring with at least one genotyped parent from the population-based Lifelines cohort (Netherlands). Offspring outcomes included lifetime DSM-5 AUD diagnosis, AUD symptom count, maximum drinks in 24 hours, Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence score, and cigarettes per day. AUD findings were meta-analyzed with data from the Brisbane Longitudinal Twin Study (N = 1368; Australia). We also examined parent-of-origin effects and mediation by parental substance use and socioeconomic status using structural equation modeling. Transmitted PGS robustly predicted all AUD and ND outcomes ({beta} = 0.07-0.16; OR = 1.20 for AUD diagnosis). Non-transmitted PGS, indexing indirect genetic effects, were negligible for all clinical syndrome outcomes. The only significant indirect genetic effect was on cigarettes per day ({beta} = 0.03, p = 0.01), mediated by parental smoking behavior but not socioeconomic status. These findings indicate that intergenerational transmission of risk for AUD and ND is driven primarily by direct genetic effects, with modest indirect genetic effects on smoking quantity. Larger samples and cross-trait analyses are needed to further elucidate these mechanisms.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.