BACKGROUND: Recent behavioral genetic studies have emphasized the importance of investigating eating disorders at the level of individual symptoms, rather than as overall diagnoses. We examined the heritability of binge eating disorder (BED) using an item-factor analytic approach, which estimates contributions of additive genetic (A), common environmental (C), and unique environmental (E) influences on liability to BED as well as individual symptoms. METHOD: Participants were 614 monozygotic and 410 dizygotic same-sex female twins from the Mid-Atlantic Twin Registry who completed a self-report measure of BED symptoms based upon DSM-IV criteria. Genetic and environmental contributions to BED liability were assessed at the diagnostic and symptom levels, using an item-factor approach. RESULTS: Liability to BED was moderately heritable; 45% of the variance was due to A, with smaller proportions due to C (13%), and E (42%). Additive genetic effects accounted for 29-43% of the variance in individual items, while only 8-14% was due to C. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the relevance of examining eating disorders at the symptom level, rather than focusing on aggregate diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: Recent behavioral genetic studies have emphasized the importance of investigating eating disorders at the level of individual symptoms, rather than as overall diagnoses. We examined the heritability of binge eating disorder (BED) using an item-factor analytic approach, which estimates contributions of additive genetic (A), common environmental (C), and unique environmental (E) influences on liability to BED as well as individual symptoms. METHOD:Participants were 614 monozygotic and 410 dizygotic same-sex female twins from the Mid-Atlantic Twin Registry who completed a self-report measure of BED symptoms based upon DSM-IV criteria. Genetic and environmental contributions to BED liability were assessed at the diagnostic and symptom levels, using an item-factor approach. RESULTS: Liability to BED was moderately heritable; 45% of the variance was due to A, with smaller proportions due to C (13%), and E (42%). Additive genetic effects accounted for 29-43% of the variance in individual items, while only 8-14% was due to C. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the relevance of examining eating disorders at the symptom level, rather than focusing on aggregate diagnoses.
Authors: Michael C Neale; Eric Harvey; Hermine H M Maes; Patrick F Sullivan; Kenneth S Kendler Journal: Behav Genet Date: 2006-06-08 Impact factor: 2.805
Authors: Kathleen M Pike; Denise Wilfley; Anja Hilbert; Christopher G Fairburn; Faith-Anne Dohm; Ruth H Striegel-Moore Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2006-05-19 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: T Reichborn-Kjennerud; C M Bulik; K S Kendler; E Røysamb; H Maes; K Tambs; J R Harris Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Jaclyn M Zocca; Lauren B Shomaker; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Kelli M Columbo; Gina R Raciti; Sheila M Brady; Melissa K Crocker; Asem H Ali; Brittany E Matheson; Susan Z Yanovski; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Appetite Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Zaida Agüera; María Lozano-Madrid; Núria Mallorquí-Bagué; Susana Jiménez-Murcia; José M Menchón; Fernando Fernández-Aranda Journal: Neuropsychiatr Date: 2020-04-28
Authors: Hannah N Ziobrowski; Kendrin R Sonneville; Kamryn T Eddy; Ross D Crosby; Nadia Micali; Nicholas J Horton; Alison E Field Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Stacey L Kirkpatrick; Lisa R Goldberg; Neema Yazdani; R Keith Babbs; Jiayi Wu; Eric R Reed; David F Jenkins; Amanda F Bolgioni; Kelsey I Landaverde; Kimberly P Luttik; Karen S Mitchell; Vivek Kumar; W Evan Johnson; Megan K Mulligan; Pietro Cottone; Camron D Bryant Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 13.382