Andrey P Anokhin1, Julia D Grant2, Richard C Mulligan2, Andrew C Heath2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: andrey@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting (DD), a decline in the subjective value of reward with increasing delay until its receipt, is an established behavioral model of impulsive choice, a key component of a broader impulsivity construct. Greater DD, i.e., a tendency to choose smaller immediate over larger delayed rewards, has been implicated as a potential intermediate phenotype (endophenotype) for addictive disorders and comorbid externalizing psychopathology, particularly in adolescence. However, genetic and environmental origins of DD remain unclear. Accordingly, the goal of the present study was to assess heritability of DD, an important aspect of its utility as an endophenotype. METHODS: A commonly used computerized procedure involving choice between varying amounts of money available immediately and a standard amount of $100 presented at variable delays was administered to a population-based sample of twins aged 16 and 18 (n = 560, including 134 monozygotic and 142 dizygotic pairs). DD was quantified using area under the discounting curve and the k coefficient estimated by fitting a hyperbolic model to individual data. Heritability was assessed using linear structural equation modeling of twin data. RESULTS: The genetic analysis revealed significant heritability of both DD measures (area under the discounting curve: 46% and 62%; k: 35% and 55% at age 16 and 18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides evidence for heritability of both model-based and model-free DD measures and suggests that DD is a promising intermediate phenotype for genetic dissection of impulsivity and externalizing spectrum disorders.
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting (DD), a decline in the subjective value of reward with increasing delay until its receipt, is an established behavioral model of impulsive choice, a key component of a broader impulsivity construct. Greater DD, i.e., a tendency to choose smaller immediate over larger delayed rewards, has been implicated as a potential intermediate phenotype (endophenotype) for addictive disorders and comorbid externalizing psychopathology, particularly in adolescence. However, genetic and environmental origins of DD remain unclear. Accordingly, the goal of the present study was to assess heritability of DD, an important aspect of its utility as an endophenotype. METHODS: A commonly used computerized procedure involving choice between varying amounts of money available immediately and a standard amount of $100 presented at variable delays was administered to a population-based sample of twins aged 16 and 18 (n = 560, including 134 monozygotic and 142 dizygotic pairs). DD was quantified using area under the discounting curve and the k coefficient estimated by fitting a hyperbolic model to individual data. Heritability was assessed using linear structural equation modeling of twin data. RESULTS: The genetic analysis revealed significant heritability of both DD measures (area under the discounting curve: 46% and 62%; k: 35% and 55% at age 16 and 18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides evidence for heritability of both model-based and model-free DD measures and suggests that DD is a promising intermediate phenotype for genetic dissection of impulsivity and externalizing spectrum disorders.
Authors: Yannis Paloyelis; Philip Asherson; Mitul A Mehta; Stephen V Faraone; Jonna Kuntsi Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Rosalyn Eve Weller; Kathy Burton Avsar; James Edward Cox; Meredith Amanda Reid; David Matthew White; Adrienne Carol Lahti Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Janet Audrain-McGovern; Daniel Rodriguez; Leonard H Epstein; Jocelyn Cuevas; Kelli Rodgers; E Paul Wileyto Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Emily M Pisetsky; Carol B Peterson; James E Mitchell; Stephen A Wonderlich; Ross D Crosby; Daniel Le Grange; Laura Hill; Pauline Powers; Scott J Crow Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Tom Rosenström; Fartein Ask Torvik; Eivind Ystrom; Nikolai Olavi Czajkowski; Nathan A Gillespie; Steven H Aggen; Robert F Krueger; Kenneth S Kendler; Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: David N Linsenbardt; Michael P Smoker; Sarine S Janetsian-Fritz; Christopher C Lapish Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: James MacKillop; Joshua C Gray; Jessica Weafer; Sandra Sanchez-Roige; Abraham A Palmer; Harriet de Wit Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Leigh V Panlilio; Maria E Secci; Charles W Schindler; Charles W Bradberry Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 4.530