| Literature DB >> 26864359 |
Alison Fildes1, Cornelia H M van Jaarsveld2, Lucy Cooke3, Jane Wardle3, Clare H Llewellyn3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food fussiness (FF) is common in early childhood and is often associated with the rejection of nutrient-dense foods such as vegetables and fruit. FF and liking for vegetables and fruit are likely all heritable phenotypes; the genetic influence underlying FF may explain the observed genetic influence on liking for vegetables and fruit. Twin analyses make it possible to get a broad-based estimate of the extent of the shared genetic influence that underlies these traits.Entities:
Keywords: child; eating; food; fussiness; genetic; heritability; infant; liking; preferences
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26864359 PMCID: PMC4807704 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.115.122945
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Nutr ISSN: 0002-9165 Impact factor: 7.045
Sample characteristics
| Characteristic | Study sample ( |
| Sex, | |
| M | 1316 (49.5) |
| F | 1344 (50.5) |
| Gestational age, wk | 36.18 ± 2.51 |
| Weight at birth, kg | 2.45 ± 0.54 |
| Zygosity, | |
| Monozygotic | 916 (34.4) |
| Dizygotic | 1744 (65.6) |
| Food fussiness | 2.65 ± 0.85 |
| Vegetable liking | 0.44 ± 0.61 |
| Fruit liking | 1.00 ± 0.64 |
Mean ± SD (all such values).
Higher scores indicate greater fussiness (range: 1–5).
Higher scores indicate a higher liking (range: −2 to 2).
Phenotypic and CT/CT ICCs for V and FF, and F and FF
| CT/CT ICCs (95% CIs) | ||||
| Scales | Phenotypic correlations | Twin and scale | Monozygotic | Dizygotic |
| Vegetable liking × FF | −0.61 | Twin 1 V × twin 2 FF | −0.58 (−0.64, −0.52) | −0.29 (−0.35, −0.23) |
| Twin 2 V × twin 1 FF | −0.58 (−0.64, −0.52) | −0.32 (−0.38, −0.26) | ||
| Fruit liking × FF | −0.42 | Twin 1 F × twin 2 FF | −0.45 (−0.53, −0.38) | −0.20 (−0.26, −0.13) |
| Twin 2 F × twin 1 FF | −0.42 (−0.50, −0.34) | −0.19 (−0.26, −0.13) | ||
CT/CT, cross-twin, cross-trait; F, fruit liking; FF, food fussiness; ICC, intraclass correlation; V, vegetable liking.
Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients; n = 2523–2660. All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
Randomly allocated twin (1 or 2) and the scale used in the CT/CT correlation. CT/CT ICCs were calculated for monozygotic and dizygotic pairs for the residualized vegetable and fruit liking scores paired with residualized FF scores.
Monozygotics: n = 438–458 pairs; dizygotics: n = 855–872 pairs.
FIGURE 1Full ACE-correlated factors model showing the genetic and environmental influences on children’s vegetable liking, fruit liking, and food fussiness. The path diagram shows the genetic and environmental influences on fruit and vegetable liking and food fussiness for one child with the use of a correlated factors model. Data were analyzed with the use of multivariate maximum-likelihood structural equation modeling. Each rectangular box represents the measured phenotype (food liking or food fussiness). Circles indicate latent influences on the measured phenotype, which included A, C, and E. Straight single-headed arrows show causal paths, and squared path coefficients on each causal path indicate the total variance explained in each trait by A, C, and E. The curved double-headed arrows show the genetic, shared environment and unique environment correlations between the traits. n = 2660 children. A, additive genetic effects; C, shared environmental effects; E, unique environmental effects and error.
Variable estimates for covariance and A, C, and E that underlie children’s vegetable liking, fruit liking, and FF
| Variance components for bivariate | Etiologic correlation (95% CI) | ||||||
| Food preference and FF scales | Phenotypic correlation (95% CI) | ||||||
| Vegetable liking × FF | −0.60 (−0.66, −0.55) | 70 (0.42) | 21 (0.13) | 9 (0.05) | −0.65 (−0.71, −0.59) | −0.97 (−1.00, −0.78) | −0.38 (−0.46, −0.29) |
| Fruit liking × FF | −0.40 (−0.46, −0.36) | 66 (0.26) | 24 (0.10) | 10 (0.04) | −0.42 (−0.50, −0.34) | −0.75 (−0.96, −0.39) | −0.27 (−0.36, −0.18) |
n = 2660 children. A, additive genetic effects, C, shared environment effects; E, unique environment effects; FF, food fussiness; rc, shared environmental correlation; re, unique environmental correlation; rg, genetic correlation.
Phenotypic correlations were derived from structural equation modeling.
Proportions of variance in the phenotypic correlation that are explained by common A, C, and E derived from structural equation modeling and converted to percentages for ease of interpretation. The sum of the bivariate components (shown in parentheses) equals the phenotypic correlation. All bivariate estimates were significant.
A genetic, shared environmental or unique environmental correlation was significant if the 95% CI did not include zero; all correlations in the model were significant.