Alexis C Wood1, Uku Vainik2,3, Laura E Engelhardt4, Daniel A Briley5, Andrew D Grotzinger4, Jessica A Church4,6, K Paige Harden4,7, Elliot M Tucker-Drob4,7. 1. Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. 6. Imaging Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 7. Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Executive functions (EFs) comprise a group of cognitive processes that selectively control and regulate attention. Inverse relations have been reported between EFs and BMI. However, the mechanisms underlying this association are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to decompose the inverse relation between EFs and BMI into genetic and environmental components. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional analysis of data from 869 twins aged 7-15 y from the Texas Twin Project, who completed a neuropsychological test battery measuring 4 EFs (switching, inhibitory control, working memory, and updating); academic achievement (reading and mathematics); and general cognitive abilities (general intelligence/intelligence quotient; crystallized and fluid intelligence; and processing speed). Participants also had their height and weight measured. RESULTS: After controlling for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, BMI was inversely associated with a general EF factor representing the capacity to control and regulate goal-oriented behaviors (r = -0.125; P = 0.01; Q = 0.04). This inverse BMI-EF association was due to a significant overlap in genetic factors contributing to each phenotype (genetic correlation, rA, = -0.15; P < 0.001). Shared genetic influences accounted for 80% of the phenotypic association. CONCLUSIONS: Children with higher general EF have lower BMIs, and this association is primarily attributable to shared genetic influences on both phenotypes. The results emphasize that higher weight associates not only with physical sequelae, but also with important cognitive attributes. This work adds to a growing body of research suggesting there are sets of genetic variants common across physical health and cognitive functioning.
BACKGROUND: Executive functions (EFs) comprise a group of cognitive processes that selectively control and regulate attention. Inverse relations have been reported between EFs and BMI. However, the mechanisms underlying this association are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to decompose the inverse relation between EFs and BMI into genetic and environmental components. METHODS: We employed a cross-sectional analysis of data from 869 twins aged 7-15 y from the Texas Twin Project, who completed a neuropsychological test battery measuring 4 EFs (switching, inhibitory control, working memory, and updating); academic achievement (reading and mathematics); and general cognitive abilities (general intelligence/intelligence quotient; crystallized and fluid intelligence; and processing speed). Participants also had their height and weight measured. RESULTS: After controlling for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, BMI was inversely associated with a general EF factor representing the capacity to control and regulate goal-oriented behaviors (r = -0.125; P = 0.01; Q = 0.04). This inverse BMI-EF association was due to a significant overlap in genetic factors contributing to each phenotype (genetic correlation, rA, = -0.15; P < 0.001). Shared genetic influences accounted for 80% of the phenotypic association. CONCLUSIONS:Children with higher general EF have lower BMIs, and this association is primarily attributable to shared genetic influences on both phenotypes. The results emphasize that higher weight associates not only with physical sequelae, but also with important cognitive attributes. This work adds to a growing body of research suggesting there are sets of genetic variants common across physical health and cognitive functioning.
Authors: Andrew C Heath; Dale R Nyholt; Rosalind Neuman; Pamela A F Madden; Kathleen K Bucholz; Richard D Todd; Elliot C Nelson; Grant W Montgomery; Nicholas G Martin Journal: Twin Res Date: 2003-02
Authors: Michael J Kane; David Z Hambrick; Stephen W Tuholski; Oliver Wilhelm; Tabitha W Payne; Randall W Engle Journal: J Exp Psychol Gen Date: 2004-06
Authors: Tinca J C Polderman; Danielle Posthuma; Leo M J De Sonneville; John F Stins; Frank C Verhulst; Dorret I Boomsma Journal: Biol Psychol Date: 2007-05-18 Impact factor: 3.251
Authors: Antonio Verdejo-García; Manuel Pérez-Expósito; Jacqueline Schmidt-Río-Valle; Maria J Fernández-Serrano; Francisco Cruz; Miguel Pérez-García; Gemma López-Belmonte; Miguel Martín-Matillas; Jose A Martín-Lagos; Ascension Marcos; Cristina Campoy Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Margherita Malanchini; Laura E Engelhardt; Andrew D Grotzinger; K Paige Harden; Elliot M Tucker-Drob Journal: J Pers Soc Psychol Date: 2018-12-13
Authors: Claire M A Haworth; Susan Carnell; Emma L Meaburn; Oliver S P Davis; Robert Plomin; Jane Wardle Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Keita Kamijo; Matthew B Pontifex; Naiman A Khan; Lauren B Raine; Mark R Scudder; Eric S Drollette; Ellen M Evans; Darla M Castelli; Charles H Hillman Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Falonn Contreras-Osorio; Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán; Enrique Cerda-Vega; Luis Chirosa-Ríos; Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo; Christian Campos-Jara Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 3.390