BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Molecular genetic studies of alcohol and nicotine use have identified many genome-wide association study (GWAS) loci. We measured associations between drinking and smoking polygenic scores (PGS) and trajectories of alcohol and nicotine use outcomes from late childhood to early adulthood, substance-specific versus broader-liability PGS effects, and if PGS performance varied for consumption versus problematic substance use. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We fitted latent growth curve models with structured residuals to scores on measures of alcohol and nicotine use and problems from ages 14 to 34 years. We then estimated associations between the intercept (initial status) and slope (rate of change) parameters and PGSs for drinks per week (DPW), problematic alcohol use (PAU), cigarettes per day (CPD) and ever being a regular smoker (SMK), controlling for sex and genetic principal components. All data were analyzed in the United States. PGSs were calculated for participants of the Minnesota Twin Family Study (n = 3225) using results from the largest GWAS of alcohol and nicotine consumption and problematic use to date. FINDINGS: Each PGS was associated with trajectories of use for their respective substances [i.e. DPW (βmean = 0.08; βrange = 0.02-0.12) and PAU (βmean = 0.12; βrange = -0.02 to 0.31) for alcohol; CPD (βmean = 0.08; βrange = 0.04-0.14) and SMK (βmean = 0.18; βrange = 0.05-0.36) for nicotine]. The PAU and SMK PGSs also exhibited cross-substance associations (i.e. PAU for nicotine-specific intercepts and SMK for alcohol intercepts and slope). All identified SMK PGS effects remained as significant predictors of nicotine and alcohol trajectories (βmean = 0.15; βrange = 0.02-0.33), even after adjusting for the respective effects of all other PGSs. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use-related polygenic scores (PGSs) vary in the strength and generality versus specificity of their associations with substance use and problems over time. The regular smoking PGS appears to be a robust predictor of substance use trajectories and seems to measure both nicotine-specific and non-specific genetic liability for substance use, and potentially externalizing problems in general.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Molecular genetic studies of alcohol and nicotine use have identified many genome-wide association study (GWAS) loci. We measured associations between drinking and smoking polygenic scores (PGS) and trajectories of alcohol and nicotine use outcomes from late childhood to early adulthood, substance-specific versus broader-liability PGS effects, and if PGS performance varied for consumption versus problematic substance use. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We fitted latent growth curve models with structured residuals to scores on measures of alcohol and nicotine use and problems from ages 14 to 34 years. We then estimated associations between the intercept (initial status) and slope (rate of change) parameters and PGSs for drinks per week (DPW), problematic alcohol use (PAU), cigarettes per day (CPD) and ever being a regular smoker (SMK), controlling for sex and genetic principal components. All data were analyzed in the United States. PGSs were calculated for participants of the Minnesota Twin Family Study (n = 3225) using results from the largest GWAS of alcohol and nicotine consumption and problematic use to date. FINDINGS: Each PGS was associated with trajectories of use for their respective substances [i.e. DPW (βmean = 0.08; βrange = 0.02-0.12) and PAU (βmean = 0.12; βrange = -0.02 to 0.31) for alcohol; CPD (βmean = 0.08; βrange = 0.04-0.14) and SMK (βmean = 0.18; βrange = 0.05-0.36) for nicotine]. The PAU and SMK PGSs also exhibited cross-substance associations (i.e. PAU for nicotine-specific intercepts and SMK for alcohol intercepts and slope). All identified SMK PGS effects remained as significant predictors of nicotine and alcohol trajectories (βmean = 0.15; βrange = 0.02-0.33), even after adjusting for the respective effects of all other PGSs. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use-related polygenic scores (PGSs) vary in the strength and generality versus specificity of their associations with substance use and problems over time. The regular smoking PGS appears to be a robust predictor of substance use trajectories and seems to measure both nicotine-specific and non-specific genetic liability for substance use, and potentially externalizing problems in general.
Authors: James J Li; Seung Bin Cho; Jessica E Salvatore; Howard J Edenberg; Arpana Agrawal; David B Chorlian; Bernice Porjesz; Victor Hesselbrock; Danielle M Dick Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sayantan Das; Lukas Forer; Sebastian Schönherr; Carlo Sidore; Adam E Locke; Alan Kwong; Scott I Vrieze; Emily Y Chew; Shawn Levy; Matt McGue; David Schlessinger; Dwight Stambolian; Po-Ru Loh; William G Iacono; Anand Swaroop; Laura J Scott; Francesco Cucca; Florian Kronenberg; Michael Boehnke; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christian Fuchsberger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Margaret A Keyes; Stephen M Malone; Irene J Elkins; Lisa N Legrand; Matt McGue; William G Iacono Journal: Twin Res Hum Genet Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Christopher C Chang; Carson C Chow; Laurent Cam Tellier; Shashaank Vattikuti; Shaun M Purcell; James J Lee Journal: Gigascience Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Henry R Kranzler; Hang Zhou; Rachel L Kember; Rachel Vickers Smith; Amy C Justice; Scott Damrauer; Philip S Tsao; Derek Klarin; Aris Baras; Jeffrey Reid; John Overton; Daniel J Rader; Zhongshan Cheng; Janet P Tate; William C Becker; John Concato; Ke Xu; Renato Polimanti; Hongyu Zhao; Joel Gelernter Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Richard Karlsson Linnér; Travis T Mallard; Peter B Barr; Sandra Sanchez-Roige; James W Madole; Morgan N Driver; Holly E Poore; Ronald de Vlaming; Andrew D Grotzinger; Jorim J Tielbeek; Emma C Johnson; Mengzhen Liu; Sara Brin Rosenthal; Trey Ideker; Hang Zhou; Rachel L Kember; Joëlle A Pasman; Karin J H Verweij; Dajiang J Liu; Scott Vrieze; Henry R Kranzler; Joel Gelernter; Kathleen Mullan Harris; Elliot M Tucker-Drob; Irwin D Waldman; Abraham A Palmer; K Paige Harden; Philipp D Koellinger; Danielle M Dick Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Sandra Sanchez-Roige; Abraham A Palmer; Pierre Fontanillas; Sarah L Elson; Mark J Adams; David M Howard; Howard J Edenberg; Gail Davies; Richard C Crist; Ian J Deary; Andrew M McIntosh; Toni-Kim Clarke Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Daniel W Belsky; Terrie E Moffitt; Timothy B Baker; Andrea K Biddle; James P Evans; HonaLee Harrington; Renate Houts; Madeline Meier; Karen Sugden; Benjamin Williams; Richie Poulton; Avshalom Caspi Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Jessica E Salvatore; Fazil Aliev; Alexis C Edwards; David M Evans; John Macleod; Matthew Hickman; Glyn Lewis; Kenneth S Kendler; Anu Loukola; Tellervo Korhonen; Antti Latvala; Richard J Rose; Jaakko Kaprio; Danielle M Dick Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Peter B Barr; Morgan N Driver; Sally I-Chun Kuo; Mallory Stephenson; Fazil Aliev; Richard Karlsson Linnér; Jesse Marks; Andrey P Anokhin; Kathleen Bucholz; Grace Chan; Howard J Edenberg; Alexis C Edwards; Meredith W Francis; Dana B Hancock; K Paige Harden; Chella Kamarajan; Jaakko Kaprio; Sivan Kinreich; John R Kramer; Samuel Kuperman; Antti Latvala; Jacquelyn L Meyers; Abraham A Palmer; Martin H Plawecki; Bernice Porjesz; Richard J Rose; Marc A Schuckit; Jessica E Salvatore; Danielle M Dick Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 13.437