Parenting Interacts With Plasticity Genes in Predicting Behavioral Outcomes in Preschoolers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Public health and pediatric nurses typically focus on supporting parenting to reduce the likelihood of children’s behavioral problems. Studies have identified interactions between early exposures to stress in caregiving and child genotype in predicting children’s behavioral problems, such that certain genotypes connote greater differential susceptibility or plasticity to environmental stressors. We sought to uncover the interaction between observational measures of parent–child relationship quality and genotype in predicting early-onset behavioral problems in 24-month-olds, using prospective methods. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected on a subsample of 176 women and their infants enrolled during pregnancy in the ongoing Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) cohort study. Inclusion criteria required mothers to be ≥18 years of age, English speaking and ≤22 weeks gestational age at enrollment. Genetic data were obtained from blood leukocytes and buccal epithelial cell samples, collected from infants at three months of age. For each child, the presence of plasticity alleles was determined for BDNF, CNR1, DRD2/ANKK1, DRD4, DAT1, 5 -HTTLPR, and MAOA and an overall index was calculated to summarize the number of plasticity alleles present. Observational assessments of parent–child relationship quality (sensitivity, controlling, and unresponsiveness) were conducted at six months of age. Children’s internalizing (e.g., emotionally reactive, anxious/depressed, somatic complaint, withdrawn) and externalizing (e.g., aggression, inattention) behaviors were assessed at 24 months of age. After extracting genetic data, a maximum likelihood method for regressions was employed with Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for model selection. Results When parents were less responsive and children possessed more plasticity alleles, children were more likely to be emotionally reactive, anxious/depressed, report somatic complaints, and withdrawn, while when parents were less responsive and children possessed fewer plasticity alleles, children were less likely to display these internalizing behaviors, in a differentially susceptible manner. Furthermore, when parents were more responsive, and children possessed more plasticity alleles, children were less likely to display internalizing behaviors (P = 0.034). Similarly, children who possessed either the CNR1-A plasticity allele (P = 0.010) or DAT1 9-repeat plasticity allele (P = 0.036) and experienced more/less parental control displayed more/fewer externalizing problems, respectively, in a differentially susceptible manner. Conclusions The plasticity index score interacted with parental unresponsiveness in predicting anxiety and depressive behavioral problems in children, while individual genetic variants interacted with parental controlling behavior in predicting aggression and inattention in children, suggestive of differential susceptibility to caregiving. Especially in the context of nursing interventions designed to support childrearing and children’s development, nurses need to be aware of the interactions between child genotype and parenting in understanding how well interventions will work in promoting optimal child behavior.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».