Parental and offspring contribution of genetic markers of adult blood pressure in early life: The FAMILY study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous genome wide association studies (GWAS) identified associations of multiple common variants with diastolic and systolic blood pressure traits in adults. However, the contribution of these loci to variations of blood pressure in early life is unclear. We assessed the child and parental contributions of 33 GWAS single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for blood pressure in 1,525 participants (515 children, 406 mothers and 237 fathers) of the Family Atherosclerosis Monitoring In early life (FAMILY) study followed-up for 5 years. Two genotype scores for systolic (29 SNPs) and diastolic (24 SNPs) blood pressure were built. Linear mixed-effect regressions showed significant association between rs1378942 in CSK and systolic blood pressure (β = 0.98±0.46, P = 3.4×10-2). The child genotype scores for diastolic and systolic blood pressure were not associated in children. Nominally significant parental genetic effects were found between the SNPs rs11191548 (CYP17A1) (paternal, β = 2.78±1.49, P = 6.1×10-2 for SBP and β = 3.60±1.24, P = 3.7×10-3 for DBP), rs17367504 (MTHFR) (paternal, β = 2.42±0.93, P = 9.3×10-3 for SBP and β = 1.89±0.80, P = 1.8×10-2 for DBP and maternal, β = -1.32±0.60, P = 2.9×10-2 and β = -1.97±0.77, P = 1.0×10-2, for SBP and DBP respectively) and child blood pressure. Our study supports the view that adult GWAS loci have a limited impact on blood pressure during the five first years of life. The parental genetic effects observed on blood pressure in children may suggest epigenetic mechanisms in the transmission of the risk of hypertension. Further replication is needed to confirm our results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".