Search

Background: A critical issue in devising effective interventions for the treatment of children's behavioral and emotional problems identifying genuine family environmental factors that place children at risk. In most twin and family studies, environmental factors are confounded with both direct genetic risk from parents and the indirect effect of genes influencing parents' ability to provide an optimal rearing environment. The present study was undertaken to determine whether parental psychopathology, specifically parental antisocial behavior (ASP), is a genuine environmental risk factor for juvenile conduct disturbance, depression and hyperactivity, or whether the association between parental ASP and children's behavioral and emotional problems can be explained as a secondary consequence of the intergenerational transmission of genetic factors. Methods: An extended children of twins design comprised of data collected on 2,674 adult female and male twins, their spouses, and 2,454 of their children was used to test whether genetic and/or family environmental factors best accounted for the association between parental antisocial behavior and children's behavioral problems. An age-matched sample of 2,826 juvenile twin pairs from the Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development was also included to examine developmental differences in gene expression by partitioning child-specific transmissible effects from those effects that persist into adulthood. The fit of alternative models was evaluated using the statistical program Mx. Results: We found distinct patterns of transmission between parental antisocial behavior and juvenile conduct, depression and hyperactivity. Genetic and family environmental factors accounted for the resemblance between parents' ASP and children's conduct disturbance. Family environmental factors alone explained the association between child depression and parental ASP, and the impact of parental ASP on hyperactivity was entirely genetic. Conclusions: These findings underscore differences in the contribution of genetic and environmental factors on the patterns of association between parental antisocial behavior and juvenile psychopathology, having important clinical implications for the prevention and amelioration of child behavioral and emotional problems.

Background: Despite the increased risk of depression and conduct problems in children of depressed parents, the mechanism by which parental depression affects their children's behavioral and emotional functioning is not well understood. The present study was undertaken to determine whether parental depression represents a genuine environmental risk factor in children's psychopathology, or whether children's depression/conduct can be explained as a secondary consequence of the genetic liability transmitted from parents to their offspring. Methods: Children of Twins (COT) data collected on 2,674 adult female and male twins, their spouses, and 2,940 of their children were used to address whether genetic and/or family environmental factors best account for the association between depression in parents and depression and conduct problems in their children. Data collected on juvenile twins from the Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development (VTSABD) were also included to estimate child-specific genetic and environmental influences apart from those effects arising from the transmission of the parental depression itself. The fit of alternative Children of Twin models were evaluated using the statistical program "Mx." Results: The most compelling model for the association between parental and juvenile depression was a model of direct environmental risk. Both family environmental and genetic factors accounted for the association between parental depression and child conduct disturbance. Conclusions: These findings illustrate how a genetically mediated behavior such as parental depression can have both an environmental and genetic impact on children's behavior. We find developmentally specific genetic factors underlying risk to juvenile and adult depression. A shared genetic liability influences both parental depression and juvenile conduct disturbance, implicating child conduct disturbance (CD) as an early indicator of genetic risk for depression in adulthood. In summary, our analyses demonstrate differences in the impact of parental depression on different forms of child psychopathology, and at various stages of development.

Background: If the adaptive significance of specific fears changes with age, the genetic contribution to individual differences may be lowest at the age of greatest salience. The roles of genes and environment in the developmental-genetic trajectory of five common childhood fears are explored in 1094 like-sex pairs of male and female monozygotic and dizygotic twins assessed on up to three occasions during adolescence (ages 8-18 years). Methods: Dichotomous self-ratings of a cluster of five correlated fears from Ollendick's schedule of fears (FSSC-R) were extracted for subjects at each occasion of assessment. The effects of genes and environment on overall level of fears and rates of adolescent decline were explored by fitting an item-response theory ("IRT") model that allowed for individual genetic and environmental differences in initial fear level ("intercept") and rates of adolescent change ("slope") across the repeated waves of measurement. Different forms of the model were explored using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods to derive the posterior distribution of subject and item parameters from the raw responses. Results: Additive genetic differences affect the common factor underlying the five fear-items. The same genes also affect rates of change with age, especially in boys. Male adolescents with higher overall genetic predisposition to childhood fears tended to show slower recovery with age than subjects with relatively low initial values. Thus, the genetic variance apparently increases with age. Conclusions: This finding is consistent with a prediction that the regulation of genetic differences will be strongest, and thus the additive genetic variance will be smallest, at the age when the particular stimulus is most salient. Items differed in the extent to which they were sensitive to underlying random differences in the rate of developmental change. Individual differences in rates of change with age were more marked in boys than girls.