Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Behavioral and Brain Sciences The fate of heritability in the post-genomic era --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number:

BBS-D-12-00245R1

Full Title:

The fate of heritability in the post-genomic era

Short Title:

The fate of heritability

Article Type:

Commentary Article

Corresponding Author:

Kevin MacDonald, Ph. D. California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA UNITED STATES

Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution:

California State University-Long Beach

Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author:

Kevin MacDonald, Ph. D.

First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors:

Kevin MacDonald, Ph. D. Peter J. LaFreniere, Ph.D.

Order of Authors Secondary Information: Abstract:

This comment argues that age changes in heritability are incompatible with Charney's theory. The new genetics must be tempered by the findings that many epigenetic phenomena are random and are linked to pathology, thus making them peripheral to the design of complex adaptations. Behavior genetic findings are compatible with strong maternal effects; G X E correlations likely underestimate environmental effects; G X E interactions are unlikely to be an important aspect of normal development.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation

Commentary Article Click here to download Commentary Article: Charney-The fate of heritability-1000words.doc

The fate of heritability in the post-genomic era Our commentary reflects an evolutionary perspective on behavioral development that defends the utility of heritability estimates, but also acknowledges limitations of the standard behavior genetic model. Age Changes in Heritability are Incompatible with Charney’s Theory. There is substantial evidence that heritability of cognitive ability increases with age (Deary, Spinath, & Bates, 2006; Haworth et al., 2010), but Charney emphasizes that MZ twins become increasingly unlike each other in terms of epigenetic profile as they get older, either because of stochastic errors in cell division or because of encountering different environments. Thus older twins are more discordant for epigenetic factors but they are more concordant for IQ and a variety of other traits than younger twins. Indeed, IQ has relatively low heritability in early childhood, with linear increases into the young adult period (Haworth et al., 2010). Thus the relatively greater genetic discordance of older MZ twins for epigenetic factors does not make them less alike in IQ; rather they become more alike. Charney argues that perinatal stress makes MZ twins more similar. But being concordant for epigenetic factors due to prenatal stress does not increase MZ concordance for IQ early in life when concordance for IQ is relatively low; and relative discordance for epigenetic factors in adulthood does not decrease concordance for IQ in adulthood. These results are clearly independent of any greater similarity MZ twins may have because they are exposed to more stress in utero—Charney‘s suggested explanation for MZ twin similarity. Phylogenetic Adaptations and Contingent Alternate Strategies. As Charney notes, a great many epigenetic events are random or are linked to pathology. As indicated by the IQ example above, Charney does not present a case that there are important epigenetic effects on adaptive traits like cognitive ability or personality. Many of the processes highlighted by Charney are stochastic. But phylogenetic adaptations reliably arise across the range of environments normally encountered by a given species. Like genetic point mutations, most of these stochastic events are likely to be maladaptive or neutral. The development of adaptations requires the smooth meshing of genes. Thus it is not surprising that many epigenetic events are linked with pathology. However, some adaptations function as contingent strategies in which genes are turned on or off depending on environmental triggers (e.g., as a result of maternal influence). Behavior genetic studies of contingent adaptive strategies should result in evidence for substantial shared environmental influence and low heritability if mothers treat offspring the same, as indicated by the mouse maternal licking studies. Charney challenges ―the principle of ‗minimal shared maternal effects.‖ However, recent studies of attachment—a central developmental construct (e.g., Sroufe et al., 2005)—show strong effects of shared maternal environment (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2004; Bokhorst et al., 2003; O‘Connor & Croft, 2001; Pasco Fearon et al., 2006; Roisman & Fraley, 2007). For example, Roisman & Fraley found that shared environment explained 53% of the

variance in attachment security, while unshared environment explained 30%, with the remaining 17% due to additive genetic variance. Behavior genetic models can thus be quite informative on variation resulting from environmental programming of adaptive systems. Moreover, lack of maternal effects would be surprising given evolutionary and life history perspectives on the importance of maternal care, particularly in mammals. Research indicates large inter-correlations between markers of high-quality environments (including secure attachment, delayed maturation, low fertility) and adaptive outcomes in children, with parenting variables accounting for 20% to 50% of the variance in child outcomes (Maccoby, 2000). Finally, minimal maternal effects are logically inconsistent with behavioral data on parent-child interaction showing bi-directional influence between child and parent. If the child‘s behavior shapes the parent‘s behavior, how is it possible that the parent‘s behavior has no effect on the child? This type of adaptive phenotypic plasticity makes great sense to us as evolutionists. Epigenetic processes grant the genome greater flexibility than a rigid DNA code. Its great adaptive advantage stems from its sensitivity to fluctuating environmental conditions such as the availability of food. Nature and nurture in concert shape developmental pathways and outcomes, resulting in a ―blurring of boundaries‖ between genes and environment. G X E Interactions Are Unlikely Design Features of Complex Adaptations. Charney continues in the tradition of earlier critics of behavior genetics who emphasize the possibility of extensive G X E interactions (Gottlieb, 1997; Meaney, 2010; Wahlsten, 1989). Currently all G X E interactions that have been identified involve single genes that have multiple variants and are linked with pathology. These findings provide clear cases in which one allele is less functional than the more common allele, predisposing people carrying the allele towards pathological outcomes in normal environments (e.g., the PKU gene, the alanine allele associated with diabetes, etc.). However, caution should be exercised in extrapolating these findings to complex polygenic traits such as IQ, where no such G X E interactions have ever been identified, despite repeated attempts to do so. Whereas genotype-environment correlation (Cov[G,E]) results in maximizing the fit between organisms to environments, G X E interactions actually imply a genetic load, as there is selection against some variants in some normal environments (MacDonald & Hershberger, 2005). In general, findings support the importance of additive genes. For example, Hill, Goddard and Visscher (2008) summarize data from animal and human genetics indicating that for fitness-related traits typically around 50% of the phenotypic variation is due to additive genetic variation and that about 80% of genetic variation is additive. Additive genes have their effects on a wide range of normal genetic backgrounds and across a wide range of normal environments, thus fitting easily into the architecture of complex adaptations. The presence of complex, unpredictable, or idiosyncratic interactions would make it very difficult for natural selection to construct complex adaptations.

Despite this, it remains true that some genes may produce G X E interactions important for psychiatry and medicine because they result in pathology in some environments. The point here is that such genes are not likely to be part of the story of normal development of complex adaptations in the EEA or even in the vast majority of contemporary environments. References Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Uzendoorn, M. H., Bokhorst, C. L., Schuengel, C. (2004). The Importance of Shared Environment in Infant-Father Attachment: A Behavioral Genetic Study of the Attachment Q-Sort. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), Sep 2004, 545-549. Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pasco Fearon, R. M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., & Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in mother-infant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development, 74, 1769–1782. Deary, I. J., Spinath, F. M., & Batesm T. C. (2006). The genetics of intelligence. European Journal of Human Genetics 14, 690–700. Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature–nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Haworth, C. M. A., Wright, M. J., Luciano, M. … (2010). The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry 15, 1112–1120. Hill, W. G., Goddard, M. E., & Visscher, P. M. (2008). Data and theory point to mainly additive genetic variance for complex traits. PLoS Genet 4(2): e1000008. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000008 LaFreniere, P.J. & MacDonald, K. (July, 2008). An Evolutionary Perspective on the Effects of Parenting on Attachment. Paper presented at the International Society for Human Ethology, Bologna, Italy. Maccoby, E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51:1-27. MacDonald, K., & Hershberger, S. (2005). Theoretical issues in the study of evolution and development. In R. Burgess and K. MacDonald (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development, 2nd edition, pp. 21–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meaney, M. (2010). Epigenetics and the Biological Definition of Gene ・ Environment Interactions. Child Development, 81, 41–79 O‘Connor, T. G., & Croft, C. M. (2001). A twin study of attachment in preschool children. Child Development, 72, 1501–1511.

Pasco Fearon, R., M., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Fonagy, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Schuengel, C., Bokhorst, C. L. (2006). In search of shared and nonshared environmental factors in security of attachment: A behavior-genetic study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1026-1040. Roisman, G. I., & Fraley, R. C. (2008). A Behavior–Genetic Study of Parenting Quality, Infant Attachment Security, and Their Covariation in a Nationally Representative Sample. Developmental Psychology, 44, 831–839. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B. Carlson, E. A.,& Collins, W.A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota Study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.