Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T22:15:14.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing differential susceptibility, diathesis-stress, and vantage sensitivity: Beyond the single gene and environment model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau Open the ORCID record for Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau [Opens in a new window] ,
Jay Belsky ,
Eszter Szekely ,
Keith F. Widaman ,
Michael Pluess ,
Celia Greenwood  and
Ashley Wazana
Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau
Affiliation:
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Qc, Canada
Jay Belsky
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, University of California, Davis, USA
Eszter Szekely
Affiliation:
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Qc, Canada Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Qc, Canada
Keith F. Widaman
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, USA
Michael Pluess
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Celia Greenwood
Affiliation:
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Qc, Canada Ludmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health, Montreal, Qc, Canada
Ashley Wazana*
Affiliation:
Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Qc, Canada Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Qc, Canada Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, Qc, Canada.
*
Author for correspondence: Ashley Wazana, Centre for Child Development and Mental Health, Jewish General Hospital, 4335 Cote Sainte Catherine Road, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1E4Montreal, Quebec, Canada; E-mail: ashley.wazana@mcgill.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, two main approaches exist to distinguish differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress and vantage sensitivity in Genotype × Environment interaction (G × E) research: regions of significance (RoS) and competitive-confirmatory approaches. Each is limited by its single-gene/single-environment foci given that most phenotypes are the product of multiple interacting genetic and environmental factors. We thus addressed these two concerns in a recently developed R package (LEGIT) for constructing G × E interaction models with latent genetic and environmental scores using alternating optimization. Herein we test, by means of computer simulation, diverse G × E models in the context of both single and multiple genes and environments. Results indicate that the RoS and competitive-confirmatory approaches were highly accurate when the sample size was large, whereas the latter performed better in small samples and for small effect sizes. The competitive-confirmatory approach generally had good accuracy (a) when effect size was moderate and N ≥ 500 and (b) when effect size was large and N ≥ 250, whereas RoS performed poorly. Computational tools to determine the type of G × E of multiple genes and environments are provided as extensions in our LEGIT R package.

Keywords

diathesis-stressdifferential-susceptibilitygene-by-environment interactionregions of significancevantage sensitivity
Type
Regular Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 73 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Akaike, H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Akaike, H., Parzen, E., Tanabe, K., & Kitagawa, G. (Eds.), Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike (pp. 199–213). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assary, E., Vincent, J. P., Keers, R., & Pluess, M. (2018). Gene-environment interaction and psychiatric disorders: Review and future directions. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology (Vol. 77, pp. 133–143). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). The hidden efficacy of interventions: Gene × Environment experiments from a differential susceptibility perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J. (1997a). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility to rearing influence: The case of mothering and attachment. Child Development, 68, 598–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J. (1997b). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influence: An evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current directions in psychological science, 16(6), 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Pluess, M., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Confirmatory and competitive evaluation of alternative gene-environment interaction hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 1135–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belsky, J., & Widaman, K. (2018). Editorial Perspective: Integrating exploratory and competitive–confirmatory approaches to testing person × environment interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59, 296–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in psychology, 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, P. O., & Fay, L. C. (1950). The Johnson–Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika, 15, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolicoeur-Martineau, A., Wazana, A., Székely, E., Steiner, M., Fleming, A. S., Kennedy, J. L., … Greenwood, C. M. (2017). Alternating optimization for G × E modelling with weighted genetic and environmental scores: Examples from the MAVAN study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08111.Google Scholar
Kochanska, G., Kim, S., Barry, R. A., & Philibert, R. A. (2011). Children's genotypes interact with maternal responsive care in predicting children's competence: Diathesis–stress or differential susceptibility? Development and Psychopathology, 23, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, P. H., Perlis, R. H., Jung, J.-Y., Byrne, E. M., Rueckert, E., Siburian, R., … Pergadia, M. L. (2012). Multi-locus genome-wide association analysis supports the role of glutamatergic synaptic transmission in the etiology of major depressive disorder. Translational Psychiatry, 2, e184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S., Lei, M.-K., & Brody, G. H. (2015). Confidence intervals for distinguishing ordinal and disordinal interactions in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 20, 245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsaglia, G. (1965). Ratios of normal variables and ratios of sums of uniform variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Risch, N., Herrell, R., Lehner, T., Liang, K.-Y., Eaves, L., Hoh, J., … Merikangas, K. R. (2009). Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 2462–2471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 389–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetterstrand, K. A. (2016). DNA sequencing costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Retrieved from www.genome.gov/sequencingcostsdataGoogle Scholar
Widaman, K. F., Helm, J. L., Castro-Schilo, L., Pluess, M., Stallings, M. C., & Belsky, J. (2012). Distinguishing ordinal and disordinal interactions. Psychological Methods, 17, 615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zubin, J., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Jolicoeur-Martineau et al. supplementary material

Appendices A-C

Download Jolicoeur-Martineau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 36.3 KB