No evidence of interaction between FADS2 genotype and breastfeeding on cognitive or other traits in the UK Biobank

Giulio Centorame, Nicole M. Warrington, Gibran Hemani, Geng Wang, George Davey Smith, David M. Evans
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.29.24308099

Abstract

Background Breastfeeding is hypothesised to benefit child health and cognitive functioning by providing long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA), which are essential for brain development. In 2007, Caspi et al. found evidence in two cohorts for an interaction between genetic variation in the FADS2 gene (a gene involved in fatty acid metabolism) and breast feeding on IQ. However, subsequent studies have provided mixed evidence for the existence of an interaction.

Objective To investigate the relationship between genetic variation in the FADS2 region, breastfeeding, and their interaction on traits putatively affected by their interplay in a large, population-based cohort with appropriate control for confounders in genetic associations.

Methods We tested for the interaction in up to 335,650 individuals from the UK Biobank, over a range of cognitive functioning tests, as well as educational attainment and other traits thought to be influenced by breastfeeding, including cardiometabolic traits, reproductive success, and atopic allergy.

Results FADS2 alleles associated with an increase in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in blood serum (the C allele of rs174575) were associated with decreased verbal-numerical reasoning ( p= 2.28× 10−5) and triglycerides ( p= 1. 40× 10−41), increased reproductive success ( p= 3. 40× 10−5), total cholesterol ( p= 5. 28× 10−36), HDL ( p= 1. 42× 10− 51), and LDL cholesterol ( p= 1. 46× 10− 21). We observed no evidence of an interaction in any of the traits, regardless of the modelling strategy.

Conclusions We failed to replicate any breastfeeding by genotype interactions on any cognitive or non-cognitive traits. We postulate that the previous positive findings are likely to be spurious, perhaps due to lack of appropriate control for latent population structure.

Introduction

Breastfeeding is the recommended method of feeding infants for the first six months of their life (1,2). Over the last century, the scientific literature has reported evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding on infant mortality and health (3–7). An increasing body of evidence also suggests that breastfeeding may exert positive effects on cognitive outcomes, including observational studies that control for maternal intelligence and socioeconomic status (SES) (8,9), and a large randomised cluster trial (10).

One of the hypothesised mechanisms explaining the putative efficacy of breastfeeding on cognitive function, compared to other forms of infant feeding, is the presence of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA) in breastmilk. In particular, the presence of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), an n-3 fatty acid (22:6(n-3)), and arachidonic acid (AA), an n-6 fatty acid (20:4(n-6)) (11,12), both of which were traditionally absent from commercial infant feeding formulas (13). DHA and AA are required for the development of the brain and retina (13,14) to synthesise membrane phospholipids such phosphoinositides, which regulate membrane proteins dedicated to transport and signalling (15), and phosphatidylserine, which have a structural role in cell membrane (16,17). They can be sourced through direct dietary intake of preformed acids or synthesised from precursors (e.g., from the conversion of linoleic acid [LA] and eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA], respectively) (18). It is generally understood that biosynthesis of DHA and AA in adult humans is limited (19,20)—except in women of childbearing age (20–25), while infants show a higher rate of bioconversion from exogenous sources of the precursors, LA and EPA (26,27). Breastmilk supplies infants with both the preformed DHA and AA and the precursors LA and EPA (28), that can subsequently be used by the infants themselves to biosynthesise DHA and AA.

Current evidence points to a beneficial effect of DHA and AA supplementation in standard infant feeding formulae for infant cognitive development, at a rate of around 1:1 (29,30), showing benefits on the development of executive functions (31–35) and activation and connectivity in cerebral cortex areas correlated with attention and cognition in term infants(36). However, trade regulations on their presence in standard infant feeding formulae are recent. Within the European Economic Area, regulations on commercially-available formulae permitted DHA supplementation in the 2000s (13,37), around the same time pre- and postnatal LC-PUFA supplementation became widespread (35), while the first regulations mandating set quantities were promulgated almost a decade later for DHA only (38,39), and even later for both (30). Until then, commercially-available formulae were prepared with ingredients containing negligible concentration of n-3 fatty acids (6,13,40).

DHA and AA biosynthesis are heavily influenced by FADS2, a gene on chromosome eleven that is a member of the fatty acid desaturase family. FADS2 codifies enzymes present in the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria responsible the insertion of double bonds in fatty acid molecules, primarily on the 6th carbon—carbon bond (Δ6 desaturase). This step is common to the metabolic pathway of both n-3 and n-6 fatty acids (41–43) and polymorphisms in FADS2 associate with different levels of DHA and AA in serum and breastmilk (12,42,44–48).

In 2007, Caspi et al. (49) reported an interaction between a candidate intronic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the FADS2 gene (rs174575), breastfeeding and childhood IQ. Participants who were breastfed and carried one or more copies of the C-allele (forward strand) putatively benefitted more from breastfeeding in terms of their IQ (with a 6.4 IQ points difference between breastfed and bottle-fed children) than GG homozygotes (who exhibited no significant difference in IQ between breastfed and bottle-fed infants). The study reported an interaction of similar form in two different cohorts: 1) the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a population-based cohort from New Zealand with child IQ measured at age 7, 9, 11, and 13, and 2) the Environmental Risk (E-risk) Longitudinal Twin Study (a twin-based cohort from the UK with IQ measured at age 5). Another SNP in the region, rs1535, (and in linkage disequilibrium [LD] with rs174575), displayed a similar interaction in the Dunedin cohort, but not in E-risk. The authors accounted for the potential confounding effects of age, sex, self-reported ancestry, and SES. Several subsequent studies have attempted to replicate Caspi et al. (49)’s findings, but have yielded mixed results (50–53).

The aim of the current study was to attempt to replicate the interaction between FADS2 genotype, breastfeeding and IQ observed in Caspi et al. (49) in the UK Biobank (54). Our study benefits from the availability of genotype and phenotype data on over 335,000 individuals, as well as the presence of genome-wide SNP data, which together with appropriate statistical modelling, ensures the proper control of population stratification. We investigated the effect of FADS genotype and its purported interaction with breastfeeding using both a recessive coding at FADS2 (i.e. used by many previous studies in this domain, including Caspi et al. (49–51,53)) as well as an additive coding aligned to the DHA-increaser allele (since within locus additivity appears to be the rule rather than the exception in the case of common complex quantitative traits (55,56)). Finally, we leveraged the broad phenotyping present within the UK Biobank to investigate the association between FADS2 variation and other traits that are purportedly influenced by LC-PUFA in breastmilk, including cardiometabolic phenotypes (12) and atopy (12,57–60).

Methods

We used the STREGA checklist when writing our report (61).

UK Biobank

UK Biobank is a large-scale volunteer-based prospective study containing health and lifestyle information on over 500,000 participants living in the United Kingdom, and is detailed elsewhere (54). Briefly, participants were recruited between 2006 and 2010 from a pool of 9.2 million individuals living in proximity to the assessment centres, where they provided baseline sociodemographic characteristics, reported on their health and lifestyle, and were assessed through questionnaires and physical measures. The participants were also asked to provide blood samples, which were processed for genotyping and metabolite blood assays, and asked to complete a follow-up questionnaire online (from 2014). A subset of participants (n = 20,319; https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/field.cgi?id=110003) was followed up over three in-person assessment visits (first repeat assessment [2012-2013], imaging visit [2014-ongoing], first repeat imaging visit [2019-ongoing]).

Genotyping was performed using the UKBiLEVE array (n = 49,979) and UK Biobank AxiomArray (n = 488,377). To avoid possible genotyping errors, we excluded participants from our analyses with aneuploidy (n = 651), outliers for missingness and heterozygosity (n = 968), and genetic sex—reported sex mismatch (n = 378), as defined by UK Biobank (https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=531). We restricted our analyses to individuals who were unrelated to anyone else in the sample (up to the 3rd degree) by excluding one individual for each kinship pair (n = 80,982), or that were excluded from the kinship estimation (n = 977), as identified by the UK Biobank using the KING analysis software (62) (described in Bycroft et al. (54)). We further excluded all the individuals that had no imputed genotypes available (n = 15,214) and participants who withdrawn their data from the study by the time of the analysis (N = 98). For our main analyses, we restricted participants to individuals of White British ancestry, as defined by the UK Biobank, using both self-reported information and genetic PCs (n = 335,650; https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/field.cgi?id=22006; described in Bycroft et al. (54)).

This was done in order to account for differences in allele frequency across different ancestral populations and to match previous genetic studies of FADS and breast feeding, which have focused mainly on participants of European ancestry (49,50,53). We also included the first 40 genetic PCs, as provided by UK Biobank, in order to account for residual population stratification in the sample. Finally, we derived a subset of unrelated Non-White British individuals with data on breastfeeding (n = 69,858) to investigate the effect that uncorrected population stratification might have on the presence of genetic associations. A summary flowchart of the participant selection is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Participant selection flowchart

Overall sample size and exclusions are based on application 53641. Some participants fulfilled more than one exclusion criterion (e.g., excluded from kinship and outliers for missingness and heterozygosity).

Variant selection

We selected three coding variants examined in previous genetic association studies of FADS2, breastfeeding and IQ (49–53). Two of the variants (rs1535 and rs174583) were directly genotyped by both UKBiLEVE and the UK Biobank AxiomArray, while the third one (rs174575) was a high-quality imputed variant (IMPUTE4 INFO score > 0.99); all the variants followed Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (p < 0.05). Then, we calculated the LD across variants using LDBIRD (63). Summary information on the variants and their LD structure is available in Supplementary Table 1.

We extracted the allelic dosages (for rs174575) or direct genotype count (for rs1535 and rs174583) using plink 2.0 (64,65). We conducted statistical analyses assuming two different genetic effects on the outcomes:

  • Additive allelic effect: we coded allelic dosages so that the effect allele increased levels of DHA in blood serum. Specifically, the A allele was the effect allele for rs1535, and the C allele was the effect allele for both rs174575 and rs174583.

  • Recessive allelic effect (49,50,53): we modelled the SNP under the assumption of a recessive effect of the G-allele (for rs1535 and rs174575) or the T-allele (for rs174583), coded as 1 = homozygous for the recessive allele, 0 = carrier of the other allele. This is consistent with the coding of genotypes in most previous studies of FADS2, breastfeeding and IQ (49–51,53) (although it will most likely produce coefficients in the opposite direction to the additive coding). For the imputed variant (rs174575), we used the best-guess genotype to code according to a recessive model.

We determined the DHA-increasing allele by querying openGWAS (66) through the function associations() available in the R package ieugwasr (https://mrcieu.github.io/ieugwasr/), selecting data based on NMR metabolomics summary results from the UK Biobank (67).

Additionally, we investigated the association between the DHA-increasing alleles and n-3 fatty acid levels in blood serum, aligning the results to the DHA-increasing alleles. Due to the lack of data with comparable sample size for AA, we limited our analysis to LA (a precursor of AA) and n-6 fatty acids levels (Supplementary Table 2).

Breastfeeding

UK Biobank participants were asked to report on whether they were breastfed or not as a baby at baseline and during follow-up visits. As the UK Biobank is skewed towards participants in late adulthood, we restricted our analyses only to the answers gathered during the initial assessment visit (2006–2010) to minimize recall errors. This led us to identify three strata: 1) participants who answered “Yes” (up to 180,484 participants), 2) participants who answered “No” (up to 73,981 participants), and 3) participants who answered “Do not know” and “Prefer not to answer” (labelled as “Missing”; up to 81,185 participants; baseline characteristics are presented in Supplementary Table 3).

Outcomes

We investigated a range of outcomes, including cognitive measures, educational attainment, reproductive success, cardiometabolic traits, hayfever, rhinitis, and eczema. To attenuate the influence of outliers, we restricted our analysis only to participants with an outcome within 3 standard deviations of the mean. Sample size for the outcomes after exclusions and summary statistics for phenotypes and covariates are available in Supplementary Tables 4 to 8.

Cognitive measures

The participants were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires on cognitive performance and functioning at baseline, with repeated assessments during follow-up visits (including the imaging clinics; 2014-ongoing), and an online questionnaire in 2014. Some cognitive measures were introduced at different stages of assessment; for example, part of the battery of cognitive measures was administered only to a subset of individuals at baseline (e.g., numeric memory), while other measures (e.g., matrix pattern completion) were introduced only during the imaging follow-up visit and had not been assessed at baseline. Most notably, the questionnaire for verbal-numerical reasoning differed slightly between baseline and the online follow-up, due to the addition of one question. We natural log-transformed a subset of continuous traits that appeared to be positively skewed (viz., reaction time (68), visual memory (68,69), and trail-making paths 1 and 2 (70)), and then transformed the variables into z-scores. We added 1 point to the visual memory variable prior to the log-transformation in order to compensate for the extreme skewness on zero values (68), suggestive of floor effects on the measure.

When multiple data points for the cognitive measures were available, we took the first available instance, prioritising the assessment centre measure over the online measures wherever possible. Due to the different delivery mode across measures (and, in the case of the verbal-numerical reasoning scale, due to the different length of the questionnaire itself), all the models with outcomes that were administered both in the assessment centre and online (Verbal-numerical reasoning, Numeric memory, Visual memory, Trailmaking test, and Symbol digit substitution) were adjusted by the test delivery mode (0 = Assessment centre, 1 = Online).

We excluded participants who paused the assessment or who quit the assessment before completion, where information on the completion status was available.

Educational attainment

Educational attainment was operationalised as years of education required to achieve the highest qualification reported by the participant based on the ISCED 2011 equivalence to years of education (Supplementary Table 9). This operationalization has been used previously as a measure of educational attainment (71–74). We expect educational attainment to strongly correlate with cognitive development (75) and cognitive traits (76).

Reproductive success

We used number of offspring as a measure of reproductive success (77,78). We used reported number of children fathered for male participants and reported number of live births for female participants. We recoded values >10 to 10 to minimise the impact of outliers due to recall or data entry errors (79).

Cardiometabolic traits

We analysed blood assay measurements of total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides. Measures of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) were taken at baseline and follow up, with two readings for each assessment taken with a 1-minute interval. Readings were taken preferably with an automated machine and assessed manually only when the automated reading failed. We averaged the two measurements for each time point for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We selected the earliest available automatic measurement, where available; otherwise, we used the earliest available manual measurement. We accounted for blood pressure medication use by adding 15 mmHg to systolic blood pressure when the participants were under blood pressure lowering medications, and 10 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (80). Body mass index (BMI; kg/m2) was calculated by UK Biobank from the height (m) and weight (kg) measures taken at baseline from the assessment centres.

We also investigated four cardiometabolic diseases using the self-reported diagnoses from the assessment centre’s touchscreen health questionnaires, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, stroke, and type-II diabetes. Participants were coded as type-II diabetes cases if they replied “Yes” to the question “Has a doctor ever told you that you have diabetes?” and “No” to “Did you start insulin within one year of your diagnosis of diabetes?” at any instance. The age covariate was set to the minimum age when they reported the diagnosis to the UK Biobank or the maximum age without reporting a diagnosis. Participants who responded “Prefer not to answer” were set to missing.

Hayfever, allergic rhinitis, or eczema

Finally, we investigated the relationship between FADS2 and breastfeeding on hayfever, allergic rhinitis, or eczema from the assessment centre’s touchscreen questionnaire. We could not differentiate between the three conditions as no further question was asked of the UK Biobank participants to distinguish between them. To control for possible cohort effects in reporting atopic dermatitis, we used date of birth as a time covariate. Participants who responded “Prefer not to answer” or did not answer the question were set to missing.

Statistical Modelling

To test for the association between breastfeeding and our outcomes, we fit:

  • 1. A univariate model

Embedded Image

  • 2. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age and sex:

Embedded Image

  • 3. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age, sex, and Townsend deprivation index (TDI):

Embedded Image

  • 4. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age, sex, TDI, and 40 genetic PCs:

Embedded Image where for every participant i, Y is the outcome of interest, β0 is the intercept, BF is the participant’s breastfeeding status (where 0 = bottle-fed, 1 = breastfed), with effect βBF on the outcome, age is the participant’s age at assessment, with effect βage, sex is the participant’s sex (where 0 = female, 1 = male), with effect βsex, TDI is the participant’s TDI, with effect βTDI, PCki is the value of the k th genetic PC for participant i, with effect βPCk, and εi is a random error term.

To test for the FADS-by-breastfeeding interaction, we fit

  • 1. An unadjusted interaction model:

Embedded Image

  • 2. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age and sex:

Embedded Image

  • 3. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age, sex, and 40 genetic PCs:

Embedded Image

  • 4. A model adjusting for the additive effect of age, sex, and PCs, and all the pairwise interactions across covariates (81):

Embedded Image where G is the participant’s genotype, modelled using either a recessive coding (49,50,53) or an additive coding, counting the DHA-increasing allele (i.e., A for rs1535, C for rs174575, C for rs174583), with effect βG on the outcome, βG× BF is the effect of the gene-by-environment interaction between genotype G and breastfeeding status BF, βG× age is the effect of the interaction between G and age, βG× sex is the effect of the interaction between G and sex βage× sex is the effect of the interaction between age and sex, βage× BF is the effect of the interaction between age and BF, βsex× BF is the effect of the interaction between sex and BF, βG× PCk is the effect of the interaction between G and the k th PC, βBF× PCk is the effect of the interaction between BF and the k th PC, βage× PCk is the effect of the interaction between age and the k th PC, and βsex× PCk is the effect of the interaction between age and the k th PC. To better visualize the results, we also fit the above models to each stratum of breast-feeding (breastfed, bottle-fed, or missing) without the interaction term.

To better visualize the results, we also fit the above models to each stratum of breast-feeding (breastfed, bottle-fed, or missing) without the interaction term.

For all analyses, we fit linear regression if the outcome was continuous, and logistic regression if the outcome was binary. Additionally, if the same cognitive measure was assessed both in person (at the assessment centre or during the imaging visits) and online, we added an additional covariate to all models to adjust for possible differences due to the delivery format and, in the case of verbal-numerical reasoning, a different number of questions in the questionnaire.

We restricted our analyses to participants with complete data on all variables in the given model.

Results

Phenotypic associations

Consistent with many previous studies (7,9), being breastfed as a baby was associated (p < 0.05) with improved cognitive function after controlling for covariates—particularly age and sex (Figure 2 and Supplementary Table 10 and 11). This included tests for verbal-numerical reasoning, reaction time, numeric memory, paired associate learning, matrix pattern completion, symbol-digit substitution, tower rearranging and trail-making path tests. We also observed evidence of an observational association between being breastfed and an increase in years of schooling and a decrease in number of offspring (after controlling for covariates; Supplementary Table 11). In the case of the cardiometabolic diseases, being breastfed was associated (p < 0.05) with decreased risk of angina and heart attack, but not stroke or type-II diabetes after controlling for covariates (Supplementary Table 12). Being breastfed was associated with increased LDL, HDL and total cholesterol, and decreased triglycerides, BMI, and blood pressure (Supplementary Table 11). Finally, breastfeeding was observationally associated with increased risk of hayfever, rhinitis, and eczema (Supplementary Table 12).

Figure 2:
Figure 2: Association between breastfeeding and cognitive, noncognitive quantitative, and binary outcomes

Results are presented as change in z-score of the outcome (for quantitative traits) or change in log odds of being affected by the outcome when individuals are breastfed. All models were adjusted for age, sex, genetic principal components, and Townsend deprivation index. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Association between FADS2 variants and fatty acid levels

We confirmed that all three FADS variants showed strong evidence of association with serum fatty acid levels in the expected directions (i.e., the mediating biomarkers through which breast feeding is thought to exert its beneficial effects; Supplementary Table 2) (49,53,82). All the variants were associated with DHA blood serum levels and with the ratio of DHA to total fatty acid levels. Alleles associated with an increase in DHA blood levels were associated with decreased LA blood serum levels and the ratio of LA to total fatty acids. All the DHA-increasing alleles were also associated with increased amount of PUFA, n-3, and n-6 fatty acids in the blood serum and their ratio to total fatty acids, and decreased n-6:n-3 ratio.

FADS2 main effect and FADS2-by-breastfeeding interaction

All three FADS2 variants were in strong LD with one another (r 2≥ 0. 68; Supplementary Table 1). We found little evidence for a main effect of rs174575 on verbal-numerical reasoning in the UK Biobank, when modelling rs174575 as recessive for the G allele as Caspi et al. (49) did (Figure 3). However, when modelling rs174575 under an additive genetic model (Figure 4a), additional copies of the DHA-increasing (C) allele were instead associated with decreased verbal-numerical reasoning (Figure 4, Supplementary Table 13).We found no evidence of interaction between rs174575 and breastfeeding on verbal-numerical reasoning, regardless of the covariate adjustment strategy (Supplementary Figure 1), both assuming a recessive model (Figure 3) or an additive model (Figure 4a and Supplementary Figure 1). The other SNPs showed similar results (Supplementary Tables 13 to 16). However, when extending the sample to non-White British participants, we observed evidence for a small interaction in verbal-numerical reasoning when the model did not account for PCs (Supplementary Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 17).

Supplementary Figure 1:
Supplementary Figure 1: Results from the association analysis between the three FADS2 SNPs (additive effect) and cognitive traits stratified by breastfeeding status

The results are expressed in change of standard deviations of the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies in each SNP. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Supplementary Figure 2
Supplementary Figure 2 Results from the association analysis between the three FADS2 SNPs (additive effect) and noncognitive continuous traits stratified by breastfeeding status for all adjustment strategies

The results are expressed in change of standard deviations of the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies in each SNP. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Supplementary Figure 3:
Supplementary Figure 3: Results from the association analysis between the three FADS2 SNPs (additive effect) and binary traits (affected-unaffected) stratified by breastfeeding status for all adjustment strategies

The results are expressed in change of natural log odds of being affected by the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies in each SNP. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Supplementary Figure 4:
Supplementary Figure 4: Results from the association analysis between the three FADS2 SNPs (additive effect) and cognitive traits stratified by breastfeeding status for all adjustment strategies, all ancestries

The results are expressed in change of standard deviations of the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3:
Figure 3: Effect estimates for the rs174575 main effect on verbal-numerical reasoning in the UK Biobank and in previous studies, and estimates of its interaction with breastfeeding

E-risk: Environmental risk study from Caspi et al. (49); Dunedin: Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study from Caspi et al. (49); ALSPAC: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children from Steer et al. (50); UK Biobank: effect estimate derived by the present study on UK Biobank. (1) unadjusted; (2) adjusted for age and sex; (3) adjusted for age, sex, and principal components; (4) adjusted for age, sex, principal components, and pairwise interactions across covariates(81). Hartwig et al. (53) did not report an estimate of the main effect of rs174575. We derived the regression coefficients for Caspi et al. (49) from the mean and standard deviation of IQ for each subgroup reported in Table 1. The regression coefficients are expressed in change in standard deviations of Verbal-Numerical reasoning for change in genotype of rs174575 (modelled as a recessive effect of the C allele) for the main effect of rs174575, and in change of standard deviations of verbal-numerical reasoning for homozygous of the recessive alleles and breastfed individuals for the interaction term. Note that the large standard errors around the recessive main effect estimate in UK Biobank (4) are due to the covariate interaction terms correlating strongly with the recessive SNP coding. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 4:
Figure 4: Results from the association analysis between rs174575 and all the outcomes by breastfeeding status, assuming an additive genetic effect of the DHA-increasing allele

The results are shown for rs174575 adjusting for age, sex, and principal components. a) results for the cognitive traits; b) results for the non-cognitive continuous traits; c) results for the binary traits (affected-unaffected). The results are expressed in change of standard deviations of the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies (for a and b) or change in natural log odds of being affected by the phenotype per increase in effect allele copies (for c). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

The DHA increaser alleles at the three SNPs showed strong evidence of association with increased total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and number of offspring, and decreased triglycerides, BMI and blood pressure. Interestingly, assuming a recessive model at these same SNPs of the sort espoused by Caspi et al. (49), attenuated the evidence for association at most of the loci/phenotypes by several orders of magnitude. Similar, to the cognitive traits, the magnitude of the associations did not appear to be affected by breast-feeding status (Supplementary Table 13 and 15).

Discussion

We failed to replicate an interaction between FADS2 genotype and self-reported breastfeeding status on any of the measures of cognitive functioning we investigated, or any of the other traits we examined. Our study constitutes the largest attempt to replicate the Caspi et al. (49) interaction findings to date, and our results are similar to most, but not all previous attempts at replicating this interaction. A previous study by Steer et al. (50) also reported an interaction between breastfeeding and FADS2 genotype on IQ in children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a population-based longitudinal cohort with similar allele frequencies to E-risk and using the same family of IQ tests (Wechsler Intelligence Scale). However, the form of the reported interaction in Steer et al. (50) was different to that of Caspi et al. (49): Steer et al. (50) found a positive effect of breastfeeding on IQ in individuals homozygous for the G allele at the rs174575 variant, but not for carriers of the C allele. The two studies further differed in the way of reporting breastfeeding (i.e., prospectively in ALSPAC; retrospectively at age 2 or 3 in Dunedin and E-risk) and age at IQ testing (a combined measure of age 7, 9, 11, and 13 in Dunedin; 5 in E-risk; age 8 in ALSPAC).

An Australian twin study by Martin et al. (51) also failed to replicate the FADS2-by-breastfeeding interaction on IQ using a measure of cognitive functioning at age 16 and controlling for maternal SES. They also extended the analysis to rs174583, a non-palindromic SNP (T-C) in LD with the palindromic rs174575 (C-G), alongside the two previous variants, with similar results. Groen-Blokhuis et al. (52) investigated the same interaction for rs1535 ad 174575 on IQ measures at age 5, 7, 10, 12, and 18 (assessed with different scales), educational attainment, and maternally rated overactivity and attention problems in a different sample of twins from the Netherlands. Despite finding a small improvement in educational attainment, overactive behaviour, and IQ in breastfed twins compared to bottle-fed twins, they did not provide any evidence of an interaction between rs174575 and breastfeeding on childhood IQ or any of the other traits.

The largest and most comprehensive attempt at replicating the Caspi et al. (49) interaction was a study by Hartwig et al. (53) (12,077-13,202 individuals) who conducted a pre-registered (83) meta-analysis of studies, including the ALSPAC and Dunedin cohorts (49,50). The study excluded twin-based cohorts and limited the analysis to individuals of European ancestry, controlling for ancestry-informative PCs where possible, but failed to provide evidence of an interaction between breastfeeding and rs174575 on childhood IQ.

Most of these previous studies have been small, which historically has been typical of candidate gene studies (84–87). Our results seem to align with the findings of Hartwig and colleagues (53), which constitutes the best evidence prior to this study due to a rigorous pre-registered protocol, control for ancestry informative PCs where possible, and a large sample size (83). There could be several reasons why a gene-by-environment interaction was observed in some of the previous studies (viz., Caspi et al. (49) and Steer et al. (50)), but not others. A common criticism of candidate gene association studies is lack of sufficient control for population stratification (85,88). Failure to account for latent underlying differences in ancestry may induce spurious associations between traits and genetic variants that are functionally unrelated to the traits of interest(89). The Caspi et al. (49) and Steer et al. (50) studies attempted to control for population stratification by restricting their samples to a subset of homogeneous individuals, based on self-reported ancestry. However, this approach is often not sufficient to control for fine-scale genetic differences between populations and so it is likely that residual stratification was present. The use of ancestry-informative PCs as covariates is a common and effective way of controlling for population stratification in genetic association studies, as the PCs more accurately model individuals’ ancestry and capture more nuanced differences in latent population substructure beyond the major ancestral groups, thereby reducing the chance of spurious findings (90). In the present study, we accounted for population stratification in two ways: by using an ancestrally-homogeneous subset of UK Biobank individuals (as assessed by self-reported ancestry and scores on ancestrally-informative PCs (54)), and by fitting the PCs themselves as covariates.

Furthermore, when repeating the analysis for a larger, less ancestrally homogeneous sample of individuals (Supplementary Figure 4), we detected a weak genotype-by-breastfeeding interaction effect for rs1535 when not controlling for ancestry informative PCs-but this interaction disappeared after controlling for PCs. Our finding aligns with Hartwig et al. (53), where adjustment for PCs explained a substantial portion of the genotype-by-breastfeeding interaction in studies where this information was available. The implication is that previous positive findings may have been a result of inadequate control for population stratification, rather than genuine SNP-by-breastfeeding interaction effects.

Gene-by-environment interaction studies have also been criticised for not accounting for gene-by-covariate, environment-by-covariate, and covariate-by-covariate interactions. First suggested by Yzerbyt et al. (91) and highlighted by Keller (81) in the context of interaction studies with candidate variants, not accounting for pairwise interactions across covariates can bias the effect estimate for the interaction term. In the context of the present study, we performed the adjustment for the rs174575 variant, but we did not observe a substantial impact on the point estimates (which were close to the null). However, the standard error for the main effect estimate of the SNP drastically changed when fitting all the pairwise interactions across covariates (presumably because of high correlation between the recessive coding and the additional interaction terms in the model; Figure 3).

Finally, both Caspi et al. (49) and Steer et al. (50) fit different socioeconomic and physical covariates in their models, including SES (in both studies), maternal education, low birthweight, pre-term gestation, home environment, and parenting (in Steer et al. (50)). The use of heritable covariates to investigate genetic associations has the potential to bias the association or, in absence of a causal link, induce a spurious association, depending on the trait’s latent causal structure (92). Thus, it is possible that the interaction detected by the previous studies could have been partly or fully induced due to conditioning on a collider (93). In the context of the present study, we limited our covariate adjustments to age, sex, and PCs.

We provide some evidence for a main (additive) effect of rs1535, rs174575, and rs174583 on cognitive development, with all three SNPs showing an effect on the most commonly used proxy for cognitive development in UK Biobank (53,68,94–96), verbal-numerical reasoning. However, the direction of effect for verbal-numerical reasoning is opposite to what we would expect: since our analyses are aligned to the DHA-increasing allele, an increase in the effect allele count should lead to an increase in availability of DHA in breastmilk, and hypothetically an increase in cognitive ability. However, our results involve an inverse association.

To determine whether this discrepancy reflects a genuine association in the opposite direction, we compared our results with a previous GWAS meta-analysis on intelligence (96) (N = 269,867), which included unrelated participants from UK Biobank who also responded to the questionnaire on verbal-numerical reasoning (N = 195,653; also present in our study). In the case of a genuine genetic association, we would expect the increase in sample size to improve our evidence of an association and the direction of effect to align between the two samples. While the direction of effect for all three SNPs aligns with what we observed in the present study, the additional cohorts integrated in the meta-analysis improved the evidence of an association for only two SNPs (rs1535 and rs174575), while the p-value for rs174583 remained roughly unchanged ( p= 5. 66× 10−5 in Savage et al. (96), p= 4. 45× 10−5 in the present study; Supplementary Table 21). Due to the increase in sample size in the meta-analysis (N = 74,214) and the strong LD with rs1535 (r 2= 0. 96, we would expect rs174583 to benefit from the inclusion of additional cohorts, hinting at the possibility of a false positive in the UK Biobank.

Another possibility is that the SNP in FADS2 are capturing an independent signal from a causal variant within. When looking at the LD structure surrounding FADS2, the SNPs appear to be independent from the nearest genome-wide significant top hit (rs77128898), making it unlikely they are tagging signals from that region. On the other hand, as the region immediately surrounding the variants in FADS2 hosts several other genes, the SNPs in FADS2 may still be tagging an independent signal not originating from FADS2, namely: MYRF, a transcription factor involved in myelination of the central nervous system; FADS1, another desaturase part of the DHA and AA biosynthesis; MIR611 and FEN1, involved in the alteration of miRNA and Okazaki fragments, respectively; and TMEM258, involved in protein N-linked glycosylation (Supplementary Figure 5). Nevertheless, inference on the causal mechanisms for the region is a difficult process that require inferences on the causal variants (often involving fine-mapping (97), a statistical procedure attempting to determine the source of signal within a genome-wide significant region) and strong evidence of the association of the trait with the region. Further investigation of the region surrounding FADS2 is required to elucidate its role in cognitive development.

Supplementary Figure 5:
Supplementary Figure 5: local plot of LD structure in the region surrounding FADS2

Data from Savage et al. (96). r2 is relative to the nearest top hit (rs77128898) based on the CEU panel (Northern Europeans from Utah) from 1000 Genomes (124). Gene tracks were obtained from Ensembl release 75 (125). The dashed line represents the genome-wide significance threshold ( p= 5× 10−8).

Our results from the UK Biobank align with much of the current literature suggesting a positive effect of breastfeeding on cognitive traits, after controlling for covariates (8). Nevertheless, our analyses are based upon observational data. Observational association studies of breastfeeding are typically affected by residual confounding, selection bias, and reverse causation, as has been noted in previous studies involving IQ (7,76,98) (where maternal IQ and socioeconomic status may influence the likelihood of being breastfed, or reporting to be breastfed) and atopy (99–101) (where early signs of atopic allergy may cause the offspring to be breastfed for longer). While some quasi-experimental designs robust to reverse causation have also observed a positive effect of breastfeeding on IQ (10,102), the breastfeeding literature is likely subject to a considerable publication bias (103), inflating the ratio of reported positive to null findings. Ultimately, more studies are necessary to dissect the causal relationship between breastfeeding and cognition.

Several limitations of the present study arise from the use of self-reported breastfeeding status. Recollection of their own breastfeeding status by the UK Biobank participants is susceptible to self-report bias, as the recall is likely dependent on the information being passed on by their mother and/or other relatives. The UK Biobank participants’ year of birth (1934—1971) corresponds to a period generally regarded as having low breastfeeding initiation and cultural taboos related to breastfeeding practices in the UK (104). While systematic collection of data on breastfeeding practices succeeded that time (the Infant Feeding Survey, the longest-running survey on infant feeding practices in the country, started only in 1975 (105)), data from other countries generally show a steady decline in breastfeeding from 1930s to 1970s, when infant formula became the prevalent way of feeding infants (106), and indeed the UK retains a low uptake of breastfeeding to this day (107).Conversely, around ¾ of the UK Biobank participants with data on the question reported being breastfed as infants, hinting at potential issues with the self-reported measure of breastfeeding available in the UK Biobank. Due to the promotion of breastfeeding as the “healthy” way of feeding infants, together with a sampling skewed more towards healthier, older, and female individuals (108) (i.e., more likely to have been exposed to breastfeeding promotion campaigns), it is possible that the measure could suffer from non-differential misclassification bias (109): participants would be more likely to have answered they were breastfed than bottle fed, when in doubt. As we expect these variants to show an effect in the breastfed individuals, this could bias our estimates towards the null.

Other potential issues that could impact our estimates are due to the varying duration of breastfeeding across participants. Early weaning well before the currently recommended six months of exclusive breastfeeding (1) has been reported to be common practice before 1970 (110), and it is still occurring in the UK to this day (111). As we expect a change in the concentration of DHA in breastmilk according to the levels of FADS2 genotype only within the breastfed group, if an interaction were present, a shorter breastfeeding duration would attenuate the effect of DHA on the outcome.

The quality of cognitive measures in the UK Biobank presents further challenges to our findings. The previous literature describing the effect of breast feeding on IQ is heterogeneous in terms of scales used for IQ assessments and age at assessment, but it is predominantly composed of validated scales of child IQ. In contrast, the cognitive measures available in the UK Biobank were taken in mid-to late adulthood and used as a proxy for early childhood cognitive development. While absolute cognitive performance declines after early adulthood (112,113), intelligence does show rank-order stability over time (114,115) (i.e., an individual’s position according to a reference population), which is the rationale behind the widespread use of standardised IQ scores. Thus, by assuming temporal stability and accounting for age and cohort differences (116), adult cognitive performance can be used as a proxy for childhood intelligence to observe differences across subgroups, although with different temporal stability across ranks (117,118).

Despite being mostly based on established psychometric measurements, the adoption of non-validated tests without data on their standardisation poses difficulties in the interpretation of our results. In particular, it is difficult to compare the UK Biobank participants’ performance with the general population. As the effect of a supposed breastfeeding-by-FADS2 interaction might not be uniform across the whole population, the lack of standardisation prevents inferences drawn from quantile-based subgroup analyses. Further, the relative homogeneity in stability of the UK Biobank cognitive tests (116), together with the known sampling biases(108), suggests the lower ranks of cognitive abilities might be underrepresented, which might be also affected differently by the gene-by-breastfeeding interaction.

Finally, some studies (70,119) have noted that the most-commonly used measure used to proxy intelligence in the UK Biobank (labelled fluid intelligence by UK Biobank, here and in the literature often named verbal-numerical reasoning (68,94,95,119)) might capture a blend of crystallised and fluid abilities. Following Hebb and Cattel’s paradigm on intelligence (120,121), fluid intelligence represents what is commonly known as “intelligence”, a task-independent cognitive performance, while crystallised abilities reflect skills acquired through learning and practice over time (i.e., developed through the investment of fluid intelligence in new tasks). This distinction can be also observed in the underlying biology of the trait, with fluid and crystallised skills showing different genetic associations and pathways (122); verbal (crystallised) and non-verbal (fluid) skills have been also observed to have different topological correlates during brain development (123). As the FADS2-by-breastfeeding interaction we have investigated should influence predominantly fluid skills, with a lesser impact on crystallised skills in later life, capturing crystallised abilities could attenuate the effect of a possible interaction, reducing power to detect an effect with our current sample size.

Despite benefitting from the largest sample size to date, our study does not provide evidence for a FADS2-by-breastfeeding interaction on any of the traits we investigated, after strict control for population structure. Our findings align with smaller studies that have also failed to detect the interaction after controlling for population structure through PCs (53). We provide evidence for a small main effect of the FADS2 variants (rs1535, rs174575, rs174583) on a subset of our traits (viz., the verbal-numerical reasoning scale for cognitive traits, reproductive success, and lipid measures).

Data Availability

The UK Biobank data described in the manuscript is available to all bona fide research upon application and approval. Code book and analytic code are available online at https://github.com/GiulioCentorame/FADS-by-breastfeeding/

https://github.com/GiulioCentorame/FADS-by-breastfeeding/

Statement of authors’ contribution to manuscript

GC, NW, GH, GDS, and DME designed the research; GC analysed the data; GC, NW, and DME wrote the paper. GW provided help on the analysis for the blood pressure phenotypes. DME had primary responsibility for final content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the UK Biobank participants, interviewers, nurses, and staff that made this study possible. We wish to acknowledge The University of Queensland’s Research Computing Centre (RCC) for its support in this research.

Footnotes

  • Sources of support for the work: this work was supported by an NHMRC Ideas Grant [APP1157714]. UK Biobank is generously supported by its founding funders the Wellcome Trust and UK Medical Research Council, as well as the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, Northwest Regional Development Agency and Scottish Government. D.M.E. is supported by an NHMRC Leadership Fellowship [APP2017942]. N.M.W is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellowship [APP2008723]. G.H. and G.D.S. were supported by the UK Medical Research Council [MC_UU_00032/01]. The analyses described in this manuscript were conducted under the UK Biobank application 53641.

  • Data share statement: the UK Biobank data described in the manuscript is available to all bona fide research upon application and approval. Code book and analytic code will be made publicly and freely available without restrictions at https://github.com/GiulioCentorame/FADS-by-breastfeeding/

  • List of abbreviations: AA, arachidonic acid; ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; EPA, eicosapentaneoic acid; E-risk, Environmental Risk Longitudinal Twin Study; GWAS, genome-wide association study; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LA, linoleic acid; LC-PUFA, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids; LD, linkage disequilibrium; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; PC, principal component; PUFA, polyunsaturared fatty acids; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SES, socioeconomic status; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; TDI, Townsend deprivation index

References

  1. 1.↵
    World Health Organization. Global strategy for infant and young child feeding [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2003. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42590/9241562218.pdf
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization. The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review. World Health Organization; 2001;
  3. 3.↵
    Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJD, França GVA, Horton S, Krasevec J, Murch S, Sankar MJ, Walker N, Rollins NC. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. The Lancet Elsevier; 2016;387:475–90.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Binns C, Lee M, Low WY. The Long-Term Public Health Benefits of Breastfeeding. Asia Pac J Public Health SAGE Publications Inc; 2016;28:7–14.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    Stevens EE, Patrick TE, Pickler R. A History of Infant Feeding. J Perinat Educ 2009;18:32–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Anderson SA, Chinn HI, Fisher KD. History and current status of infant formulas. Am J Clin Nutr 1982;35:381–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Michaelsen KF, Lauritzen L, Mortensen EL. Effects of Breast-feeding on Cognitive Function. In: Goldberg G, Prentice A, Prentice A, Filteau S, Simondon K, editors. Breast-Feeding: Early Influences on Later Health. [Internet] Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009 [cited 2023 Oct 31]. p. 199–215. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8749-3_15
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Horta BL, Loret de Mola C, Victora CG. Breastfeeding and intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr Oslo Nor 1992 2015;104:14–9.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Horta BL, de Sousa BA, de Mola CL. Breastfeeding and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2018;21:174–8.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Kramer MS, Aboud F, Mironova E, Vanilovich I, Platt RW, Matush L, Igumnov S, Fombonne E, Bogdanovich N, Ducruet T, et al. Breastfeeding and child cognitive development: new evidence from a large randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65:578–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Koletzko B, Agostoni C, Carlson S, Clandinin T, Hornstra G, Neuringer M, Uauy R, Yamashiro Y, Willatts P. Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA) and perinatal development. Acta Paediatr 2001;90:460–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Lattka E, Klopp N, Demmelmair H, Klingler M, Heinrich J, Koletzko B. Genetic Variations in Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Metabolism – Implications for Child Health? Ann Nutr Metab Karger Publishers; 2012;60:8–17.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Lauritzen L, Hansen HS, Jørgensen MH, Michaelsen KF. The essentiality of long chain n-3 fatty acids in relation to development and function of the brain and retina. Prog Lipid Res 2001;40:1–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Brenna JT, Diau G-Y. The influence of dietary docosahexaenoic acid and arachidonic acid on central nervous system polyunsaturated fatty acid composition. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2007;77:247–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Falkenburger BH, Jensen JB, Dickson EJ, Suh B-C, Hille B. Phosphoinositides: lipid regulators of membrane proteins. J Physiol 2010;588:3179–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Sun GY, Simonyi A, Fritsche KL, Chuang DY, Hannink M, Gu Z, Greenlief CM, Yao JK, Lee JC, Beversdorf DQ. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA): An essential nutrient and a nutraceutical for brain health and diseases. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2018;136:3–13.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Kim H-Y, Huang BX, Spector AA. Phosphatidylserine in the brain: Metabolism and function. Prog Lipid Res 2014;56:1–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Forsyth S, Gautier S, Salem Jr. N. Global Estimates of Dietary Intake of Docosahexaenoic Acid and Arachidonic Acid in Developing and Developed Countries. Ann Nutr Metab 2016;68:258–67.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Brenna JT, Salem N, Sinclair AJ, Cunnane SC. α-Linolenic acid supplementation and conversion to n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in humans. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2009;80:85–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Burdge GC, Calder PC. Conversion of α-linolenic acid to longer-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in human adults. Reprod Nutr Dev EDP Sciences; 2005;45:581–97.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.
    Burdge GC, Jones AE, Wootton SA. Eicosapentaenoic and docosapentaenoic acids are the principal products of α-linolenic acid metabolism in young men*. Br J Nutr Cambridge University Press; 2002;88:355–63.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    Burdge G. Alpha-linolenic acid metabolism in men and women: nutritional and biological implications. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2004;7:137–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    Burdge GC, Wootton SA. Conversion of α-linolenic acid to eicosapentaenoic, docosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in young women. Br J Nutr Cambridge University Press; 2002;88:411–20.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Giltay EJ, Gooren LJG, Toorians AWFT, Katan MB, Zock PL. Docosahexaenoic acid concentrations are higher in women than in men because of estrogenic effects. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:1167–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Smit EN, Fokkema MR, Boersma ER, Muskiet FAJ. Higher erythrocyte 22: 6n−3 and 22: 5n−6, and lower 22: 5n−3 suggest higher Δ-4-desaturation capacity in women of childbearing age. Br J Nutr Cambridge University Press; 2003;89:739–40.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Lin YH, Llanos A, Mena P, Uauy R, Salem N Jr, Pawlosky RJ. Compartmental analyses of 2H5-α-linolenic acid and C-U-eicosapentaenoic acid toward synthesis of plasma labeled 22:6n−3 in newborn term infants. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:284–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    Sauerwald TU, Hachey DL, Jensen CL, Chen H, Anderson RE, Heird WC. Effect of dietary alpha-linolenic acid intake on incorporation of docosahexaenoic and arachidonic acids into plasma phospholipids of term infants. Lipids 1996;31 Suppl:S131-135.
  28. 28.↵
    Zhang Z, Wang Y, Yang X, Cheng Y, Zhang H, Xu X, Zhou J, Chen H, Su M, Yang Y, et al. Human Milk Lipid Profiles around the World: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv Nutr 2022;13:2519–36.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Koletzko B, Carlson SE, van Goudoever JB. Should Infant Formula Provide Both Omega-3 DHA and Omega-6 Arachidonic Acid? Ann Nutr Metab 2015;66:137–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Koletzko B, Bergmann K, Brenna JT, Calder PC, Campoy C, Clandinin MT, Colombo J, Daly M, Decsi T, Demmelmair H, et al. Should formula for infants provide arachidonic acid along with DHA? A position paper of the European Academy of Paediatrics and the Child Health Foundation. Am J Clin Nutr 2020;111:10–6.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Colombo J, Jill Shaddy D, Kerling EH, Gustafson KM, Carlson SE. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) balance in developmental outcomes. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2017;121:52–6.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.
    Colombo J, Carlson SE, Cheatham CL, Shaddy DJ, Kerling EH, Thodosoff JM, Gustafson KM, Brez C. Long-term effects of LCPUFA supplementation on childhood cognitive outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;98:403–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.
    Liao K, McCandliss BD, Carlson SE, Colombo J, Shaddy DJ, Kerling EH, Lepping RJ, Sittiprapaporn W, Cheatham CL, Gustafson KM. Event-related potential differences in children supplemented with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids during infancy. Dev Sci 2017;20.
  34. 34.
    Nevins JEH, Donovan SM, Snetselaar L, Dewey KG, Novotny R, Stang J, Taveras EM, Kleinman RE, Bailey RL, Raghavan R, et al. Omega-3 Fatty Acid Dietary Supplements Consumed During Pregnancy and Lactation and Child Neurodevelopment: A Systematic Review. J Nutr 2021;151:3483–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Carlson SE, Colombo J. DHA and Cognitive Development. J Nutr 2021;151:3265–6.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Lepping RJ, Honea RA, Martin LE, Liao K, Choi I-Y, Lee P, Papa VB, Brooks WM, Shaddy DJ, Carlson SE, et al. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in the first year of life affects brain function, structure, and metabolism at age nine years. Dev Psychobiol 2019;61:5–16.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae and amending Directive 1999/21/EC Text with EEA relevance [Internet]. OJ L Dec 22, 2006. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/141/oj/eng
  38. 38.↵
    Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/127 of 25 September 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the specific compositional and information requirements for infant formula and follow-on formula and as regards requirements on information relating to infant and young child feeding (Text with EEA relevance) [Internet]. OJ L Sep 25, 2015. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2016/127/oj/eng
  39. 39.↵
    EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the essential composition of infant and follow-on formulae. EFSA J 2014;12:3760.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Hanson JM, Kinsella JE. Fatty acid content and composition of infant formulas and cereals. J Am Diet Assoc 1981;78:250–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Metherel AH, Bazinet RP. Updates to the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid biosynthesis pathway: DHA synthesis rates, tetracosahexaenoic acid and (minimal) retroconversion. Prog Lipid Res 2019;76:101008.
  42. 42.↵
    Xie L, Innis SM. Genetic variants of the FADS1 FADS2 gene cluster are associated with altered (n-6) and (n-3) essential fatty acids in plasma and erythrocyte phospholipids in women during pregnancy and in breast milk during lactation. J Nutr 2008;138:2222–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    Lattka E, Illig T, Koletzko B, Heinrich J. Genetic variants of the FADS1 FADS2 gene cluster as related to essential fatty acid metabolism. Curr Opin Lipidol 2010;21:64.
  44. 44.↵
    Yeates AJ, Love TM, Engström K, Mulhern MS, McSorley EM, Grzesik K, Alhamdow A, Wahlberg K, Thurston SW, Davidson PW, et al. Genetic variation in FADS genes is associated with maternal long-chain PUFA status but not with cognitive development of infants in a high fish-eating observational study. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2015;102–103:13–20.
  45. 45.
    Scholtz SA, Kerling EH, Shaddy DJ, Li S, Thodosoff JM, Colombo J, Carlson SE. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation in pregnancy differentially modulates arachidonic acid and DHA status across FADS genotypes in pregnancy. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2015;94:29–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.
    Carvalho GQ, Pereira-Santos M, Marcon LD, Louro ID, Peluzio MCG, Santos DB. Maternal polymorphisms in the FADS1 and FADS2 genes modify the association between PUFA ingestion and plasma concentrations of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2019;150:38–46.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.
    Gonzalez Casanova I, Schoen M, Tandon S, Stein AD, Barraza Villarreal A, DiGirolamo AM, Demmelmair H, Ramirez Silva I, Feregrino RG, Rzehak P, et al. Maternal FADS2 single nucleotide polymorphism modified the impact of prenatal docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation on child neurodevelopment at 5 years: Follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Nutr Edinb Scotl 2021;40:5339–45.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Koletzko B, Lattka E, Zeilinger S, Illig T, Steer C. Genetic variants of the fatty acid desaturase gene cluster predict amounts of red blood cell docosahexaenoic and other polyunsaturated fatty acids in pregnant women: findings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93:211–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    Caspi A, Williams B, Kim-Cohen J, Craig IW, Milne BJ, Poulton R, Schalkwyk LC, Taylor A, Werts H, Moffitt TE. Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in fatty acid metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:18860– 5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    Steer CD, Smith GD, Emmett PM, Hibbeln JR, Golding J. FADS2 Polymorphisms Modify the Effect of Breastfeeding on Child IQ. PLOS ONE Public Library of Science; 2010;5:e11570.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Martin NW, Benyamin B, Hansell NK, Montgomery GW, Martin NG, Wright MJ, Bates TC. Cognitive function in adolescence: testing for interactions between breast-feeding and FADS2 polymorphisms. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011;50:55–62.e4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Groen-Blokhuis MM, Franić S, van Beijsterveldt CEM, de Geus E, Bartels M, Davies GE, Ehli EA, Xiao X, Scheet PA, Althoff R, et al. A prospective study of the effects of breastfeeding and FADS2 polymorphisms on cognition and hyperactivity/attention problems. Am J Med Genet Part B Neuropsychiatr Genet Off Publ Int Soc Psychiatr Genet 2013;162B:457–65.
  53. 53.↵
    Hartwig FP, Davies NM, Horta BL, Ahluwalia TS, Bisgaard H, Bønnelykke K, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Poulton R, Sajjad A, et al. Effect modification of FADS2 polymorphisms on the association between breastfeeding and intelligence: results from a collaborative meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:45–57.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Bycroft C, Freeman C, Petkova D, Band G, Elliott LT, Sharp K, Motyer A, Vukcevic D, Delaneau O, O’Connell J, et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 2018;562:203–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    Hill WG, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. Data and Theory Point to Mainly Additive Genetic Variance for Complex Traits. PLOS Genet Public Library of Science; 2008;4:e1000008.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Hivert V, Sidorenko J, Rohart F, Goddard ME, Yang J, Wray NR, Yengo L, Visscher PM. Estimation of non-additive genetic variance in human complex traits from a large sample of unrelated individuals. Am J Hum Genet 2021;108:786–98.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Oddy WH, Pal S, Kusel MMH, Vine D, de Klerk NH, Hartmann P, Holt PG, Sly PD, Burton PR, Stanley FJ, et al. Atopy, eczema and breast milk fatty acids in a high-risk cohort of children followed from birth to 5 yr. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2006;17:4–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.
    Wijga AH, van Houwelingen AC, Kerkhof M, Tabak C, de Jongste JC, Gerritsen J, Boshuizen H, Brunekreef B, Smit HA. Breast milk fatty acids and allergic disease in preschool children: The Prevention and Incidence of Asthma and Mite Allergy birth cohort study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;117:440–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Lowe AJ, Thien FCK, Stoney RM, Bennett CM, Hosking CS, Hill DJ, Carlin JB, Abramson MJ, Dharmage SC. Associations between fatty acids in colostrum and breast milk and risk of allergic disease. Clin Exp Allergy 2008;38:1745–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    Singmann P, Rzehak P, Berdel D, Wichmann H-E, Heinrich J. No association between FADS polymorphisms and atopic diseases in children from the GINI and LISA birth cohorts. Allergy 2010;65:1627–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Little J, Higgins JPT, Ioannidis JPA, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, Khoury MJ, Cohen B, Davey-Smith G, Grimshaw J, et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement. Genet Epidemiol 2009;33:581–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    Manichaikul A, Mychaleckyj JC, Rich SS, Daly K, Sale M, Chen W-M. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 2010;26:2867–73.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Band G, Leffler EM, Jallow M, Sisay-Joof F, Ndila CM, Macharia AW, Hubbart C, Jeffreys AE, Rowlands K, Nguyen T, et al. Malaria protection due to sickle haemoglobin depends on parasite genotype. Nature Nature Publishing Group; 2022;602:106–11.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience 2015;4:s13742–015-0047–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    Shaun Purcell, Christopher Chang. PLINK 2.00a3.7LM AVX2 Intel [Internet]. 2022. Available from: www.cog-genomics.org/plink/2.0/
  66. 66.↵
    Elsworth B, Lyon M, Alexander T, Liu Y, Matthews P, Hallett J, Bates P, Palmer T, Haberland V, Smith GD, et al. The MRC IEU OpenGWAS data infrastructure [Internet]. bioRxiv; 2020 [cited 2023 Feb 13]. p. 2020.08.10.244293. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.10.244293v1
  67. 67.↵
    Julkunen H, Cichońska A, Tiainen M, Koskela H, Nybo K, Mäkelä V, Nokso-Koivisto J, Kristiansson K, Perola M, Salomaa V, et al. Atlas of plasma nuclear magnetic resonance biomarkers for health and disease in 118,461 individuals from the UK Biobank [Internet]. medRxiv; 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 13]. p. 2022.06.13.22276332. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.13.22276332v2
  68. 68.↵
    Lyall DM, Cullen B, Allerhand M, Smith DJ, Mackay D, Evans J, Anderson J, Fawns-Ritchie C, McIntosh AM, Deary IJ, et al. Cognitive Test Scores in UK Biobank: Data Reduction in 480,416 Participants and Longitudinal Stability in 20,346 Participants. PLOS ONE Public Library of Science; 2016;11:e0154222.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Newby D, Winchester L, Sproviero W, Fernandes M, Wang D, Kormilitzin A, Launer LJ, Nevado-Holgado AJ. Associations Between Brain Volumes and Cognitive Tests with Hypertensive Burden in UK Biobank. J Alzheimers Dis IOS Press; 2021;84:1373–89.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    Hagenaars SP, Harris SE, Davies G, Hill WD, Liewald DCM, Ritchie SJ, Marioni RE, Fawns-Ritchie C, Cullen B, Malik R, et al. Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and physical and mental health in UK Biobank (N=112_151) and 24 GWAS consortia. Mol Psychiatry 2016;21:1624–32.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Carter AR, Harrison S, Gill D, Davey Smith G, Taylor AE, Howe LD, Davies NM. Educational attainment as a modifier for the effect of polygenic scores for cardiovascular risk factors: cross-sectional and prospective analysis of UK Biobank. Int J Epidemiol 2022;51:885–97.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.
    Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, Nguyen-Viet TA, Bowers P, Sidorenko J, Linnér RK, et al. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat Genet 2018;50:1112–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    Carter AR, Gill D, Davies NM, Taylor AE, Tillmann T, Vaucher J, Wootton RE, Munafò MR, Hemani G, Malik R, et al. Understanding the consequences of education inequality on cardiovascular disease: mendelian randomisation study. BMJ British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2019;365:l1855.
  74. 74.↵
    Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA, Lee JJ, Pers TH, Rietveld CA, Turley P, Chen G-B, Emilsson V, Meddens SFW, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016;533:539–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    Deary IJ, Johnson W. Intelligence and education: causal perceptions drive analytic processes and therefore conclusions. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:1362–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.↵
    Cornish RP, Tilling K, Boyd A, Davies A, Macleod J. Using linked educational attainment data to reduce bias due to missing outcome data in estimates of the association between the duration of breastfeeding and IQ at 15 years. Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:937–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    Barban N, Jansen R, de Vlaming R, Vaez A, Mandemakers JJ, Tropf FC, Shen X, Wilson JF, Chasman DI, Nolte IM, et al. Genome-wide analysis identifies 12 loci influencing human reproductive behavior. Nat Genet Nature Publishing Group; 2016;48:1462–72.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Lawn RB, Sallis HM, Taylor AE, Wootton RE, Smith GD, Davies NM, Hemani G, Fraser A, Penton-Voak IS, Munafò MR. Schizophrenia risk and reproductive success: a Mendelian randomization study. R Soc Open Sci Royal Society; 2019;6:181049.
  79. 79.↵
    Warrington NM, Hwang L-D, Nivard MG, Evans DM. Estimating direct and indirect genetic effects on offspring phenotypes using genome-wide summary results data. Nat Commun Nature Publishing Group; 2021;12:5420.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Wang G, Bhatta L, Moen G-H, Hwang L-D, Kemp JP, Bond TA, Åsvold BO, Brumpton B, Evans DM, Warrington NM. Investigating a Potential Causal Relationship Between Maternal Blood Pressure During Pregnancy and Future Offspring Cardiometabolic Health. Hypertens Dallas Tex 1979 2022;79:170–7.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    Keller MC. Gene × environment interaction studies have not properly controlled for potential confounders: the problem and the (simple) solution. Biol Psychiatry 2014;75:18–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  82. 82.↵
    Borges MC, Haycock PC, Zheng J, Hemani G, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G, Hingorani AD, Lawlor DA. Role of circulating polyunsaturated fatty acids on cardiovascular diseases risk: analysis using Mendelian randomization and fatty acid genetic association data from over 114,000 UK Biobank participants. BMC Med 2022;20:210.
  83. 83.↵
    Hartwig FP, Davies NM, Horta BL, Victora CG, Smith GD. Effect modification of FADS2 polymorphisms on the association between breastfeeding and intelligence: protocol for a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ Open British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2016;6:e010067.
  84. 84.↵
    Zondervan KT, Cardon LR. Designing candidate gene and genome-wide case-control association studies. Nat Protoc 2007;2:2492–501.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. 85.↵
    Okbay A, Rietveld CA. On improving the credibility of candidate gene studies: A review of candidate gene studies published in Emotion. Emotion US: American Psychological Association; 2015;15:531–7.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.
    Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Smith GD. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. The Lancet 2003;361:865–72.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    Duncan LE, Ostacher M, Ballon J. How genome-wide association studies (GWAS) made traditional candidate gene studies obsolete. Neuropsychopharmacology Nature Publishing Group; 2019;44:1518–23.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    Sullivan PF. Spurious Genetic Associations. Biol Psychiatry 2007;61:1121–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. 89.↵
    Cardon LR, Palmer LJ. Population stratification and spurious allelic association. The Lancet 2003;361:598–604.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet Nature Publishing Group; 2006;38:904–9.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    Yzerbyt VY, Muller D, Judd CM. Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol 2004;40:424–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  92. 92.↵
    Aschard H, Vilhjálmsson BJ, Joshi AD, Price AL, Kraft P. Adjusting for Heritable Covariates Can Bias Effect Estimates in Genome-Wide Association Studies. Am J Hum Genet 2015;96:329–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    Cole SR, Platt RW, Schisterman EF, Chu H, Westreich D, Richardson D, Poole C. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:417–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  94. 94.↵
    Cox SR, Ritchie SJ, Fawns-Ritchie C, Tucker-Drob EM, Deary IJ. Structural brain imaging correlates of general intelligence in UK Biobank. Intelligence 2019;76:101376.
  95. 95.↵
    de Nooij L, Harris MA, Adams MJ, Clarke T-K, Shen X, Cox SR, McIntosh AM, Whalley HC. Cognitive functioning and lifetime major depressive disorder in UK Biobank. Eur Psychiatry Cambridge University Press; 2020;63:e28.
  96. 96.↵
    Savage JE, Jansen PR, Stringer S, Watanabe K, Bryois J, de Leeuw CA, Nagel M, Awasthi S, Barr PB, Coleman JRI, et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence. Nat Genet 2018;50:912–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    Schaid DJ, Chen W, Larson NB. From genome-wide associations to candidate causal variants by statistical fine-mapping. Nat Rev Genet Nature Publishing Group; 2018;19:491–504.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    Walfisch A, Sermer C, Cressman A, Koren G. Breast milk and cognitive development--the role of confounders: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003259.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    Kusunoki T, Morimoto T, Nishikomori R, Yasumi T, Heike T, Mukaida K, Fujii T, Nakahata T. Breastfeeding and the prevalence of allergic diseases in schoolchildren: Does reverse causation matter? Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2010;21:60–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.
    Lodge CJ, Lowe AJ, Dharmage SC. Is Reverse Causation Responsible for the Link between Duration of Breastfeeding and Childhood Asthma? Am J Respir Crit Care Med American Thoracic Society - AJRCCM; 2008;178:994–994.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    Bigman G. The Relationship of Breastfeeding and Infant Eczema: The Role of Reverse Causation. Breastfeed Med Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers; 2020;15:114–6.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.↵
    Denny K, Doyle O. The causal effect of breastfeeding on children’s cognitive development: A quasi-experimental design [Internet]. UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series; 2010. Report No.: WP10/05. Available from: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/71352
  103. 103.↵
    Ritchie SJ. Publication bias in a recent meta-analysis on breastfeeding and IQ. Acta Paediatr 2017;106:345–345.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.↵
    Thorley V. Is breastfeeding ‘normal’? Using the right language for breastfeeding. Midwifery 2019;69:39–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. 105.↵
    Martin J. Infant Feeding 1975: Attitudes and Practice in England and Wales_: a Survey Carried Out on Behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security. H.M. Stationery Office; 1978. 196 p.
  106. 106.↵
    WHO Collaborative Study on Breast-Feeding, Organization WH. Contemporary patterns of breast-feeding_: report on the WHO Collaborative Study on Breast-feeding [Internet]. World Health Organization; 1981. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40079
  107. 107.↵
    Simpson DA, Quigley MA, Kurinczuk JJ, Carson C. Twenty-five-year trends in breastfeeding initiation: The effects of sociodemographic changes in Great Britain, 1985-2010. PLOS ONE Public Library of Science; 2019;14:e0210838.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    Fry A, Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Doherty N, Adamska L, Sprosen T, Collins R, Allen NE. Comparison of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Characteristics of UK Biobank Participants With Those of the General Population. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186:1026–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    Whitcomb BW, Naimi AI. Things Don’t Always Go as Expected: The Example of Nondifferential Misclassification of Exposure—Bias and Error. Am J Epidemiol 2020;189:365–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    Department of Health and Social Security. Present-day practice in infant feeding: Report of a working party of thhe panel on child nutrition, committee on medical aspects of food policy. London: H.M.S.O; 1974. 38 p.
  111. 111.↵
    Health and Social Care Information Centre, IFF Research. Infant Feeding Survey 2010 [Internet]. The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2012 p. 331. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/infant-feeding-survey/infant-feeding-survey-uk-2010
  112. 112.↵
    Deary IJ, Corley J, Gow AJ, Harris SE, Houlihan LM, Marioni RE, Penke L, Rafnsson SB, Starr JM. Age-associated cognitive decline. Br Med Bull 2009;92:135–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  113. 113.↵
    Salthouse TA. When does age-related cognitive decline begin? Neurobiol Aging 2009;30:507–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.↵
    Deary IJ. The Stability of Intelligence From Childhood to Old Age. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2014;23:239–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  115. 115.↵
    Gow AJ, Johnson W, Pattie A, Brett CE, Roberts B, Starr JM, Deary IJ. Stability and change in intelligence from age 11 to ages 70, 79, and 87: The Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936. Psychol Aging US: American Psychological Association; 2011;26:232–40.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    Cornelis MC, Wang Y, Holland T, Agarwal P, Weintraub S, Morris MC. Age and cognitive decline in the UK Biobank. PLOS ONE Public Library of Science; 2019;14:e0213948.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Schneider W, Niklas F, Schmiedeler S. Intellectual development from early childhood to early adulthood: The impact of early IQ differences on stability and change over time. Learn Individ Differ 2014;32:156–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. 118.↵
    Whitaker S. The Stability of IQ in People With Low Intellectual Ability: An Analysis of the Literature. Taylor SJ, editor. Intellect Dev Disabil 2008;46:120–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    Fawns-Ritchie C, Deary IJ. Reliability and validity of the UK Biobank cognitive tests. PLoS ONE 2020;15:e0231627.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    Brown RE. Hebb and Cattell: The Genesis of the Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet] 2016 [cited 2023 Feb 23];10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00606
  121. 121.↵
    Kent P. Fluid intelligence: A brief history. Appl Neuropsychol Child Routledge; 2017;6:193–203.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    Christoforou A, Espeseth T, Davies G, Fernandes CPD, Giddaluru S, Mattheisen M, Tenesa A, Harris SE, Liewald DC, Payton A, et al. GWAS-based pathway analysis differentiates between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Genes Brain Behav 2014;13:663–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    Ramsden S, Richardson FM, Josse G, Thomas MSC, Ellis C, Shakeshaft C, Seghier ML, Price CJ. Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain. Nature Nature Publishing Group; 2011;479:113–6.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    Auton A, Abecasis GR, Altshuler DM, Durbin RM, Abecasis GR, Bentley DR, Chakravarti A, Clark AG, Donnelly P, Eichler EE, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature Nature Publishing Group; 2015;526:68–74.
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.↵
    Flicek P, Amode MR, Barrell D, Beal K, Billis K, Brent S, Carvalho-Silva D, Clapham P, Coates G, Fitzgerald S, et al. Ensembl 2014. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D749–55.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted May 29, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
No evidence of interaction between FADS2 genotype and breastfeeding on cognitive or other traits in the UK Biobank
Giulio Centorame, Nicole M. Warrington, Gibran Hemani, Geng Wang, George Davey Smith, David M. Evans
medRxiv 2024.05.29.24308099; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.29.24308099
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area