Habitual physical activity in children: the role of genes and the environment
Habitual physical activity in children: the role of genes and the environment
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ajcn/82.4.901
复制
发表时间：
2005-10-01
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Salbe, AD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Franks, PW;Ravussin, E;Salbe, AD
背景资料：了解导致儿童缺乏体力活动的因素非常重要，因为久坐行为与肥胖和糖尿病等代谢紊乱密切相关。目的：我们旨在量化100对4-10岁的性别一致双卵（n = 38）和单卵（n = 62）双胞胎对体力活动能量消耗（PAEE）的遗传和环境影响。设计：静息代谢率（RMR）采用呼吸气体交换法，总能量消耗（TEE）采用双标记水，身体成分采用双能X线吸收法。结构方程模型用于将表型方差划分为加性遗传（a（2））、共同（c（2））和非共享（e（2））环境分量。（RMR + 0.1 x TEE）]取决于体重，这是高度遗传的，我们测试了几个模型：1）在调整年龄、性别、种族、研究日期、季节和体重后，a（2）不能解释PAEE的表型变异。（95%CI：0%，38%），而c（2）和e（2）占69%（33%，77%; P = 0.001）和31%（23%，39%; P < 0.001）的方差; 2）调整模型1中的辅因子后，a（2）解释了TEE中19%的表型方差（0%，60%; P = 0.13），而c（2）和e（2）占59%（16%，79%; P = 0.007）和23%（17%，31%，P < 0.0001）; 3）在按上述调整的型号中（不包括体重），a（2）未解释体力活动水平的差异（TEE/RMR）（0%，32%; P = 0.50），而c（2）和e（2）解释了65%（34%，60%; P = 0.001）和35%（28%，45%，P < 0.0001）。结论：我们的数据表明，这些儿童的体力活动的家族相似性主要是由共同的环境因素解释的，而不是遗传变异。
Background: Understanding the factors that contribute to physical inactivity in children is important because sedentary behavior strongly relates to metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes.Objective: We aimed to quantify the genetic and environmental influences on physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in 100 sex-concordant dizygotic (n = 38) and monozygotic (n = 62) twin pairs aged 4-10 y.Design: Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was assessed by using respiratory gas exchange, total energy expenditure (TEE) by using doubly labeled water, and body composition by using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Structural equation modeling was used to partition the phenotypic variance into additive genetic (a(2)) and common (c(2)) and unshared (e(2)) environmental components.Results: Because PAEE [TEE - (RMR + 0.1 x TEE)] depends on body weight, which is highly heritable, we tested several models: 1) after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, study date, season, and weight, a(2) explained none of the phenotypic variance in PAEE (95% CI: 0%, 38%), whereas c(2) and e(2) accounted for 69% (33 %, 77%; P = 0.001) and 31% (23%, 39%; P < 0.001) of the variance, respectively; 2) after adjustment for the cofactors in model 1, a(2) explained 19% of the phenotypic variance in TEE (0%, 60%; P = 0.13), whereas c(2) and e(2) accounted for 59% (16%, 79%; P = 0.007) and 23% (17%, 31%; P < 0.0001) of the variance, respectively; 3) in models adjusted as above (excluding weight), a(2) explained no variance in physical activity level (TEE/RMR) (0%, 32%; P = 0.50), whereas c(2) and e(2) explained 65% (34%, 60%; P = 0.001) and 35% (28%, 45%; P < 0.0001) of the variance, respectively.Conclusions: Our data suggest that the familial resemblance in physical activity in these children is explained predominantly by shared environmental factors and not by genetic variability.