The Implications of Genetics for Prevention and Intervention Programming

Abstract

With recent advances in high-throughput technology, genetic and other biological data have been increasingly incorporated in social science research, including prevention/intervention studies. Understanding the role genetics play in complex behaviors commonly evaluated in prevention/intervention research may have important implications for designing prevention programing, determining who receives certain prevention programs, and understanding individual differences in programming effectiveness (see Jaffee & Price, 2007; Moffitt, Caspi, & Rutter, 2006). This special issue, Incorporating Genetics in Prevention Science: Considering Methodology and Implications, seeks to advance work in this area by presenting empirical research and methodological reviews that examine the role genetics has in behavioral research. This special issue highlights the strengths, challenges, and methodological approaches that can be used to incorporate genetic and other biological data (e.g., epigenetic markers) into prevention science. The papers in this special issue cover several overarching themes that have emerged as critical for adequately incorporating genetics into prevention and other behavioral research, including gene-by-intervention (Gxl) studies. The collection of papers reflect examples, suggestions, opportunities, and pitfalls (and how to avoid them) when incorporating genetics or other biological data into prevention research. Below, we highlight some of the themes and strengths of Gxl research as reflected in the set of studies included in this special issue.

A systematic review of gene-by-intervention studies of alcohol and other substance use

“…Systematic reviews of the candidate gene literature also found that candidate gene studies were underpowered, susceptible to publication bias, and rarely replicated across studies (Border et al, 2019; Dick et al, 2015; Duncan & Keller, 2011). For these reasons, the early candidate gene studies are now considered problematic (Latendresse, Musci, & Maher, 2018; Musci & Schlomer, 2018). One exception is the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) genes which emerged as biological candidates for alcohol use outcomes based on their known role in ethanol metabolism (Edenberg, 2007) and continue to be highly associated with alcohol dependence in genome-wide association studies (Clarke et al, 2017; Tawa et al, 2016; Walters et al, 2018).…”

Genomics, Big Data, and Broad Consent: a New Ethics Frontier for Prevention Science

“…Emerging technologies for the collection and analysis of biospecimens have led to advances in understanding the interacting role of genetics and environment on the development of mental health and behavioral risk and resilience and individual responsivity to prevention and intervention programs (Dick et al 2011 ; Fisher and McCarthy 2013 ; Musci and Schlomer 2018 ). The proliferation of genomic research is fueled by the ease of collecting DNA through cheek swabs or saliva, the decreasing costs of genotyping and DNA sequencing (Dick et al 2011 ; Lunshof et al 2008 ) and technological advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (Calvin et al 2012 ; Davies et al 2016 ; Greven et al 2009 ; Krapohl et al 2014 ; Mandelli and Serretti 2013 ;McCrory et al 2010 ; Rimfeld et al 2015 ), gene by environment studies (GxE) (Belsky and Pluess 2009 ; Kegel et al 2011 ), and gene by intervention studies (GxI) (Dick et al 2011 ; Musci and Schlomer 2018 ).…”

“…Emerging technologies for the collection and analysis of biospecimens have led to advances in understanding the interacting role of genetics and environment on the development of mental health and behavioral risk and resilience and individual responsivity to prevention and intervention programs (Dick et al 2011 ; Fisher and McCarthy 2013 ; Musci and Schlomer 2018 ). The proliferation of genomic research is fueled by the ease of collecting DNA through cheek swabs or saliva, the decreasing costs of genotyping and DNA sequencing (Dick et al 2011 ; Lunshof et al 2008 ) and technological advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (Calvin et al 2012 ; Davies et al 2016 ; Greven et al 2009 ; Krapohl et al 2014 ; Mandelli and Serretti 2013 ;McCrory et al 2010 ; Rimfeld et al 2015 ), gene by environment studies (GxE) (Belsky and Pluess 2009 ; Kegel et al 2011 ), and gene by intervention studies (GxI) (Dick et al 2011 ; Musci and Schlomer 2018 ). As a result, the growing field of genomics research has enriched the contributions of prevention science for understanding the unique and interacting roles of genetic and environmental factors in areas including academic achievement, sexual risk behaviors, substance use, internalizing and externalizing disorders, and responsivity to educational and development promoting preventive interventions within the growing field of implementation science (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al 2008 ; Beach et al 2018 ; Brody et al 2009 ; Dick et al 2011 ; Fisher 2017b ; Glenn et al 2018 ; Haworth and Plomin 2012 ; Leadbeater et al 2018 ; Musci and Schlomer 2018 ; Russell et al 2017 ; Zheng et al 2018 ).…”

Genetic influences on structural and functional brain maturation

“…reaction to environment) factors. This understanding can also help to guide the design of diagnostics, interventions and therapies for behavioral problems and psychiatric disorders (Musci and Schlomer, 2018;Majewski et al, 2011). Twin and family studies are informative to the extent to which genetics and environment contribute to the variation of a trait in the population (Neale and Cardon, 1992).…”

“…In addition, the development trajectory from longitudinal studies is often more informative than individual measurements in aberrant development such as those linked to the development of psychiatric disorders (Paus et al, 2008;Shaw et al, 2010;Schnack et al, 2016). Determining the genetic and environmental contributions to brain development and behavior can help to identify their causal origin and aid in the design of diagnostic tools, interventions, and therapies (Musci and Schlomer, 2018;Majewski et al, 2011). This section provides a brief outline of the global developmental patterns observed in the brain during childhood and adolescence, and twin studies reporting on the heritability estimates of brain structure and function.…”