Large genetic study links tendency to undervalue future rewards with ADHD and obesity

first_imgShare on Facebook LinkedIn Pinterest Email Sharecenter_img Share on Twitter Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have found a genetic signature for delay discounting — the tendency to undervalue future rewards — that overlaps with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), smoking and weight.In a study published December 11 in Nature Neuroscience, the team used data of 23andme customers who consented to participate in research and answered survey questions to assess delay discounting. In all, the study included the data of more than 23,000 people to show that approximately 12 percent of a person’s variation in delay discounting can be attributed to genetics — not a single gene, but numerous genetic variants that also influence several other psychiatric and behavioral traits.“Studying the genetic basis of delay discounting is something I’ve wanted to do for the entirety of my 20 years of research, but it takes a huge number of people for a genetics study to be meaningful,” said senior author Abraham Palmer, PhD, professor of psychiatry and vice chair for basic research at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “By collaborating with a company that already has the genotypes for millions of people, all we needed was for them to answer a few questions. It would have been difficult to enroll and genotype this many research participants on our own in academia — it would’ve taken years and been cost prohibitive. This is a new model for science.” According to Palmer, every complicated nervous system needs a way of assessing the value of current versus delayed rewards. Most people think of the “marshmallow experiment,” he said, referring to the classic experiment where children were tested for their ability to delay gratification by giving them the choice between one marshmallow now or two marshmallows a few minutes later.“A person’s ability to delay gratification is not just a curiosity, it’s integrally important to physical and mental health,” Palmer said. “In addition, a person’s economic success is tied to delay discounting. Take seeking higher education and saving for retirement as examples — these future rewards are valuable in today’s economy, but we’re finding that not everyone has the same inclination to achieve them.”For the study, the team looked at data from 23andMe research participants who answered survey questions that could be used to assess delay discounting. For example, customers were asked to choose between two options: “Would you rather have $55 today or $75 in 61 Days?”“In less than four months, we had responses from more than 23,000 research participants,” said Pierre Fontanillas, PhD, a senior statistical geneticist at 23andMe. “This shows the power of our research model to quickly gather large amounts of phenotypic and genotypic data for scientific discovery.”By comparing participants’ survey responses to their corresponding genotypes and complementary data from other studies, Palmer’s team found a number of genetic correlations.“We discovered, for the first time, a genetic correlation between ADHD and delay discounting,” said first author Sandra Sanchez-Roige, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in Palmer’s lab. “People with ADHD place less value in delayed rewards. That doesn’t mean that everyone with ADHD will undervalue future rewards or vice versa, just that the two factors have a common underlying genetic cause.”The researchers also found that delay discounting is genetically correlated with smoking initiation. In other words, people who undervalue future rewards may be more likely to start smoking and less likely to quit if they did.Body weight, as determined by body mass index (BMI), was also strongly correlated with delay discounting, suggesting that people who don’t place a high value on future rewards tend to have a higher BMI.The team determined that delay discounting negatively correlated with three cognitive measures: college attainment, years of education and childhood IQ. In other words, the genetic factors that predict delay discounting also predict these outcomes.In many studies that rely on surveys, particularly for those in which the participants are paid to fill out the survey, there’s always a chance that some answered randomly or carelessly. Palmer’s survey included three questions to assess how carefully the research participants were answering the questions. For example, one asked “Would you rather have $60 today or $20 today?” There’s only one correct answer and the team saw only 2.1 percent of participants get even one of those three questions wrong, assuring them that the vast majority were answering the questions carefully.“We are very thankful to the 23andMe research participants who took the time to complete our survey — they weren’t paid to do it, they are citizen-scientists volunteering their help,” Palmer said. “It’s quite a feeling to think that so many people were willing to help out in this interest of ours.”Palmer hopes to expand the study to a larger and more diverse population to strengthen their findings.“An even larger study would help start identifying specific genes with a higher level of confidence,” he said. “Then we can do hypothesis-driven studies of this trait with animal or cellular models.”While most research studies begin in test tubes, cells grown in the laboratory and animal models before moving to humans, the opposite is true here. After starting with these human observations, Palmer’s team is now studying the same delay discounting-related genetic traits in rodent models. They want to determine if changing those genes experimentally changes rodent behavior as expected. If it does, they will be able to use the animals to study how those delay discounting-related genes lead to those behaviors, at a molecular level.last_img read more

Retailers demand monthly rent summit

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

Bench exits five shops

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

Brixton’s £211m industrial spree

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

Vikings vs Chargers: The Good The Bad & The Ugly

first_img About Connatix V56490 1080p HD Auto (360p) About Connatix V56490 What in the world did we just see? We saw a crazy afternoon of football that’s for sure.We saw the Vikings march down the field almost effortlessly on the first drive and then had a tough time scoring touchdowns after that.We saw a Charger team completely implode and turn the ball over a total of SEVEN times in the game. Visit Advertiser website GO TO PAGE Skip center_img 360p We saw a game where Adam Thielen finally played, but you couldn’t really tell he was on the field. (He did play didn’t he?)We saw a stadium with so much purple that it seemed like a home game.We saw a game where the Vikings won 39-10 but generated less offensive yards than the opposition.We saw a very strange game…and that means a strange edition of The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.THE GOOD:The Defense: They played well in both run defense and forcing turnovers. They held the Chargers to 62 rushing yards. That’s really good given the combo of Gordon and Ekeler. And the seven turnovers were the most the Chargers have had in almost 20 years. It was the points off those turnovers that is the concern. More on that coming up.Mike Boone: Alexander Mattison was inactive to start the game. Then Dalvin Cook got hurt early in the 2nd half. So Mike Boone became the next man up and took full advantage of it. He was fast, he was aggressive, he was playing like his football career was on the line. He finished the game with 56 yards and 2 touchdowns on 13 carries.Special Teams: Britton Colquitt only punted twice and they were both great. They averaged 51.5 yards and both were inside the 20 yard line. One was downed on the Chargers 4 yard line. The special teams unit also tipped a Chargers punt which led to the Vikings starting a drive at the Chargers 41 (they turned that into another field goal).Download The 1390 Granite City Sports Mobile AppTHE BAD:First Half Offense: It started with an impressive first drive which resulted in a well executed fake pitch, touchdown pass to Irv Smith. But the Vikings went into the half with a 19-10 lead and almost the same stats as the Chargers except for the turnover stat (3 for LA). Oh and one of those first half touchdowns was a defensive fumble return.Passing Defense: The weakness of this defense is what continues to make me worried. If it wasn’t for all the Chargers turnovers, the Vikings could have easily lost this game. Many times Rivers and company drove down field and passing all over the place. They also converted to many 3rd and long’s into first downs. Thankfully they couldn’t help but want to keep giving the Vikings the ball.Dalvin Cook Injury: Given Cook’s past injury history, I’ve been holding my breath week after week. As the season went on, I started to feel like maybe he would get through it healthy. Then last week, he suffered a minor injury and did not return. But it was all good and he was back this week. Then he got hurt again and did not return. As of now, the severity of the injury is unknown and Coach Zimmer says this is a new injury and not related to the previous one. Hopefully it’s nothing serious and he recovers quickly.THE UGLY:Converting Turnovers Into Touchdowns: It’s really hard to believe that the Chargers actually turned the ball over SEVEN times. It’s also hard to believe that the Vikings only got 20 points off those turnovers. And many of those TO’s came deep inside Charger territory. That’s 2.8 points per turnover…and that is ugly.______________________________________________________________________With a 39-10 win, I should be really happy but I’m just kind of happy. Sure, they got a win that they needed but with all those turnovers, it almost feels like the Vikings were gifted a win. Thankfully the Rams lost so that helps the playoff picture. The Vikings return home next Monday night to take on the Packers. You can hear David Black weekday mornings with ‘David & Alli In The Morning’ on 96.7 The River, Central Minnesota’s Greatest Hits Advertise with UsName*FirstLastEmail*PhoneWebsiteAdditional CommentsCaptchaSubmit 1/1 720p HDlast_img read more