Abstract
Leptin influences eating behavior. Exposure to early adversity is associated with eating behaviour disorders and metabolic syndrome, but the role of the leptin receptor on this relationship is poorly explored. We investigated whether individual differences in brain region specific leptin receptor (LepR) gene networks could moderate the effects of early adversity on eating behavior and metabolism. We created an expression-based polygenic risk score (ePRS) reflecting variations in the function of LepR gene network in prefrontal cortex and hypothalamus to investigate the interactions between a cumulative index of postnatal adversity on eating behavior in two independent birth cohorts (MAVAN and GUSTO). To explore whether variations in the prefrontal cortex or hypothalamic genetic scores could be associated with metabolic measurements, we also assessed the relationship between LepR-ePRS and fasting blood glucose and leptin levels in a third independent cohort (ALSPAC). We identified significant interaction effects between postnatal adversity and prefrontal-based LepR-ePRS on the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire scores. In MAVAN, we observed a significant interaction effect on food enjoyment at 48 months (β = 61.58, p = 0.015) and 72 months (β = 97.78, p = 0.001); food responsiveness at 48 months (β = 83.79, p = 0.009) satiety at 48 months (β = −43.63, p = 0.047). Similar results were observed in the GUSTO cohort, with a significant interaction effect on food enjoyment (β = 30.48, p = 0.006) food fussiness score (β = −24.07, p = 0.02) and satiety score at 60 months (β = −17.00, p = 0.037). No effects were found when focusing on the hypothalamus-based LepR-ePRS on eating behavior in MAVAN and GUSTO cohorts, and there was no effect of hypothalamus and prefrontal cortex based ePRSs on metabolic measures in ALSPAC. Our study indicated that exposure to postnatal adversity interacts with prefrontal cortex LepR-ePRS to moderate eating behavior, suggesting a neurobiological mechanism associated with the development of eating behavior problems in response to early adversity. The knowledge of these mechanisms may guide the understanding of eating patterns associated with risk for obesity in response to fluctuations in stress exposure early in life.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Genes and environment interact to influence resilience and susceptibility to metabolic disorders1. Adverse events occurring early in life are related to distinct phenotypes of eating behavior and overeating, and increased risk for several metabolic diseases during development2. Studies with animal models evaluating the effects of neonatal stress on feeding behavior and body weight regulation have observed that early life stress exposure affects food consumption and eating choices3, and leptin moderates this relationship4.
Leptin is an adipose-tissue-derived hormone involved in physiological processes that include appetite, body weight regulation and emotional behavior5. Leptin also plays an important role in the regulation of glucose metabolism6. Leptin crosses the blood-brain barrier, and its effects on feeding behavior are mediated by receptors located in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (HPT), piriform cortex and hindbrain7,8. In humans and rodents, leptin receptor mRNA has also been identified in the hippocampus, striatum, amygdala and prefrontal cortex (PFC)9. The non-hypothalamic aspect of the leptin network is related to a diversity of functions, not only food intake, but also motivation, learning, memory, cognitive function, and neuroprotection10. In addition to physiological and homeostatic regulations, eating behavior is modulated by hedonic and prefrontal decision-making processes, that have been highly associated with satiety11.
Genetic variations can trigger changes in gene expression or functionality, with associated phenotypic variation and disease susceptibility. Mutations in the leptin receptor gene, for example, have been associated with obesity and pituitary dysfunction12. Several studies are focused on candidate polymorphisms and their biological effects. However, common diseases can include dysfunctions at many levels, including in genes, cells or brain regions, as well as on the feedback between these structures at multiple biological scales13. The analysis of genomic data using a co-expression network of genes that interact on functional pathways allows the investigation of connections with biological mechanisms, integrating genomic data and associated phenotypes14.
Early environment stress can lead to changes in eating behavior and metabolism, and the leptin receptor is tightly involved in these outcomes through its action on the hypothalamus and prefrontal cortex. Our hypothesis is that being exposed to stress during a sensitive period of life induces changes in leptin signaling, which alters eating behavior and metabolism. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether genetic variations that reflect individual differences in gene expression of brain-specific LepR gene network moderate the effects of adversity on eating patterns in children. For this, we constructed expression-based polygenic risk scores that reflect the function of prefrontal cortex or hypothalamus LepR gene networks, based on external mice expression data, and analyzed the effect of their interaction with postnatal adversity on eating behavior of healthy children in different samples. We used the polygenic risk scores to explore variations in metabolic measurements associated with the leptin receptor gene network. We also performed functional enrichment analysis to characterize the biological processes associated with the leptin receptor gene network.
Results
Interaction effects between leptin receptor expression-based polygenic risk score and environmental adversity on eating behavior
In MAVAN cohort, we observed statistically significant interaction effects between the adversity score and the prefrontal cortex-based LepR-ePRS on the following domains of the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ): food enjoyment score at 48 months (β = 61.58, p = 0.015; CI 12.71─110.44) and 72 months (β = 97.78, p = 0.001; CI 39.4─156.17); food responsiveness score at 48 months (β = 83.79, p = 0.009; CI 21.6─146.01), but not 72 months (p > 0.05); satiety score at 48 months (β = −43.63, p = 0.047; CI −86.22 to −1.04) but not 72 months (β = −41.15, p = 0.093; CI −88.91─6.6) (Fig. 1). We also observed a significant main effect of the PFC LepR-ePRS on slowness in eating score at 48 months (β = −71.89, p = 0.026; CI −134.90 to −8.89) and a trend at 72 months (β = −60.92; p = 0.09; CI −132.03─10.18) (Supplementary Fig. 1). No significant main effects or interactions were found on the desire to drink score, emotional over and under eating scores, food fussiness at 48 and 72 months (p > 0.05). Illustrative simple slope analysis using ePRS at mean ± SD showed that increased postnatal adversity exposure is associated with higher satiety (48 months β = 0.13, p = 0.01) and poorer food enjoyment (48 months: β = −0.19, p = 0.0001; 72 months: β = −0.20, p = 0.002) as the LepR-ePRS score decreases, and higher food responsiveness as the LepR-ePRS score increases (48 months β = 0.16, p = 0.02). After correction for multiple testing using Bonferroni-Holm method the interaction analysis on food enjoyment score at 72 months remained significant.
In the GUSTO cohort similar results were found. We observed significant interaction effects between adversity exposure and the prefrontal cortex-based LepR-ePRS on food enjoyment (60 months β = 30.48, p = 0.006; CI 8.65─52.32), food fussiness score (60 months β = −24.07, p = 0.02; CI −44.37 to −3.77) and satiety score (60 months β = −17.00, p = 0.037; CI −32.97 to −1.03). No interaction effects were found in the other domains analyzed, and no main effect of the prefrontal cortex-based LepR-ePRS was observed (p > 0.05). A simple slope analysis using ePRS at mean ± SD showed that increased postnatal adversity exposure is associated with lower satiety responsiveness (β = −0.12, p = 0.0006), as well as with higher enjoyment (β = 0.10, p = 0.02) and lower fussiness (β = −0.12, p = 0.003) as the LepR-ePRS score increases (Fig. 2).
No significant main effect of the HPT LepR-ePRS or interaction effect between the HPT LepR-ePRS and adversity were found on any domains of the CEBQ in either the MAVAN or GUSTO cohorts (p > 0.05, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2), suggesting that the effects of the LepR gene network in response to adversity are specific for the genes composing this network in the PFC.
To analyze whether variations in the PFC or hypothalamic genetic scores are associated with variations in circulating leptin and glucose levels, we used ALSPAC sample. No significant effects of these ePRSs were found on circulating leptin in children at 9.5 years and fasting glucose measurements in children at 8.5 years (PFC LepR-ePRS [Leptin β = 19.53, p = 0.16, N = 3544; Fasting glucose β = 13.80, p = 0.40, N = 688]); HPT LepR-ePRS [Leptin β = −13.93, p = 0.23, N = 3544; Fasting glucose β = −12.45, p = 0.35, N = 688]).
LepR co-expression networks
The Leptin Receptor co-expression network in the PFC was composed by 175 genes, and the network in the HPT was composed by 109 genes. The Cytoscape Software® was used to determine how the genes aggregate in a network (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Fig. 2) and to identify the nodes that could be considered hubs and bottlenecks (Fig. 3a, b). We observed, using String-db, that the gene network in the PFC had more significant protein-protein interactions than in the HPT (PFC: p = 6.24e-06; HPT: p = 1.62e-05).
To better understand the biological functions of the LepR gene network on the prefrontal cortex, we performed several enrichment analyses. MetaCore® (Clarivate Analytics) showed statistically significant gene ontology processes associated with the ePRS score. In the PFC network, biological processes were enriched for nervous system development (FDR q = 4.44e-09), response to lipids (FDR q = 9.32e-08), anatomical structure morphogenesis (FDR q = 1.63e-08), response to nutrient levels (FDR q = 4.72e-08), among others (Supplementary Table 3). Cell type-specific enrichment showed that genes from the PFC LepR network are overexpressed in the amygdala, cortex, and thalamus during early developmental stages (Supplementary Fig. 3). Using PANTHER enrichment analyses, we observed that the PFC LepR gene network is associated with binding, and catalytic activity function regulation (Supplementary Fig. 3). The LepR network in the PFC was also enriched for synaptic components (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Genetic correlations between the SNPs used to create the LepR-ePRS and several GWASes related to lipid metabolism and obesity were found in LD-hub using the PFC scores (Fig. 3d). These results suggest that the PFC LepR network is highly associated with increased risk to the development of metabolic and endocrine disorders. Although our behavioral data were analyzed in childhood, the interaction of this network with adversities in early life can predict children who are vulnerable to emotional eating disorders before the onset of metabolic diseases.
Discussion
We demonstrated that a biologically-informed polygenic score based on genes co-expressed with the leptin receptor in the PFC moderates the association between postnatal adversity and eating behavior patterns. These effects were seen at different ages and in two independent birth cohorts. No significant interactions or main effects were observed using the hypothalamus-based LepR-ePRS, suggesting a brain-region specificity for the LepR gene network in interacting with the environment to predict eating behavior.
The CEBQ was designed to identify different aspects of eating behavior that have been hypothesized to contribute to body weight regulation15. We observed in MAVAN a decrease in food enjoyment and responsivity to food when facing an increase in adversity exposure as the PFC LepR-ePRS decreases. In the GUSTO cohort, we observed that increased postnatal adversity exposure is also related to variations in food enjoyment, with increases in food enjoyment as adversity exposure increases being moderated by LepR-ePRS scores, replicating the results of the MAVAN cohort. Although the significant slope is different between the two cohorts, the interaction seems to tease apart a group of children that responds to adversity with obesogenic behaviors (higher LepR-ePRS score) and another group that responds to adversity with a more anorexic pattern (lower LepR-ePRS score). These two domains, food responsiveness and food enjoyment, reflect eating in response to environmental food cues16. Appetite and eating rate are increased in overweight or obese children16,17. Stress exposure increases the appetite for sweet foods, and studies with animals have reported that the type, duration or severity of stress may modify responses to stress18. Stress also has an effect on food choices. Most stressed individuals show preferences for palatable and calorie-enriched foods19. In animal models, chronic stress leads to increased ingestion of sweet food20. Previous work has established that leptin acts as a moderator of the relationship between stress exposure and altered eating behavior, possibly due to its action in the brain circuits related to hedonic and homeostatic controls of appetite11. Animal studies of stress exposure and food intake suggest that the effect of stress exposure on body weight gain and food intake is mediated by a reduction in NPY3, a peptide regulated by peripheral leptin and ghrelin5. In humans, Tomiyama and colleagues have demonstrated that, although humans and animals eat palatable foods after stress, an immediate higher leptin response to a stressor was related to less consumption of both high fat and high sugar food4. Our study supports previous findings and highlights how a whole network of genes co-expressed with the leptin receptor in the PFC interacts with environmental adversity to influence eating behavior.
Satiety responsiveness was affected by the interaction between the LepR gene network and environmental adversity in both cohorts and at different ages. Satiety represents the ability of a child to reduce food intake after eating, to regulate energy intake. Infants tend to be highly responsive to internal hunger and satiety cues, whereas this level of responsiveness decreases with advancing age16. Thus, children will gradually lose the ability to effectively self-regulate energy intake21 as we observed in satiety outcomes measured at 72 months. Once again, when comparing the two cohorts we see that, despite the fact that the statistically significant simple slope is different in the two samples, the interaction is able to identify a group of children that respond to adversity with less satiety (higher LepR-ePRS score) and another group that responds to adversity with more satiety (lower LepR-ePRS score). Our study contributes to both identifying and characterizing phenotypes associated with vulnerability to obesogenic and anorexic tendencies when facing adversity in children.
Food fussiness is usually defined as rejection of a substantial amount of familiar foods as well as novel foods, thus leading to the consumption of an inadequate variety of foods. This type of eating behavior is characterized by a lack of interest in food, and slowness in eating22. The interaction between exposure to adversity and the LepR-ePRS also modulated fussiness behavior, and this result was observed mainly in the GUSTO cohort. Additionally, we observed an ePRS main effect on slowness to eat, with a lower ePRS being associated with greater slowness to eat, which corroborates the other results found in both cohorts. High scores on the slowness in eating scale are characterized by a reduction in eating rate as a consequence of a lack of enjoyment and interest in food. Obese children show increased food consumption, with less of a reduction in the eating rate towards the end of a meal22. However, it is important to note that this effect was not associated with response to adversity.
Provided that leptin is an essential regulator of homeostasis23, improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipolysis through its action on adipocytes24, we wanted to explore if the ePRS scores representing the prefrontal and hypothalamic leptin gene networks would be associated with variations in peripheral metabolic markers, using the ALSPAC cohort. Our data demonstrated that fasting glucose and leptin did not vary according to variations in these gene networks, suggesting that the reported effects on eating behavior are likely due to specific effects of the leptin receptor gene network in the central nervous system, and not through modulation of the peripheral metabolism. It is well known that leptin plays a role in the regulation of glucose metabolism and homeostasis, independently of its effect on energy balance6. Variations in the LepR-ePRS in the PFC or HPT did not associate with any changes in peripheral metabolic biomarkers, hence the changes seen with regards to eating behavior must be due to the central action of the PFC LepR gene network.
Energy balance is a process regulated by the central nervous system and peripheral organs. The gastrointestinal tract is responsible for the digestion and absorption of nutrients but also sends information to the brain about the perception of gastrointestinal fullness and satiety25. Adipose tissue releases hormones that act in the brain to regulate feeding behavior and body weight. The hypothalamus detects and integrates the metabolic signals from fat stores, stimulating or inhibiting food consumption according to energy balance10. However, eating behavior is stimulated not only by hunger, but also by hedonic sensations associated with feeding behavior, as well as motivation and inhibitory/decision-making processes. Knowing that the PFC is an important region involved in the modulation of these processes26, the results found in this study may be associated with the modulation of motivation to feed through the central action of genes co-expressed with leptin in this region. The hypothalamus is more involved in the control of food intake and homeostasis, and the HPT-based gene network used here may be less able to moderate the influence of adversity on food behavior, given the importance of hypothalamic processes for survival. In addition, the LepR gene network created in the hypothalamus was not filtered by genes overexpressed early in life, which could affect the outcomes analyzed, since postnatal adversity may influence specifically the genes overexpressed in the developing brain at the time when adversity is occurring. Also, the HPT network of genes co-expressed with LepR was a less integrated network when compared to the PFC network.
Evidence suggests that food consumption and eating choices in response to stress exposure are moderated by circulating leptin4,27. For example, higher serum leptin concentrations are associated with a decrease in snack intake following a stress situation28, suggesting that leptin is associated with greater palatability for snacks, as observed in our results in the food responsiveness score. In addition, leptin modulates brain networks that influence reward and motivation6,7. Much of the motivation to obtain food occurs by the activation of the limbic system, prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental area11. The mesolimbic dopaminergic system is the most involved in the control of pleasure and reward11. Studies indicate that the regulation of the dopaminergic system in the prefrontal cortex is related to the risk for obesity, being mediated by the D2 receptor26. Pathways between the hypothalamus and the mesolimbic system form a functional network for food control. Leptin acts directly on this system, suppressing food consumption and modulating the activity of dopaminergic neurons29.
The two brain regions analyzed here have different roles in regulating eating behaviors, consequently the two genetic scores also represent very specific gene networks. DYRK2 (dual-specificity tyrosine-(Y)-phosphorylation regulated kinase 2) is the only common gene between the PFC and HPT-based genetic scores. We validated our LepR network using several approaches, especially by demonstrating its brain-region specificity. The ePRS method is a reliable approach that goes beyond finding an association between genetic variants and phenotypes2. Gene coexpression networks offer information on a functional genomic scale, and have the potential to highlight molecular mechanisms associated with specific behaviors in response to environmental variation. Interestingly, one of the hub genes in the PFC LepR gene network is AKT1. This gene is one of three closely related serine/threonine-protein kinases (AKT1, AKT2, and AKT3) called AKT kinase, that regulates many processes including metabolism, proliferation, cell survival, growth and angiogenesis30. Leptin activates the PI3K/AKT pathway, and inhibition of this pathway in the brain prevents the induction of leptin anorexia30,31. The presence of this gene in the leptin receptor gene network demonstrates the importance of analyzing genes co-expressed with the target gene, since much of the effects of the network are modulated by hub genes.
It is valuable to note some limitations in our study. First, its important to keep in mind that Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx), used to calculate the ePRS, is based mostly on Caucasian participants, and therefore the effect size of the association between alleles and gene expression, as well as allele frequencies, may be different in other ancestries. In that sense, results seen in GUSTO, a Singapore based cohort, may not be as accurate as in the Caucasian samples. Despite this limitation, findings in GUSTO were aligned with the findings observed in MAVAN. Additionally, we observed in the MAVAN cohort that the interactions between the LepR-ePRS and the adversity score are more noticeable at 48 months of age. Evidence shows that during childhood, children experience a critical period for the development of behavioral control of food intake, progressively establishing dietary intake patterns, eating habits, and food preferences32,33. Therefore, it can be challenging to identify differences in the same scales throughout development, although some tendencies can be observed. Finally, the CEBQ is a parent-based questionnaire15, and several individual characteristics, such as culture and eating habits, could influence the parent’s perception of children’s eating behavior. In our study, we included cohorts of very different food cultures. Nonetheless, the interaction between LepR-ePRS and the postnatal adversity score influencing the eating behavior of children could be observed in both cohorts.
Our data supports the hypothesis that the PFC leptin receptor gene network moderates the effects of postnatal adversity on eating behavior. The findings show the possibility of exploring how different brain gene networks involved with leptin signaling and their interactions with the environment influence the neurobiological basis of eating. The knowledge of these mechanisms may help us to understand eating patterns associated with risk for obesity in response to fluctuations in stress exposure early in life, and inform on preventive and therapeutic practices.
Methods
Study design and participants
We used data from the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment Project (MAVAN), a prospective birth cohort, that followed children at different time points in the first years of life in Montreal (Quebec), and Hamilton (Ontario), Canada34. Eligibility criteria for mothers included aged 18 years or above, singleton gestation, and fluency in French or English. Exclusion criteria included severe maternal chronic illness, placenta previa, and history of incompetent cervix, impending delivery, or a fetus/infant affected by a major anomaly or born at a gestational age less than 37 weeks and birth weight <2000g. Birth records were obtained directly from the birthing units. Approval for the MAVAN project was obtained from obstetricians performing deliveries at the study hospitals and by the ethics committees and university affiliates (McGill University and Université de Montréal, the Royal Victoria Hospital, Jewish General Hospital, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal and Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont) and St Joseph’s Hospital and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Informed consent was obtained from all participants34.
The Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) cohort35 is based in Singapore and was used as a replication cohort. In GUSTO, pregnant women aged 18 years and above were recruited at the National University Hospital (NUH) and KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH), being of Chinese, Malay or Indian ethnicity, with homogeneous parental ethnic background. Mothers receiving chemotherapy, psychotropic drugs or who had type I diabetes mellitus were excluded. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant35.
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)36,37 was used for additional analyses. The ALSPAC is a cohort that recruited pregnant women living in the county of Avon in the United Kingdom36,37. This cohort was used to analyze the effect of LepR-ePRS on leptin and fasting glucose in children aged 9.5 and 8.5 years. All pregnant women (N = 14,541 + n = 913 enrolled at later phases, N = 15,454 total) residing in that part of the old administrative county of Avon were eligible to participate in ALSPAC if the estimated delivery date (EDD) fell between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1992. Ethical approval of the ALSPAC study was obtained from the Ethics and Law Committee and Local Research Ethics Committees. A full list of the ethics committees that approved different aspects of the ALSPAC studies is available at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/research-ethics/. Consent for the use of biological samples was collected in accordance with the Human Tissue Act (2004). From the pregnancy index, over a period of about 20 years, women and children were followed up with questionnaires and assessments of metabolic, cognitive and psychological functions. Data were collected during clinic visits or with postal questionnaires. The ALSPAC study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/. Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time.
Genotyping
In MAVAN, autosomal SNPs were genotyped using genome-wide platforms (PsychArray/PsychChip, Illumina) according to manufacturer’s guidelines with 200 ng of genomic DNA derived from buccal epithelial cells. SNPs with a low call rate (<95%), low p-values on Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) exact test (p < 1e-40), and minor allele frequency (MAF < 5%) were removed, leaving 242,211 SNPs after the QC procedure. Afterward, imputation using the Sanger Imputation Service38 and the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) as the reference panel (release 1.1) was performed and autosomal SNPs with an info score >0.80 were retained for the analysis, resulting in 20,790,893 SNPs. Quality control procedure was carried out using PLINK 1.95139. Samples with a call rate less than 90% were removed.
In GUSTO, SNPs were genotyped using the Illumina OmniExpress + exome array. The data was split on three set by ethnicity and quality control procedure was carried out separately on each subset. Non-autosomal SNPs, SNPs with call rates <95%, or minor allele frequency <5%, or those that failed Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium were excluded from the analysis. Variants discordant with their respective subpopulation in the 1000 Genomes Project40 reference panel were removed (Chinese: EAS with a threshold of 0.20; Malays: EAS with a threshold of 0.30; Indian: SAS with a threshold of 0.20). Samples with call rate <99%, cryptic relatedness and sex/ ethnic discrepancies were excluded. The resulting data were pre-phased using SHAPEIT v2.837 with family trio information. We then used Sanger Imputation Service for imputation, choosing 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 as reference panel and imputed “with PBWT, no pre-phasing” (the Positional Burrows Wheeler Transform algorithm) as the pipeline. Imputed data that were non-monomorphic, had biallelic SNPs and an INFO score > 0.80 were retained. Imputed genotyping data that were common in all three ethnicities (5,771,259 SNPs) were used for further analyses.
Children in ALSPAC were genotyped using the Illumina HumanHap550 quad genome-wide SNP genotyping platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, US) by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (Cambridge, UK) and the Laboratory Corporation of America (Burlington, NC, US)41. The following quality control procedure was applied: participants with inconsistencies in self-reported and genotyped sex, minimal or extreme heterozygosity, high levels of individual missingness (>3%), and insufficient sample replication (IBD < 0.8) were excluded. SNPs with a MAF of <1%, a call rate of <95%, or those not in HWE (p < 5 × 10−7) were removed. Imputation was conducted using Impute v3 and Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) imputation reference panel (release 1.1). The resulting data set consisted of 38,898,739 SNPs available for analysis.
Procedures
The expression-based polygenic risk score was created for the prefrontal cortex and the hypothalamus, considering genes co-expressed with the leptin receptor gene (LepR-ePRS), according to the protocol described by Silveira et al.2,42,43. The genetic score for the leptin receptor gene network in the prefrontal cortex was created using different tools. GeneNetwork (http://genenetwork.org) was used to generate a list of genes co-expressed with LepR in the PFC in mice. Only genes with an absolute value of the co-expression correlation index higher or equal to 0.5 were kept. Direction of the co-expression was accounted for in ePRS. The list of genes was converted to human genes and then, the BrainSpan (http://www.brainspan.org) was used to identify transcripts from this list with enrichment within the human PFC during early development. Since we were interested in gene networks that were active during early developmental periods (when adversity occurred), we retained only the genes overexpressed in early life in comparison to adulthood (25 weeks gestation to 18 months postnatal in comparison to 20–40 year old adults), selecting genes that were differentially expressed in PFC at ≥1.5 fold during this period of development44. Based on their functional annotation in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine (NCBI Variation Viewer), using GRCh37.p13, we gathered all the existing SNPs from these genes, and merged this list with SNPs from the GTEx data in human PFC. The list of common SNPs was subjected to linkage disequilibrium clumping (r2 < 0.25). Alleles at a given cis-SNP were weighted by the estimated effect of the genotype associated with gene expression (expression quantitative trait loci from GTEx, in which the effect allele is the alternative allele). For more information, see Hari Dass et al., 201945. The summation of these values from the total number of SNPs provides the PFC ePRS-LepR score. Please see Fig. 4. Our final list of genes included 175 genes (Supplementary Data 1). Each ePRS was constructed separately for each study cohort, including all the SNPs existent in the gene network and according to SNPs available in that sample.
The genetic score for the leptin receptor gene network in the hypothalamus was created using the GeneNetwork (http://genenetwork.org) to identify the genes co-expressed with LepR in the HPT in mice (correlation r higher or equal to 0.5 were kept). The list of genes was converted to human genes. Since BrainSpan has no information about the hypothalamus, we gathered all the existing SNPs from these genes, and merged this list with SNPs from the GTEx data in the human HPT. The list of common SNPs was subjected to linkage disequilibrium clumping (r2 < 0.25), the SNPs were weighted by the SNP-gene expression association slope from the Genotype-Tissue Expression project, data specific to the hypothalamus. Alleles at a given cis-SNP were weighted by the estimated effect of the genotype associated with gene expression (expression quantitative trait loci from GTEx, in which the effect allele is the alternative allele). The final list of genes for the HPT ePRS-LepR score included 109 genes (Supplementary Data 2). The complete list of SNPs used to calculate the ePRS in each cohort can be found in Supplementary Data 3. The PFC LepR-ePRS consisted of 2569 SNPs in MAVAN and 1442 SNPs in GUSTO cohorts and the HPT LepR-ePRS had 1574 SNPs in MAVAN and 679 SNPs in GUSTO, respectively. Figure 4 illustrates the steps involved in the creation of the ePRS for both brain regions.
To validate the gene network used to create the LepR-ePRS, we performed several enrichment analyses using the entire human genome as the background gene set. We used the MetaCore® (https://portal.genego.com) to investigate gene ontology processes, sets as provided by GeneGO (relevant genes in the human genome)46. STRING database47 was used to performed analyze functional interactions between the proteins from our list LepR-ePRS, co-expressed genes. We used the STRING data to visualize the LepR-ePRS, co-expressed gene network using Cytoscape Software®48, Numerical data at supplementary Data 4 (Fig. 3). The topological properties of the gene network were also calculated using the Cytoscape Software® data. Degrees are calculated by summing the number of adjacent nodes, giving information about the local topology, while betweenness considers the number of shortest paths linking two nodes and passing through a node n. Nodes with degrees higher than + 1 SD above the mean were considered hubs, and nodes with betweenness higher than + 1 SD above the mean were considered bottlenecks, and were identified as central nodes within the network49,50,51. Gene Ontology was also accessed using the PANTHER tool52, using a whole genome function view. Cell Type-Specific Expression Analysis tool (CSEA)53 was used to the identify the localization of genes co-expressed with the LepR-ePRS gene network in human brain regions throughout development. We finally used the SynGO tool54 (Synaptic Gene Ontologies and annotations) the to characterize synaptic process associated with the Leptin receptor gene network. LD score regression was used to investigate genetic correlations between SNPs used to create the LepR-ePRS and SNPs associated with diseases or traits through LD Hub55,56.
Postnatal adversity score
The postnatal adversity score was created using a measure combining multiple indicators of adversity, and the presence of each component yielded 1 point (Table 1). The total score represents the summation of all points. The instruments used as indicators of postnatal adversity in MAVAN cohort included:
Health and well-being questionnaire: This questionnaire is a composite of validated short versions of many measures57: (a) A subscale from the Daily Hassles was used to measure how often, and to what degree, the woman has lacked money for basic needs (food, heating and electricity) since the beginning of pregnancy58. (b) The Marital Strain Scale of Pearlin and Schooler was used to assess chronic stress with the romantic partner. The nine items represent the three items with the highest factor loadings for each of the three factors contributing to the measure of marital strain59. (c) The Abuse Assessment Screen was used to assess conjugal violence. This five-item instrument assesses the frequency, severity, perpetrator, and body sites of injury60,61. (d) Questions about anxiety during pregnancy62,63.
Smoking during pregnancy: Composed of yes or no questions;
Household gross income: according to ref. 64;
Birth weight and gestational age: birth records were obtained directly from the birthing unit. Birth weight percentiles were calculated using the local ref. 65. Child Health Questionnaire: Includes questions on acute and chronic conditions, as well as hospitalizations66. Maternal mental health: information was extracted from different questionnaires. Beck Depression Inventory, is a 21-question multiple-choice self-report inventory, one of the most widely used psychometric tests for measuring the severity of depression67. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a 10-item self-report scale designed to screen for postpartum depression68. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), a self-report questionnaire that consists of two forms of 20 items each to measure psychic components of state and trait anxiety69.
Attachment: The Preschool Separation – Reunion Procedure (PSRP) was applied at 36 months. The PSRP is a modified and developmentally appropriate version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation used to measure attachment security in preschool-aged children70. The task consists of a baseline interaction, followed by two separation and reunion episodes lasting 5 min; scoring was based on video coding (reliability k = 0.83). Four categories were assessed: secure, ambivalent, avoidant and disorganized attachment. Family Assessment Device: a 60-item self-report instrument developed to assess the six dimensions of family functioning outlined in the McMaster Model of Family Functioning71. The first six scales assess problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement and behavior control. A general functioning scale assesses overall health-pathology72. In GUSTO, the tools were also similar, although there was no information on attachment, domestic violence, lack of money, pregnancy anxiety, and marital strains.
Outcomes
The Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ)15 was used to evaluate the child’s eating behavior. This questionnaire has eight scales and thirty-five questions related to eating styles and satiety. Domains include Desire to Drink, Satiety Responsiveness, Emotional overeating, Emotional undereating, Enjoyment of Food, Food Responsiveness, Slowness in Eating and Food Fussiness15. Parents of 143 children at the age of 48 and 72 months (MAVAN, main cohort) and 467 at the age of 60 months (GUSTO, replication cohort) were answered the CEBQ questions.
To explore whether variations in the PFC or hypothalamic genetic scores could be associated with variations in circulating leptin and glucose levels measurements we used the ALSPAC cohort. The Before Breakfast Study in ALSPAC was used to access leptin and fasting glucose from children aged 9.5 and 8.5 years. Plasma glucose was measured using a glucose oxidase test (Y.S.I., Lynchford House, Farnborough, Hants, UK)73. Non fasting blood samples from children were collected and samples spun immediately and frozen at −80 °C. Leptin levels were measured by an in‐house ELISA validated against commercial methods74,75.
Statistics and reproducibility
Data were analyzed using R (version 4.1.1). Two-sided significance levels for all measures were set at P < 0.05, and confidence intervals (CI) were reported at 95%. Linear regressions were used to examine the effects of interactions between the polygenic scores with the adversity score on the behavioral outcomes (CEBQ). Sex and population stratification principal components were included as covariates. Simple slope analyses were conducted to identify post-hoc differences for the statistically significant interactions.
The population structure of the MAVAN, GUSTO and ALSPAC cohorts were evaluated using principal component analysis of all autosomal SNPs that passed the quality control without low allele frequency (MAF > 5%) and that were not in high linkage disequilibrium (r2 > 0.2) across 50 kb regions, and a sliding window of 5 SNPs for MAVAN and GUSTO cohorts, and not in high linkage disequilibrium across 100-kilobase region, an increment of 5 SNPs, and variance inflation factor threshold of 1.01 for ALSPAC cohort. Based on the inspection of the scree plot, the first principal components were the most informative concerning population structure in the cohorts and were included in all subsequent analyses76,77. Supplementary Figs. 4–6.
Differences in means on the main confounding variables of the study were tested using Student’s t-test for categorical variables or correlations test for continuous variables. No differences were found in regarding to the main confounding variables in both cohorts (Supplementary Tables 4–6). A descriptive statistic for the domains of the CEBQ questionnaire in the cohorts are reported in the Supplementary material.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
Data from MAVAN can be made available upon request to the corresponding author, due to ethical restrictions. The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. A project description and scientific reasoning will be needed for data request. Data From GUSTO can be requested at (https://gustodatavault.sg/). Data from ALSPAC can be requested at (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/).
Code availability
The pipeline for ePRS calculation is available on: https://github.com/SilveiraLab/LepR-ePRS. Custom code is available on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7041982.
References
Gillespie, C. F., Phifer, J., Bradley, B. & Ressler, K. J. Risk and resilience: genetic and environmental influences on development of the stress response. Depress Anxiety 26, 984–992 (2009).
Silveira, P. P. et al. Cumulative prenatal exposure to adversity reveals associations with a broad range of neurodevelopmental outcomes that are moderated by a novel, biologically informed polygenetic score based on the serotonin transporter solute carrier family C6, member 4 (SLC6A4) gene expression. Dev. Psychopathol. 29, 1601–1617 (2017).
Wertheimer, G. S., Girardi, C. E., de Oliveira, A. S., Monteiro Longo, B. & Suchecki, D. Maternal deprivation alters growth, food intake, and neuropeptide Y in the hypothalamus of adolescent male and female rats. Dev. Psychobiol. 58, 1066–1075 (2016).
Tomiyama, A. J. et al. Leptin concentrations in response to acute stress predict subsequent intake of comfort foods. Physiol. Behav. 107, 34–39 (2012).
Friedman, J. M. & Halaas, J. L. Leptin and the regulation of body weight in mammals. Nature 395, 763–770 (1998).
Fernandez-Formoso, G., Perez-Sieira, S., Gonzalez-Touceda, D., Dieguez, C. & Tovar, S. Leptin, 20 years of searching for glucose homeostasis. Life Sci. 140, 4–9 (2015).
Grill, H. J. et al. Evidence that the caudal brainstem is a target for the inhibitory effect of leptin on food intake. Endocrinology 143, 239–246 (2002).
Satoh, N. et al. The arcuate nucleus as a primary site of satiety effect of leptin in rats. Neurosci. Lett. 224, 149–152 (1997).
Couce, M. E., Burguera, B., Parisi, J. E., Jensen, M. D. & Lloyd, R. V. Localization of leptin receptor in the human brain. Neuroendocrinology 66, 145–150 (1997).
Morrison, C. D. Leptin signaling in brain: A link between nutrition and cognition? Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1792, 401–408 (2009).
Berridge, K. C. ‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: brain substrates and roles in eating disorders. Physiol. Behav. 97, 537–550 (2009).
Dehghani, M. R. et al. Potential role of gender specific effect of leptin receptor deficiency in an extended consanguineous family with severe early-onset obesity. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 61, 465–467 (2018).
Gaiteri, C., Ding, Y., French, B., Tseng, G. C. & Sibille, E. Beyond modules and hubs: the potential of gene coexpression networks for investigating molecular mechanisms of complex brain disorders. Genes Brain Behav. 13, 13–24 (2014).
Ramanan, V. K., Shen, L., Moore, J. H. & Saykin, A. J. Pathway analysis of genomic data: concepts, methods, and prospects for future development. Trends Genet. 28, 323–332 (2012).
Wardle, J., Guthrie, C. A., Sanderson, S. & Rapoport, L. Development of the Children’s Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42, 963–970 (2001).
Carnell, S. & Wardle, J. Measuring behavioural susceptibility to obesity: validation of the child eating behaviour questionnaire. Appetite 48, 104–113 (2007).
Brydon, L. Adiposity, leptin and stress reactivity in humans. Biol. Psychol. 86, 114–120 (2011).
Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., Fulton, S., Wilson, M., Petrovich, G. & Rinaman, L. Stress exposure, food intake and emotional state. Stress 18, 381–399 (2015).
Tomiyama, A. J., Dallman, M. F. & Epel, E. S. Comfort food is comforting to those most stressed: evidence of the chronic stress response network in high stress women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 1513–1519 (2011).
Ryu, V., Yoo, S. B., Kang, D. W., Lee, J. H. & Jahng, J. W. Post-weaning isolation promotes food intake and body weight gain in rats that experienced neonatal maternal separation. Brain Res. 1295, 127–134 (2009).
Cecil, J. E. et al. Energy intakes of children after preloads: adjustment, not compensation. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 82, 302–308 (2005).
Sleddens, E. F., Kremers, S. P. & Thijs, C. The children’s eating behaviour questionnaire: factorial validity and association with Body Mass Index in Dutch children aged 6-7. Int J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 5, 49 (2008).
Triantafyllou, G. A., Paschou, S. A. & Mantzoros, C. S. Leptin and hormones: energy homeostasis. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. North Am. 45, 633–645 (2016).
Siegrist-Kaiser, C. A. et al. Direct effects of leptin on brown and white adipose tissue. J. Clin. Invest. 100, 2858–2864 (1997).
Ahima, R. S. & Antwi, D. A. Brain regulation of appetite and satiety. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. North Am. 37, 811–823 (2008).
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S. & Telang, F. Overlapping neuronal circuits in addiction and obesity: evidence of systems pathology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 3191–3200 (2008).
Torres, S. J. & Nowson, C. A. Relationship between stress, eating behavior, and obesity. Nutrition 23, 887–894 (2007).
Appelhans, B. M. Circulating leptin moderates the effect of stress on snack intake independent of body mass. Eat. Behav. 11, 152–155 (2010).
Timper, K. & Bruning, J. C. Hypothalamic circuits regulating appetite and energy homeostasis: pathways to obesity. Dis. Model Mech. 10, 679–689 (2017).
Park, H. K. & Ahima, R. S. Leptin signaling. F1000Prime Rep. 6, 73 (2014).
Park, H. K. & Ahima, R. S. Physiology of leptin: energy homeostasis, neuroendocrine function and metabolism. Metabolism 64, 24–34 (2015).
Skinner, J. D., Carruth, B. R., Wendy, B. & Ziegler, P. J. Children’s food preferences: a longitudinal analysis. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 102, 1638–1647 (2002).
Savage, J. S., Rollins, B. Y., Kugler, K. C., Birch, L. L. & Marini, M. E. Development of a theory-based questionnaire to assess structure and control in parent feeding (SCPF). Int J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 14, 9 (2017).
O’Donnell, K. A. et al. The maternal adversity, vulnerability and neurodevelopment project: theory and methodology. Can. J. Psychiatry 59, 497–508 (2014).
Soh, S. E. et al. Insights from the growing up in Singapore Towards Healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) cohort study. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 64, 218–225 (2014).
Boyd, A. et al. Cohort Profile: the ‘children of the 90s’-the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J. Epidemiol. 42, 111–127 (2013).
Fraser, A. et al. Cohort Profile: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42, 97–110 (2013).
McCarthy, S. et al. A reference panel of 64,976 haplotypes for genotype imputation. Nat. Genet. 48, 1279–1283 (2016).
Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).
Genomes Project, C. et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).
Richmond, R. C. et al. Using genetic variation to explore the causal effect of maternal pregnancy adiposity on future offspring adiposity: a Mendelian Randomisation Study. PLoS Med. 14, e1002221 (2017).
Miguel, P. M. et al. Methylphenidate administration reverts attentional inflexibility in adolescent rats submitted to a model of neonatal hypoxia-ischemia: Predictive validity for ADHD study. Exp. Neurol. 315, 88–99 (2019).
de Lima, R. M. S. et al. Amygdala 5-HTT gene network moderates the effects of postnatal adversity on attention problems: anatomo-functional correlation and epigenetic changes. Front. Neurosci. 14, 198 (2020).
Miller, J. A. et al. Transcriptional landscape of the prenatal human brain. Nature 508, 199–206 (2014).
Hari Dass, S. A. et al. A biologically-informed polygenic score identifies endophenotypes and clinical conditions associated with the insulin receptor function on specific brain regions. EBioMedicine 42, 188–202 (2019).
Stumpfe, D., Hoch, A. & Bajorath, J. Introducing the metacore concept for multi-target ligand design. RSC Med. Chem. 12, 628–635 (2021).
Franceschini, A. et al. STRING v9.1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D808–D815 (2013).
Saito, R. et al. A travel guide to Cytoscape plugins. Nat. Methods 9, 1069–1076 (2012).
Neves de Oliveira, B. H., Dalmaz, C. & Zeidan-Chulia, F. Network-based identification of altered stem cell pluripotency and calcium signaling pathways in metastatic melanoma. Med. Sci. 6, 23 (2018).
Yu, H., Kim, P. M., Sprecher, E., Trifonov, V. & Gerstein, M. The importance of bottlenecks in protein networks: correlation with gene essentiality and expression dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e59 (2007).
Dalmaz, C. et al. Prefrontal cortex VAMP1 gene network moderates the effect of the early environment on cognitive flexibility in children. Neurobiol. Learn Mem. 185, 107509 (2021).
Mi, H. et al. Protocol Update for large-scale genome and gene function analysis with the PANTHER classification system (v.14.0). Nat. Protoc. 14, 703–721 (2019).
Xu, X., Wells, A. B., O’Brien, D. R., Nehorai, A. & Dougherty, J. D. Cell type-specific expression analysis to identify putative cellular mechanisms for neurogenetic disorders. J. Neurosci. 34, 1420–1431 (2014).
Koopmans, F. et al. SynGO: an evidence-based, expert-curated knowledge base for the synapse. Neuron 103, 217–234.e214 (2019).
Zheng, J. et al. LD Hub: a centralized database and web interface to perform LD score regression that maximizes the potential of summary level GWAS data for SNP heritability and genetic correlation analysis. Bioinformatics 33, 272–279 (2017).
Bulik-Sullivan, B. et al. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat. Genet. 47, 1236–1241 (2015).
Kramer, M. S. et al. Socio-economic disparities in preterm birth: causal pathways and mechanisms. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 15, 104–123 (2001).
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C. & Lazarus, R. S. Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J. Behav. Med. 4, 1–39 (1981).
Pearlin, L. I. & Schooler, C. The structure of coping. J. Health Soc. Behav. 19, 2–21 (1978).
Newberger, E. H. et al. Abuse of pregnant women and adverse birth outcome. Current knowledge and implications for practice. JAMA 267, 2370–2372 (1992).
Parker, B., McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Torres, S. & Campbell, D. Physical and emotional abuse in pregnancy: a comparison of adult and teenage women. Nurs. Res. 42, 173–178 (1993).
Lobel, M. & Dunkel-schetter, C. Conceptualizing stress to study effects on health: Environmental, perceptual, and emotional components. Anxiety Res. 3, 213–230 (1990).
Lobel, M., Dunkel-Schetter, C. & Scrimshaw, S. C. Prenatal maternal stress and prematurity: a prospective study of socioeconomically disadvantaged women. Health Psychol. 11, 32–40 (1992).
Daveluy, C., Pica, L., Audet, N., Courtemanche, R. & Lapoint et autres, F. Enquête sociale et de santé 1998, 2e édn (Institut de la statistique du Québec, Québec, 2000).
Kramer, M. S. et al. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics 108, E35 (2001).
Plante, N., Courtemanche, R. & Desgroseilliers, L. Survey Description and Methodology - Part II – Statistical Methodology – Longitudinal Aspects of the First Three Rounds 1998 to 2000. In Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD 1998–2002) – From Birth to 29 Months, vol. 2 (Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québe, 2002).
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. & Erbaugh, J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 4, 561–571 (1961).
Cox, J. L., Holden, J. M. & Sagovsky, R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 150, 782–786 (1987).
Spielberger C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E. Vagg P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y). p. 4–6 (Consult Psychol Palo Alto 1983).
Cassidy, J. & Marvin, R. S. Attachment Organization in Three and Four Year Olds: Procedures and Coding Manual. Unpublished manuscript (University of Virginia, 1992).
Moss, E., Bureau, J. F., Cyr, C., Mongeau, C. & St-Laurent, D. Correlates of attachment at age 3: construct validity of the preschool attachment classification system. Dev. Psychol. 40, 323–334 (2004).
Kabacoff, R. I., Miller, I. W., Bishop, D. S., Epstein, N. B. & Keitner, G. I. A psychometric study of the McMaster Family Assessment Device in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samples. J. Fam. Psychol. 3, 431–439 (1990).
Bonilla, C. et al. Maternal and offspring fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes-associated genetic variants and cognitive function at age 8: a Mendelian randomization study in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. BMC Med. Genet. 13, 90 (2012).
Wallace, A. M. et al. Plasma leptin and the risk of cardiovascular disease in the west of Scotland coronary prevention study (WOSCOPS). Circulation 104, 3052–3056 (2001).
Falaschetti, E. et al. Adiposity and cardiovascular risk factors in a large contemporary population of pre-pubertal children. Eur. Heart J. 31, 3063–3072 (2010).
Price, A. L. et al. Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 38, 904–909 (2006).
Wray, N. R. et al. Research review: polygenic methods and their application to psychiatric traits. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 55, 1068–1087 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives and obstetricians, for their help in recruiting them, and the whole MAVAN, GUSTO, and ALSPAC teams, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists and nurses. This research was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, PJT-166066, PI Silveira PP), the JPB Foundation through a grant to the JPB Research Network on Toxic Stress: A Project of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, and Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES). Dr. Levitan acknowledges support from the Cameron Holcombe Wilson Chair in Depression studies, CAMH and University of Toronto. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/19Z//Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and Patricia Pelufo Silveira will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.M.S.L.: designed experiments, performed enrichment analysis, analyzed the results, and wrote the manuscript. S.P. calculated the ePRS scores. Z.W., I.P., C.P., and E.J.M.F. performed statistical analysis. B.B., D.M.A., C.D., and A.P.S.V.B. analyzed the results and wrote the manuscript with R.M.S.L. M.J.M., R.D.L., and M.S.K. contributed with important intellectual content and edits on the final version of the manuscript. P.P.S.: designed the experiments, analyzed the results, wrote the manuscript, and contributed with intellectual content and edits of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Biology thanks Xiao Chang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Hamid Alinejad Rokny and George Inglis.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
de Lima, R.M.S., Barth, B., Mar Arcego, D. et al. Leptin receptor co-expression gene network moderates the effect of early life adversity on eating behavior in children. Commun Biol 5, 1092 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03992-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03992-8
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.