New genetic test could predict if you'll get condition suffered by 100million Americans decades before it develops
A group of 600 researchers worldwide compiled genetic data from 5million people, the largest and most diverse dataset to date.
They used that data to create a polygenic risk score, a person's genetic predisposition for a specific disease. In this case, it determined the odds of having a higher body mass index (BMI) in adulthood.
The team found the score could be used to predict a person's risk of becoming obese as an adult - even for people as young as five years old. This could be instrumental for early intervention and preventing obesity - and its coexisting conditions.
Ruth Loos, study co-author and professor at the University of Copenhagen's Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, said: 'Childhood is the best time to intervene.'
The score also was found to be up to twice as effective as those used in doctors offices based on factors like high blood pressure, heart disease, diet and exercise.
Additionally, researchers found people with high polygenic risk scores were also more likely to regain weight after losing it through diet and exercise compared to those with lower scores.
Loos added: 'Obesity is not only about genetics, so genetics alone can never accurately predict obesity.
'For the general obesity that we see all over the world, we need other factors such as lifestyle that need to be part of the predictions.'
The findings come as more than 40 percent of Americans adults - 100million - are now obese, meaning they have a BMI of at least 30.
Rates among young people in particular have surged the most, with quadruple the amount of teens being obese worldwide compared to the 1990s.
The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, used genetic data from 5.1million people worldwide collected from 200 studies and 23andMe.
The majority (71 percent) were of European ancestry, while 14 percent were of Hispanic ethnicity, eight percent were predominantly East Asian, five percent were African or African American and 1.5 percent were South Asian.
Overall, the researchers found polygenic risk scores accounted for about 18 percent of a person with European ancestry's risk for having a high BMI as an adult compared to 8.5 percent on average for scores used by physicians.
The remaining percentage is made up of lifestyle related factors like diet and exercise.
However, this rate varied depending on ethnicity.
For East Asian Americans, the score explained 16 percent of the risk for high BMI, though it was just 2.2 percent for people from rural Uganda and five percent for African ancestry overall.
Because most participants were European, the team said further research is needed to look at other groups, particularly those of African descent.
Based on the polygenic risk score calculated in the study, more than 80 percent of a person's risk for obesity can be explained by factors other than genetics, including where people live, foods they have access to and how much they exercise.
Dr Roy Kim, a pediatric endocrinologist at Cleveland Clinic Children's who was not involved with the research, told NBC News: 'Behavioral things are really important. Their environment, their access to healthy food, exercise opportunities, even their knowledge about healthy foods all affect a person's obesity risk.'
In children, BMI increased at a faster rate in those with a higher genetic predisposition than those with a lower risk, which was most evident at just two and a half years old.
Additionally, individuals with higher polygenic risk scores lost more weight in the first year of lifestyle interventions like diet and exercise than a control group.
However, people with high scores who lost at least three percent of their baseline weight in the first year had a higher risk of regaining it in the years that followed compared to a control group.
Dr Joel Hirschhorn, study author and professor of pediatrics and genetics at Boston Children's Hospital, told The New York Times: 'There is definitely predictive value in genetics.'
He added that with the new study 'we are now a lot closer to being able to use genetics in a potentially meaningful predictive way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
This fuzzy animal friend may be the key to treating schizophrenia
Llamas – likely without red pajamas – may hold the key to treating schizophrenia. The serious brain disorder causes people to interpret reality abnormally, and affects approximately 3.7 million U.S. adults between the ages of 18 to 65 years old, according to the nonprofit RTI International. But the domesticated South American woolly animal might be be able to help. French researchers said this week that they had used llama antibodies, or proteins that help to protect the immune system, to design a tiny fragment of an antibody known as a 'nanobody' that will trigger a neurotransmitter in the brain involved in regulating neural activity. Neurotransmitters are chemical molecules that carry messages or signals from one nerve cell to the next target cell, according to the Cleveland Clinic. No llamas were harmed in the study and researchers can identify nanobodies in a petri dish. In the past, llama antibodies have also proven effective in fighting Covid and other 'SARS-like' viruses. When scientists at the Institute of Functional Genomics injected the molecule into the veins or the muscles, it was able to break the blood-brain barrier and effectively reach brain receptors. The barrier is a a tightly locked layer of cells that defend your brain from harmful substances. Studying the impact of the nanobodies in two tests using mice, the researchers found that they corrected cognitive deficits that were observed. There was an improvement of cognitive function with just one shot, and a prolonged effect over one week. Clinical studies are now required to show that their findings could be a new avenue of treatment for schizophrenia. "In humans obviously we don't know [yet], but in mice yes, it is sufficient to treat most deficits of schizophrenia," molecular biologist Jean-Philippe Pin told Newsweek.. He was a co-author of the research which was published in the journal Nature. Pin said that medications currently given to schizophrenia patients "treat the symptoms well, but less the cognitive deficits." The cause of the chronic condition remains unknown, but the World Health Organization says it is thought that an interaction between genes and a range of environmental factors may be the reason. The exact prevalence of schizophrenia is difficult to measure. Some have tied cases in Canada to cannabis use. Although schizophrenia can occur at any age, people are typically diagnosed between the ages of 16 and 30. Symptoms vary from person to person. There is no cure, but it can be treated through antipsychotic medications, talk therapy, and self-management strategies, the National Alliance on Mental Illness says. The study's authors hope to add this strategy to the list. 'This research confirms the potential of nanobodies as a new therapeutic strategy for acting on the brain, with their use eventually being broadened to include the treatment of other neurological illnesses,' the institute said in a statement.
BreakingNews.ie
19 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
8 easy ways to get more steps into your day
It's widely believed that 10,000 steps a day is the gold standard to aim for to boost health – but is this just an old wives' tale? A new study, led by academics from the University of Sydney in Australia, suggests the actual number to aim for is a more manageable 7,000 steps. Advertisement The researchers examined data from dozens of studies from around the world on tens of thousands of adults, and found that people who walked 7,000 steps each day appeared to have a protective effect against a number of diseases including: a 25 per cent lower risk of heart disease; a 14 per cent reduced risk of type 2 diabetes; a 38 per cent decrease in dementia and a 22 per cent reduction in depression. Furthermore, when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47 per cent less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed. However, the experts noted that '10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps' – with the higher step count leading to more health benefits. So, what are some easy ways to increase our average daily step count? We consulted a fitness expert to find out… 1. Park further away Don't choose the closest spot 'People tend to park in the nearest possible place to their office and spend a fortune on parking, but often the cheaper or free parking spots are further away,' says Andy Carr, a personal trainer. 'Choose a parking spot further from the entrance. It might only add a minute or two to your walk, but over the course of a week, it makes a difference. Advertisement 'If you have a designated parking spot, I recommend getting to work 15 to 20 minutes early and going for a walk around the block. Give yourself that extra time to get your steps in rather than rushing into work.' 2. Take walking meetings Try doing some of your meetings on the move 'We like to take our meetings out on the road when we're in the office,' says Carr. 'Walking meetings are particularly good for in-person meetings. We have a couple of parks near our office, so we often go for walks around one of those during a meeting. 'It gets everyone moving, means we are getting some fresh air and gets everyone off to a good start of the week. If the meeting is online, just pop some headphones in and go for a stroll.' 3. Set a timer to move every hour 'A gentle reminder to stand up and take a short walk every 60 minutes can really boost your NEAT movement,' says Carr. 'NEAT movement stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, which basically means all the calories you burn through everyday activities that aren't structured exercise all add up and play a huge role in overall health and weight management. Advertisement 'If you've got a day stacked with calls, and you've got a five-minute break at the end of them, get up and have a stretch and go for a walk around the house or the office.' 4. Buy a walking pad Walking pads can be easily integrated into a home or office environment 'Walking pads are booming in popularity,' says Carr. 'You can use them when you are having a meeting and don't need your camera on, or when you are watching TV. They are a great way to get some movement and extra steps in during activities that you'd usually be sedentary for.' 5. Use the stairs 'It sounds simple but choosing stairs over lifts or escalators is a quick way to boost your step count and get your heart rate up at the same time,' says Carr. 6. Walk during TV time 'Try pacing during ad breaks or marching on the spot while watching your favourite show,' recommends Carr. 'It might feel a bit odd at first but it's an easy way to move more without sacrificing your downtime.' Advertisement 7. Make chores count Mowing gets you moving and gets your heart pumping Housework and gardening are great opportunities for extra movement. 'A lot of people save all their housework and chores for the weekend, but I recommend spreading them out across the week so you get some movement at the end of your work day,' suggests Carr. 'There's various different jobs around the house that can all add to your step count activity such as hoovering, cleaning and mowing the lawn.' 8. Get social with your steps Catch up during a walk in the park 'Instead of meeting a friend for coffee or a meal, suggest a walk instead,' recommends Carr. 'It's a great way to catch up, get some fresh air and move at the same time. 'You can also go to a pub, but adding in a walk beforehand helps you get some extra activity in. I'd also recommend going to a local parkrun as they are a great opportunity to socialise with new, like-minded people that are interested in being active.' Advertisement
