Genetic and environmental influences on infant growth: prospective analysis of the Gemini twin birth cohort

Abstract

Objective: Infancy is a critical period during which rapid growth potentially programs future disease risk. Identifying the modifiable determinants of growth is therefore important. To capture the complexity of infant growth, we modeled growth trajectories from birth to six months in order to compare the genetic and environmental influences on growth trajectory parameters with single time-point measures at birth, three and six months of age.

Methods: Data were from Gemini, a population sample of 2402 UK families with twins. An average 10 weight measurements per child made by health professionals were available over the first six months. Weights at birth, three and six months were identified. Longitudinal growth trajectories were modeled using SITAR utilizing all available weight measures for each child. SITAR generates three parameters: size (characterizing mean weight throughout infancy), tempo (indicating age at peak weight velocity (PWV)), and velocity (reflecting the size of PWV). Genetic and environmental influences were estimated using quantitative genetic analysis.

Results: In line with previous studies, heritability of weight at birth and three months was low (38%), but it was higher at six months (62%). Heritability of the growth trajectory parameters was high for size (69%) and velocity (57%), but low (35%) for tempo. Common environmental influences predominated for tempo (42%).

Conclusion: Modeled growth parameters using SITAR indicated that size and velocity were primarily under genetic influence but tempo was predominantly environmentally determined. These results emphasize the importance of identifying specific modifiable environmental determinants of the timing of peak infant growth.

Figure 1. Average weight and weight velocity curves for extremes^a of size (A), tempo (B) and velocity (C) in infancy.

^a Extreme groups were based on tertiles (T1, T2, T3) of SITAR parameters such that ‘small’ children were in T1 for size and T2 for tempo and velocity and ‘big’ children were in T3 for size and T2 for tempo and velocity; ‘early’ children were in T1 for tempo and T2 for size and velocity and ‘late’ children were in T3 for tempo and T2 for size and velocity; ‘slow’ children were in T1 for velocity and T2 for tempo and size and ‘fast’ children were in T3 for velocity and T2 for tempo and size.