Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:10:03.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene–environment interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2007

Dante Cicchetti
Dante Cicchetti*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dante Cicchetti, Institute of Child Development and Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Editorial
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Fall 2007 , pp. 957 - 959
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

This Special Issue of Development and Psychopathology is devoted to the topic of gene–environment interaction (G × E) and developmental psychopathology. G × E, one of several distinct forms of gene–environment interplay (Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, Reference Rutter, Moffitt and Caspi2006), refers to behavioral effects that are attributable to the interdependence between a specific identified variation in the DNA sequence and a specific, well-defined, and carefully measured environmental pathogen (Moffitt, Caspi, & Rutter, Reference Moffitt, Caspi and Rutter2006; Rutter et al., Reference Rutter, Moffitt and Caspi2006). (See Rutter et al., Reference Rutter, Moffitt and Caspi2006, for a description of the remaining distinct forms of gene–environment interplay and a discussion of how G × E differs from other forms of gene–environment interplay.) In G × E, environmental experiences moderate genetic effects (or vice versa) on normal, psychopathological, and resilient developmental outcomes. For example, genetic effects on functioning outcomes may be observed only under certain environmental contexts or in conjunction with different histories of experience; conversely, experience may only relate to outcomes among individuals with specific genetic characteristics.

Advances in molecular biology and molecular genetics, including the completion of the DNA sequencing of the human genome (Collins, Morgan, & Patrinos, Reference Collins, Morgan and Patrinos2003; Cowan, Kopnisky, & Hyman, Reference Cowan, Kopnisky and Hyman2002) and the publication of the map of human haplotypes that provides valuable information about individual genetic variation (Crawford & Nickerson, Reference Crawford and Nickerson2005; Insel & Quiron, Reference Insel and Quirion2005), have helped to engender renewed interest in the contribution that studies on G × E can make to unraveling the complex pathways to normality, psychopathology, and resilience (Cicchetti & Blender, Reference Cicchetti and Blender2006; Kendler & Prescott, Reference Kendler and Prescott2006; McGuffin, Riley, & Plomin, Reference McGuffin, Riley and Plomin2002; Plomin & Crable, Reference Plomin and Crabbe2000; Plomin, Rende, & Rutter, Reference Plomin, Rende, Rutter, Cicchetti and Toth1991; Plomin & Rutter, Reference Plomin and Rutter1998; Rutter, Reference Rutter2006). As Rutter et al. (Reference Rutter, Moffitt and Caspi2006) eloquently articulated: “an understanding of the complexities involved … may also help in avoiding misleading types of biological reductionism and stigma, whilst at the same time emphasizing the importance of genes in all risk and protection pathways” (p. 252). (See also Curtis & Cicchetti, Reference Curtis and Cicchetti2003, and Hinshaw & Cicchetti, Reference Hinshaw and Cicchetti2000, in this regard.)

The empirical contributions of a molecular genetic approach, which enable us to discover the genetic elements that contribute to the development of mental disorders without requiring foreknowledge of the underlying biochemical abnormalities, make the search for the intermediate developmental mechanisms in the gene–environment–behavior interconnection more accessible than ever before (Gottesman & Gould, Reference Gottesman and Gould2003; Gottesman & Hanson, Reference Gottesman and Hanson2005; Hanson & Gottesman, Reference Hanson, Gottesman and Masten2007; Moffitt et al., Reference Moffitt, Caspi and Rutter2006). Moreover, progress in molecular genetics raises hope of increasing our understanding not only of normality, psychopathology, and resilience, but also of developing interventions to prevent and remediate mental disorder and to promote resilience (Cicchetti & Blender, Reference Cicchetti and Blender2006; Cicchetti & Curtis, Reference Cicchetti, Curtis, Cicchetti and Cohen2006; Luthar & Brown, Reference Luthar and Brown2007; Luthar & Cicchetti, Reference Luthar and Cicchetti2000; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, Reference Luthar, Cicchetti and Becker2000).

Over a relatively short period of time, the discipline of developmental psychopathology has progressed from a field that predominantly focused on behavioral and psychological processes to one characterized by an increasing incorporation of genetic and neurobiological processes and their interdisciplinary interaction. This multiple levels of analysis perspective has contributed to an increased fidelity between the developmental systems theory concepts that undergird the field of developmental psychopathology and the empirical investigations undertaken (Cacioppo, Bernston, Sheridan, & McClintock, Reference Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan and McClintock2000; Cicchetti, Reference Cicchetti, Hartup and Weinberg2002; Cicchetti & Blender, Reference Cicchetti and Blender2006; Cicchetti & Curtis, Reference Cicchetti and Curtis2007; Gottlieb, Wahlsten, & Lickliter, 1993; Masten, Reference Masten2007).

The papers in this Special Issue provide a variety of contributions that enhance the knowledge base of G × E. These contributions on G × E range from the historical, to the review of extant nonhuman primate and human psychopathology research, to the replication of critical G × E effects in an updated meta-analysis. A number of different genes are examined in empirical studies that address varying high-risk conditions (e.g., child maltreatment, speech sound disorder, temperament quality, low socioeconomic status) and mental disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, internalizing and externalizing problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, incarcerated youth, substance use). In addition, a number of developmental periods are represented, spanning infancy to adulthood. Finally, although the level of analysis predominantly focuses on the individual, the family system is also utilized as the unit of analysis.

Taken together, the articles in this Special Issue add substantially to the growing literature on G × E. All of these studies share in common a strong developmental theoretical framework, clear testable hypotheses, and the inclusion of well-defined environmental pathogens. G × E research has witnessed a range of reactions, from enthusiasm to skepticism, in the scientific community. To the credit of researchers conducting G × E investigations, careful and respectful attention has been paid to the concerns raised by scientists who have expressed doubts about the paradigm and its utility for advancing research in the field of developmental psychopathology. Clearly, continued work must be conducted before we will learn the ultimate fruits of G × E for understanding psychopathology and for translating the research into the development and implementation of timely interventions to prevent psychopathology and to promote resilience. Given the excitement engendered by research utilizing the G × E paradigm, as well as the talented group of scientists who have embarked upon work in this area thus far, there is great potential for G × E research to transform our understanding of typical and atypical development throughout the course of epigenesis.

References

Cacioppo, H. A., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 829–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. (2002). How a child builds a brain: Insights from normality and psychopathology. In Hartup, W. & Weinberg, R. (Eds.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Child psychology in retrospect and prospect (Vol. 32, pp. 23–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Blender, J. A. (2006). A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective on resilience: Implications for the developing brain, neural plasticity, and preventive interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2006). The developing brain and neural plasticity: Implications for normality, psychopathology, and resilience. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Developmental neuroscience (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (Eds.). (2007). A multilevel approach to resilience [Special Issue]. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 627–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, F. S., Morgan, M., & Patrinos, A. (2003). The Human Genome Project: Lessons from large-scale biology. Science, 300, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, W. M., Kopnisky, K. L., & Hyman, S. E. (2002). The Human Genome Project and its impact on psychiatry. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, D. C., & Nickerson, D. A. (2005). Definition and clinical importance of haplotypes. Annual Review of Medicine, 56, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, W. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Moving research on resilience into the 21st century: Theoretical and methodological considerations in examining the biological contributors to resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 773–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottesman, I. I., & Hanson, D. R. (2005). Human development: Biological and genetic processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottlieb, G., Wahlsten, D., & Lickliter, R. (1998). The significance of biology for human development: A developmental psychobiological systems view. In Lerner, R. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 233–273). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hanson, D. R., & Gottesman, I. I. (2007). Choreographing genetic, epigenetic, and stochastic steps in the dances of developmental psychopathology. In Masten, A. S. (Ed.), Multilevel dynamics in developmental psychopathology: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 27–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, S. P., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Stigma and mental disorder: Conceptions of illness, public attitudes, personal disclosure, and social policy. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 555–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Insel, T., & Quirion, R. (2005). Psychiatry as a clinical neuroscience discipline. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 2221–2224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, K. S., & Prescott, C. A. (2006). Genes, environment, and psychopathology: understanding the causes of psychiatric and substance use disorders. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Luthar, S. S., & Brown, P. J. (2007). Maximizing resilience through diverse levels of inquiry: Prevailing paradigms, possibilities, and priorities for the future. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 931–955.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for intervention and social policy. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S. (2007). Multilevel dynamics in developmental psychopathology: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–347). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuffin, P., Riley, B., & Plomin, R. (2002). Toward behavioral genomics. Science, 291, 1232–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Rutter, M. (2006). Measured gene–environment environment interactions in psychopathology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R., & Crabbe, J. (2000). DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 806–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomin, R., Rende, R., & Rutter, M. (1991). Quantitative genetics and developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. L. (Eds.) Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Internalizing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction (Vol. 2, pp. 155–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., & Rutter, M. (1998). Child development, molecular genetics, and what to do with genes once they are found. Child Development, 69, 1223–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature–nurture interplay explained. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Gene–environment interplay and psychopathology: Multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 226–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed