Abstract
We here address the causal relationship between maternal depression and child human capital using UK cohort data. We exploit the conditionally-exogenous variation in mothers’ genomes in an instrumental-variable approach, and describe the conditions under which mother’s genetic variants can be used as valid instruments. An additional episode of maternal depression between the child’s birth up to age nine reduces both their cognitive and non-cognitive skills by 20 to 45% of a SD throughout adolescence. Our results are robust to a battery of sensitivity tests addressing, among others, concerns about pleiotropy and the maternal transmission of genes to her child.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The UK Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. A comprehensive list of Grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). Genotype data were generated by Sample Logistics and Genotyping Facilities at Wellcome Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe. Financial support from the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (Grants C19/SC/13650569 and 10949242) is gratefully acknowledged. Andrew Clark acknowledges financial support from the EUR grant ANR-17-EURE-0001.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Consent for biological samples has been collected in accordance with the Human Tissue Act. 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.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
* We would like to thank Aysu Okbay for her comments and assistance with the GWAS summary data, and Niels Rietveld for sharing his codes with us. We are very grateful to Sonia Bhalotra, Pietro Biroli, Dalton Conley, Maria Cotofan, Jan- Emmanuel De Neve, Emilia Del Bono, Martin Fernandez-Sanchez, Sarah Flèche, Richard Layard, Andrew Oswald, Steve Pischke, Alois Stutzer, Felix Tropf, and participants at the First Social Science Genetics Paris meeting, the IGSS conference, the EuHEA, the University of Luxembourg, and the University of Oxford Wellbeing seminars for useful comments. We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives for their help in recruiting them, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists and nurses. The UK Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. A comprehensive list of Grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). Genotype data were generated by Sample Logistics and Genotyping Facilities at Wellcome Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe. This publication is the work of the authors and all authors will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. Financial support from the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (Grants C19/SC/13650569 and 10949242) is gratefully acknowledged. Andrew Clark acknowledges financial support from the EUR grant ANR-17-EURE-0001.
giorgia.menta{at}uni.lu, anthony.lepinteur{at}uni.lu, Andrew.Clark{at}ens.fr, simone.ghislandi{at}unibocconi.it, conchita.dambrosio{at}uni.lu
↵20 Pruning takes the available SNPs in the prediction sample as the starting point. For each SNP in a defined window, a pruning algorithm generally calculates the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) or the squared pairwise correlation between each pair of SNPs, and removes the pair if the LD is greater than a certain threshold (e.g. 0.5). The procedure is then repeated shifting the window a certain number of SNPs forward. Clumping, on the other hand, uses the GWAS summary results as the starting point. This procedure starts by taking the SNP whose association with the trait of interest has the smallest p-value (the “lead” SNP) and constructing a symmetric window around it; SNPs in the window that have a squared pairwise correlation with the lead SNP above a certain cut-off are assigned to the lead SNP’s clump. The algorithm continues by taking the next-most significant SNP that is not yet assigned to a clump and repeating the above procedure until there are no more significant SNPs (based on user-defined significance thresholds; for large GWASs, the genome-wide significance p-value threshold of 5×10−8 is often used for lead SNPs). The clumped set of SNPs is the list of all lead SNPs.
↵21 The full list of SNPs is available in the supplementary material of Turley et al. (2018). Those we could not use, as they were not available in the genotyped data of ALSPAC participants, are the following: rs1806153, rs3806843, rs4799936, rs9291059, rs9813064, rs10172121, rs10965565, rs113092725, rs11643097, rs11663393, rs12501627, rs12515229, rs1520081, rs189383553, rs192796028, rs28383313, rs28567442, rs413130, rs7126679, rs9663959.
↵22 Note that the training samples here include children from the ALSPAC cohort, thus violating the standard non-overlapping condition between the training and prediction sample (as we simply use the derived PGSs as controls in Table 3, however, we do not believe that this constitutes a major problem in our context).
↵23 In detail, we used p-value thresholds of either 5×10−8 or 10−6 for the PGSs for depression and cognitive skills, and thresholds of 5×10−5 and 0.001 for all the PGSs for non-cognitive skills.
Data Availability
Data is available through application to the research executive of ALSPAC. Please note that the study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/.
