TY - JOUR T1 - Genetic scores explain variation in birthweight that is not captured by easily measured clinical and anthropometric variables JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.02.10.22270369 SP - 2022.02.10.22270369 AU - Maneka Haulder AU - Alice E Hughes AU - Robin N Beaumont AU - Bridget A. Knight AU - Andrew T. Hattersley AU - Beverley M Shields AU - Rachel M Freathy Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/14/2022.02.10.22270369.abstract N2 - Background Human birthweight is a complex, multifactorial trait. Maternal characteristics contribute to birthweight variation by influencing the intrauterine environment. Variation explained by genetic effects is also important, but their contributions have not been assessed alongside other key determinants. We aimed to investigate variance in birthweight explained by genetic scores in addition to easily-measurable clinical and anthropometric variables.Methods We analysed 549 European-ancestry parent-offspring trios. We investigated variance explained in birthweight (adjusted for sex and gestational age) in multivariable linear regression models including genetic scores, routinely-measured maternal characteristics and parental anthropometric variables. We used R-Squared (R2) to estimate variance explained, adjusted R-squared (Adj-R2) to assess improvement in model fit from added predictors, and F-tests to compare nested models.Results Maternal and fetal genetic scores together explained 6.0% variance in birthweight. A model containing maternal age, weight, smoking, parity and 28-week fasting glucose explained 21.7% variance. Maternal genetic score explained additional variance when added to maternal characteristics (Adj-R2 =0.233 vs Adj-R2=0.210, p<0.001). Fetal genetic score improved variance explained (Adj-R2=0.264 vs 0.248, p<0.001) when added to maternal characteristics and parental heights.Conclusions Genetic scores account for variance explained in birthweight in addition to easily measurable clinical variables. Parental heights partially capture fetal genotype and its contribution to birthweight, but genetic scores explain additional variance. While the genetic contribution is modest, it is comparable to that of individual clinical characteristics such as parity, which suggests that genetics could be included in tools aiming to predict risk of high or low birthweights.Key messagesKnown contributors to variation in birthweight include (i) factors associated with the maternal intrauterine environment (e.g. maternal glycaemia or smoking), and (ii) parental heights, which capture some of the genetic contribution to fetal growth. However, the added contribution of genetic scores composed of common birthweight-associated variants has not been assessed.We showed, using 549 parent-offspring trios, that maternal and fetal genetic scores explained additional variation in sex-and gestational age-adjusted birthweight, when added to maternal variables that are easily obtained in a clinical setting (age, weight, smoking, parity and 28-week fasting glucose).Parental heights explained variance in birthweight independently of routinely measured maternal clinical variables, but the maternal and fetal (or paternal) genetic scores made additional, independent contributions to birthweight variance.The genetic score contribution was modest, but it was comparable to that of individual clinical characteristics such as parity, which suggests that genetics could be included in tools aiming to predict risk of high or low birthweights.Since this work was limited to a UK sample of European ancestry, it will, however, be important to test the relative contributions of genetics and other factors to birthweight variation in diverse populations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a Diabetes UK PhD Studentship awarded to M.H. (18/0005929). R.M.F. is supported by a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship (WT220390). A.E.H. is a Wellcome Trust Funded GW4 Clinical Academic Training PhD Fellow. This study represents independent research supported by the National Institute of Health Research Exeter Clinical Research facility. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The Exeter Family Study of Childhood Health (EFSOCH) was supported by South West NHS Research and Development, Exeter NHS Research and Development, the Darlington Trust and the Peninsula National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Facility at the University of Exeter. The opinions given in this paper do not necessarily represent those of NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health. Genotyping of the EFSOCH study samples was funded by the Wellcome Trust and Royal Society grant WT104150. This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust [WT220390 and WT104150]. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the Exeter Family Study of Childhood Health was given by the North and East Devon (UK) Local Research Ethics Committee (approval number 1104), and informed consent was obtained from the parents of the new-borns.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesRequests for access to the original EFSOCH dataset should be made in writing in the first instance to the EFSOCH data team via the Exeter Clinical Research Facility crf{at}exeter.ac.uk. GWAS summary statistics for birthweight that were used to generate the genetic scores are publicly available can be downloaded from http://egg-consortium.org/ http://egg-consortium.org/ ER -