Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41282477›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Identifying gene-environment interactions across genome-wide, twin, and polygenic risk score approaches.

Brad Verhulst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Brad VerhulstDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Until recently, many researchers have been hesitant to conduct genome-wide gene-environment interaction (GxE) research due to perceptions of low rates of statistical power and skepticism from controversial findings from the existing literature. Nevertheless, twin and polygenic risk score (PRS) studies suggest that GxE is pervasive and may have a large impact on complex genetic traits. Our goal in this paper is to demonstrate that consistent findings emerge from twin, PRS, and genome-wide approaches to identify GxE, subject to the known limitations for each method. Method: We conducted a series of simulation studies, generating dataset that can be used in twin, PRS and GWAS analyses. Results: We highlight a high degree of consistency across approaches, with each method detecting GxE. Specifically, genome-wide approaches identify individual variants that interact with an environmental moderator, but struggle with low statistical power when a trait is highly polygenic. Alternatively, aggregating genome-wide effects from a discovery sample into a PRS in the target sample increases the ability to detect broad genetic effects. However, if the statistical power in the discovery sample is low, the associations with the PRS tend to underestimate the genetic signal. This is true for both genetic main and interaction effects. Finally, twin studies are generally robust to differences in polygenicity as well as the underlying distributions of the genetic main and interaction effects. The ability of all three methods to robustly identify genomic moderation emphasizes the fact that multiple valid ways to detect GxE exist that stem from the same basic assumptions about the genetic architecture of complex traits.

Indexed as

data simulationgene-environment interaction (GxE)genome-wide association study (GWAS)polygenic risk score (PRS)twin models

Identifiers

PMID41282477
PMCPMC12634641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.