Abstract
Abstract
Intelligence is a highly polygenic trait and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of DNA variants contributing with small effects. Polygenic scores (PGS) can aggregate those effects for trait prediction in independent samples. As large-scale light-phenotyping GWAS operationalized intelligence as performance in rather superficial tests, the question arises which intelligence facets are actually captured. We used deep-phenotyping to investigate the molecular determinants of individual differences in cognitive ability. We, therefore, studied the association between PGS of intelligence (IQ-PGS), cognitive performance (CP-PGS), and educational attainment (EA-PGS) with a wide range of intelligence facets in a sample of 557 healthy adults. IQ-PGS, CP-PGS, and EA-PGS had the highest incremental R2s for general (2.71%; 4.27%; 2.06%), verbal (3.30%; 4.64%; 1.61%), and numerical intelligence (3.06%; 3.24%; 1.26%) and the weakest for non-verbal intelligence (0.89%; 1.47%; 0.70%) and memory (0.80%; 1.06%; 0.67%). These results indicate that PGS derived from light-phenotyping GWAS do not reflect different facets of intelligence equally well, and thus should not be interpreted as genetic indicators of intelligence per se. The findings refine our understanding of how PGS are related to other traits or life outcomes.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Leibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung (IfADo)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Neuroscience (miscellaneous),Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience,Neurology
Reference51 articles.
1. Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bouchard TJ Jr, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ, Halpern DF, Loehlin JC, Perloff R, Sternberg RJ (1996) Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. Am Psychol 51(2):77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77
2. Flanagan DP, Dixon SG (2013) The Cattell‐Horn‐Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. Encyclopedia of special education: a reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals
3. Hossiep R, Hasella M, Turck D (2001) BOMAT-advanced-short version: Bochumer Matrizentest. Göttingen: Hogrefe
4. Raven JC, Court JH, & Raven J (1990) Coloured progressive matrices. Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales
5. Hossiep R, Schulte M (2008) BOWIT: Bochumer Wissenstest. Hogrefe
Cited by
20 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献