Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Gene–environment interaction

Gene–environment interaction (G×E) denotes the statistical and biological phenomenon in which the influence of genetic variants on phenotypic outcomes varies contingent upon environmental exposures, or vice versa, such that neither factor operates in isolation but modulates the other's effect.^[1] This interaction manifests when individuals with differing genotypes exhibit disparate responses to the same environmental stimulus, leading to heterogeneity in traits ranging from disease susceptibility to behavioral characteristics.^[2] Empirical evidence underscores G×E as pervasive across natural variation, challenging simplistic additive models of inheritance and highlighting the conditional nature of genetic effects. Central to quantitative genetics, G×E interactions are quantified through norms of reaction, which depict how phenotypes diverge across environmental gradients for distinct genotypes, as illustrated in classic experiments with model organisms like Drosophila where bristle number or developmental timing shifts non-linearly with temperature or nutrition.^[1] In human studies, such interactions explain substantial portions of variance in complex traits, including psychiatric disorders and metabolic conditions, where genetic predispositions amplify or mitigate under specific stressors like childhood adversity or dietary factors.^[3] Advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have facilitated detection of these effects, revealing that overlooking G×E underestimates heritability and obscures causal pathways in multifactorial diseases.^[4] Despite robust evidence, G×E research faces methodological hurdles, including power limitations in detecting non-additive effects and the need for precise environmental measurement, which has historically led to underappreciation of interactions relative to main effects.^[5] Controversies persist regarding the magnitude of G×E contributions to population-level variance, with some analyses indicating they account for a notable fraction beyond genetic and environmental mains, while others debate interpretability amid gene-environment correlations that confound passive, evocative, and active mechanisms.^[6] Precision medicine increasingly leverages G×E insights to tailor interventions, emphasizing causal realism over correlative associations in predicting individual outcomes.^[7]

Fundamentals

Definitions and Core Concepts

Gene–environment interaction (GxE) denotes the phenomenon in which the effect of a genetic variant on a phenotypic trait depends on the level or type of environmental exposure, such that different genotypes exhibit varying responses to the same environment or the same genotype yields different phenotypes across environments.^[8]^[9] This interaction implies a non-additive relationship, where the combined influence of genes and environment exceeds or alters their separate main effects, as captured in statistical models through terms representing the product of genetic and environmental factors.^[10] Empirical detection of GxE requires variation in both genetic and environmental factors, with phenotypes measured across their joint distribution to reveal conditional dependencies.^[11] A foundational concept in GxE is the norm of reaction (or reaction norm), which quantifies the phenotypic range produced by a given genotype as a function of environmental variation, typically visualized as a curve plotting trait values against environmental gradients.^[12]^[13] Parallel norms indicate no GxE, as genotypes maintain constant rank order across environments, whereas crossing or diverging norms signify interaction, where relative performance shifts.^[14] Norms of reaction underscore that genotypes do not deterministically produce fixed phenotypes but operate within environmentally contingent bounds, challenging simplistic genetic determinism while affirming genetic influence on plasticity limits.^[15] GxE manifests at multiple biological levels, from molecular responses—such as environmentally induced changes in gene expression via epigenetics—to organismal traits like growth or behavior, where genetic differences modulate environmental sensitivity.^[16] Core to causal realism in GxE is distinguishing correlation from causation; for instance, environmental factors may alter gene expression without altering DNA sequence, yet genetic variants can predispose differential susceptibility to such modifications.^[17] This interplay explains why heritability estimates vary across environments, as genetic variance components interact with environmental covariances.^[18]

Types of Gene–Environment Interactions

Gene–environment (G×E) interactions can be classified statistically as deviations from additivity or multiplicativity. On the additive scale, interaction is present when the joint effect of genotype and environment differs from the sum of their separate effects (r₁₁ − r₀₁ ≠ r₁₀ − r₀₀), whereas on the multiplicative scale, it occurs when relative risks do not multiply independently (r₁₁/r₀₁ ≠ r₁₀/r₀₀).^[1] These definitions depend on the chosen measurement scale and are crucial for epidemiological assessments of disease risk.^[1] Biologically, G×E interactions are categorized into five models based on causal mechanisms. Model A involves a genotype that produces a risk factor also generatable nongenetically, such as phenylketonuria (PKU) elevating blood phenylalanine levels, leading to mental retardation without dietary phenylalanine restriction.^[1] Model B describes genotypes exacerbating environmental exposure effects, exemplified by xeroderma pigmentosum increasing skin cancer risk from UV radiation due to defective DNA repair.^[1] Model C features environments exacerbating genotypic effects, as in variegate porphyria where barbiturates trigger acute attacks in susceptible individuals.^[1] Model D requires both genotype and exposure for risk, such as glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency combined with fava beans causing hemolytic anemia.^[1] Model E encompasses independent effects with potential synergy, like α-1-antitrypsin deficiency and smoking elevating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk, with relative risks of 3.8 for genotype alone, 1.6 for smoking alone, and 4.7 jointly (published data from 1986).^[1] In quantitative genetics, G×E interactions are further distinguished as quantitative or qualitative based on norms of reaction. Quantitative interactions involve non-parallel but non-crossing reaction norms, where genotypic differences in sensitivity to environments occur without rank-order changes, such as varying slopes in performance across conditions.^[19] Qualitative interactions feature crossing norms, leading to genotype rank reversals across environments, as in type 4 or 5 interactions where one genotype excels in one environment but underperforms in another due to heterogeneous variability or uncorrelated responses (Allard and Bradshaw classification, 1964).^[19] These types highlight how G×E can affect breeding and selection strategies, with crossover interactions (types 4–6) complicating stable genotypic superiority.^[19] Qualitative interactions may reflect opposite directional effects, increasing susceptibility disparities.^[20]

Historical Development

Early Conceptual Foundations

The distinction between genotype and phenotype, introduced by Wilhelm Johannsen in 1909, formed a foundational step in recognizing gene-environment interactions by separating the heritable genetic material (genotype) from the observable traits (phenotype) that emerge from its development in specific environments.^[21] Johannsen's experiments with pure lines of Princess beans demonstrated that within genetically uniform lineages, phenotypic variation persisted due to environmental influences, such as soil and nutrition, while selection within lines failed to produce heritable shifts, thus refuting soft inheritance and emphasizing the genotype's fixed role modulated by external conditions.^[22] This framework shifted focus from direct transmission of traits to the developmental interplay between hereditary factors and milieu, influencing subsequent genetic thought.^[23] Concurrently, Richard Woltereck's 1909 studies on Daphnia (water fleas) introduced the concept of Reaktionsnorm, or norm of reaction, which depicts the range of phenotypes a single genotype can produce across varying environmental conditions.^[24] Using pure lines from distinct ecological ponds at the Biologische Station in Lunz, Austria, Woltereck manipulated nutrient levels and observed quantitative traits like head height, plotting phenotypic values against environmental gradients to reveal continuous variation within genotypes rather than discrete jumps.^[24] This graphical representation underscored that genotypic potential is realized differently depending on developmental environments, challenging rigid genetic determinism and highlighting plasticity as a core feature of organismal response.^[24] These early ideas gained quantitative rigor with Ronald A. Fisher's 1918 model of inheritance, which partitioned phenotypic variance into additive genetic, dominance, and environmental components, implicitly accommodating interactions through residual terms in polygenic traits.^[25] Fisher's approach reconciled Mendelian genetics with biometrical observations of continuous variation, laying groundwork for analyzing how environmental factors modify genetic effects in populations.^[25] By the 1930s, extensions in works like Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930) explicitly considered norms of reaction under selection, integrating environmental dependency into evolutionary dynamics.^[26] Together, these pre-1940 developments established gene-environment interaction as a departure from additive models, emphasizing causal contingency in phenotypic outcomes.

Key Empirical Milestones (Pre-2000)

In 1909, Richard Woltereck's experiments on the water flea Daphnia provided one of the earliest empirical demonstrations of gene-environment interactions through the concept of the norm of reaction. By rearing genetically distinct lineages under varying conditions of salinity and food availability, Woltereck showed that different genotypes produced unique phenotypic trajectories, such as helmet length, in response to environmental gradients, highlighting how genetic effects on morphology are contingent on external factors.^[24]^[27] Agricultural breeding programs in the early 20th century further evidenced GxE through multi-location trials of crop varieties. For example, studies on wheat and corn from the 1910s to 1930s revealed that genotypic rankings for yield stability shifted across soils, climates, and management practices, necessitating statistical partitioning of variance into genotype, environment, and interaction components to improve selection accuracy.^[28] In medical genetics, phenylketonuria (PKU) exemplified GxE in humans. Identified in 1934 by Asbjørn Følling as an autosomal recessive disorder due to phenylalanine hydroxylase deficiency, untreated PKU leads to severe intellectual impairment from phenylalanine accumulation. However, dietary restriction of phenylalanine, empirically validated in clinical trials from the 1950s, prevented these outcomes in affected individuals, demonstrating how environmental modification can nullify genetic risk.^[29]^[30] Studies in Drosophila melanogaster during the mid-20th century, such as those examining abdominal bristle number under temperature variations, confirmed genotype-specific sensitivities, where certain mutants exhibited amplified or attenuated phenotypic expression relative to wild-type strains across thermal ranges.^[31]

Modern Advances (2000–Present)

The early 2000s marked a surge in candidate gene-by-environment (GxE) studies, leveraging post-Human Genome Project genotyping to test specific polymorphisms against environmental exposures. A seminal example is the 2003 study by Caspi et al., which reported that the short allele of the serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) moderated the effect of stressful life events on major depression risk in a longitudinal cohort of over 1,000 individuals, with carriers showing heightened vulnerability under high stress but resilience under low stress.^[32] Similar candidate approaches identified interactions like monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) variants with childhood maltreatment predicting antisocial behavior. However, a 2011 critical review of the first decade of such psychiatric GxE research, encompassing over 100 studies, revealed low replicability rates, often below 10% for significant findings, attributed to small sample sizes, publication bias, and inadequate statistical power.^[33] This led to a pivot toward genome-wide GxE scans in the 2010s, enabled by large biobanks and improved computational methods to handle interaction terms in millions of variants. Early pilots, such as a 2016 genome-wide GxE analysis for depression and stressful events in European cohorts, identified suggestive loci but highlighted power challenges requiring samples exceeding 100,000.^[34] By the late 2010s, studies like the 2021 UK Biobank genome-wide environment-wide interaction scan (GWEIS) for neuroticism across 25 environmental factors detected novel loci, demonstrating feasibility for polygenic traits with exposures like urbanicity and adversity.^[35] Concurrently, polygenic scores (PGS)—aggregates of genome-wide variants—facilitated GxE detection; for instance, a 2019 analysis showed that genetic influences on educational attainment, proxied by PGS, were amplified in higher parental socioeconomic status (SES) environments, with heritability rising from 20% in low-SES to over 50% in high-SES groups across developmental stages.^[36] Epigenetic mechanisms emerged as a key frontier, providing molecular evidence for how environments dynamically alter gene expression without sequence changes, often mediating GxE effects. Advances in epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) since the mid-2010s revealed environment-induced DNA methylation patterns interacting with genotypes, such as famine exposures correlating with multigenerational methylation changes at metabolic loci in Dutch Hunger Winter cohorts extended to recent analyses.^[37] Multi-omics integrations, incorporating genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, have since 2020 used machine learning to disentangle GxE in noncommunicable diseases, identifying pathways like inflammation where pollutants amplify polygenic risks.^[38] The National Institutes of Health prioritized GxE research from 2000 onward, particularly in cancer, yielding pathway-level successes like metabolism genes interacting with smoking to elevate lung cancer odds ratios by 2-5 fold in susceptible genotypes.^[39] These developments underscore GxE's role in phenotypic variance, with statistical innovations like joint tests for main effects and interactions boosting detection in diverse ancestries, though challenges persist in exposure measurement precision and causal inference.^[40] Ongoing large-scale efforts, including PGS-environment models, promise refined risk prediction, as seen in enhanced polygenic risk scores incorporating GxE terms that improved disease forecasting by 10-20% in simulations.^[41]

Biological Mechanisms

Molecular and Cellular Processes

Gene–environment interactions at the molecular and cellular levels primarily occur through environmental signals that modulate gene expression via signaling pathways, where genetic variants influence the magnitude or direction of these effects. Environmental ligands, such as hormones or nutrients, bind to cell surface or intracellular receptors, initiating cascades that activate transcription factors like nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) or cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB), which then bind to promoter or enhancer regions to alter transcription rates.^[42] Genetic polymorphisms in these receptors or transcription factors can amplify or dampen the response; for instance, variants in the promoter regions may alter binding affinity, leading to differential expression under specific environmental exposures.^[40] Epigenetic modifications represent a core cellular mechanism bridging genes and environment, enabling stable, heritable changes in gene activity without altering DNA sequence. These include DNA methylation, where environmental stressors add methyl groups to cytosine residues in CpG islands, typically repressing transcription by inhibiting transcription factor access or recruiting repressive proteins. Histone acetylation and methylation further modify chromatin structure, with environmental cues like toxins or stress promoting deacetylases or methyltransferases to condense or open chromatin. In the agouti viable yellow (Avy) mouse model, maternal dietary supplementation with methyl donors (e.g., folic acid, betaine) during pregnancy increases methylation at the intracisternal A particle (IAP) retrotransposon upstream of the agouti gene, suppressing ectopic expression and shifting offspring coat color from yellow (obese, diabetic-prone) to pseudoagouti (lean, healthy), demonstrating direct environmental control over epigenetic state modulated by the metastable Avy allele.^[43]^[44] In stress-responsive pathways, gene–environment interactions often involve feedback loops in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis at the cellular level. The FKBP5 gene encodes a co-chaperone that regulates glucocorticoid receptor (GR) sensitivity; under acute stress, glucocorticoids induce FKBP5 transcription, which with certain intronic risk alleles (e.g., rs1360780 T allele) impairs GR negative feedback, prolonging cortisol effects and heightening vulnerability to disorders like PTSD when combined with childhood trauma. This interaction occurs via allele-specific induction: the risk allele positions an enhancer closer to the transcription start site, enhancing stress-induced FKBP5 expression in lymphocytes and hippocampal cells, as shown in human cohort studies.^[45]^[46] Similarly, early-life adversity alters methylation of the GR gene (NR3C1) promoter exon 1F in humans and exon 1_7 in rats, reducing GR expression in the hippocampus and impairing stress habituation; in rat pups, low maternal care epigenetically silences the promoter via increased NGFI-A binding and methylation, a pattern replicated in human suicide victims with abuse histories.^[47]^[48] These processes highlight how cellular glucocorticoid signaling integrates genetic predisposition with environmental inputs to shape long-term phenotypic outcomes.

Role in Development and Phenotypic Plasticity

Gene–environment interactions underpin phenotypic plasticity during development, enabling a single genotype to produce varied phenotypes in response to environmental cues encountered in ontogeny.^[49] This capacity allows organisms to adjust developmental trajectories adaptively, such as altering growth rates or morphological features to match prevailing conditions, thereby optimizing fitness in heterogeneous environments.^[50] Reaction norms, which map phenotypic expression across environmental gradients for given genotypes, quantify these interactions and reveal genetic variation in plasticity itself.^[51] In model systems like Drosophila melanogaster, GxE manifests in temperature-dependent body size and bristle number, where higher temperatures accelerate development but reduce adult size through modulated gene expression in up to 15% of the genome.^[50] Polyphenism, a discrete variant of plasticity, exemplifies extreme GxE during development; for instance, in honeybees, larval nutrition via royal jelly triggers queen-worker divergence through epigenetic mechanisms like DNA methylation, locking in alternative caste phenotypes irreversibly.^[52] Similarly, spadefoot toad tadpoles (Spea spp.) develop carnivorous or omnivorous morphs based on diet, involving switch genes and regulatory networks that reshape jaw morphology and foraging behavior.^[49] These developmental GxE effects often operate via threshold responses in critical periods, where environmental signals activate gene regulatory networks to canalize distinct outcomes, as seen in nematode mouth-form polyphenism (Pristionchus pacificus) induced by starvation or pheromones.^[52] In reptiles such as turtles (Trachemys scripta), incubation temperature interacts with genetic factors to determine gonadal sex, demonstrating how GxE governs binary developmental decisions with population-level consequences for sex ratios.^[50] Such plasticity facilitates short-term adaptation and, over generations, evolutionary innovation through genetic accommodation, where environmentally induced traits become genetically assimilated.^[49]

Analytical Frameworks

Statistical Models of Interaction

In quantitative genetic studies, statistical models of gene–environment interaction (GxE) often extend linear regression frameworks to include an interaction term, testing whether the effect of genotype on phenotype varies by environment. For continuous traits, the model is typically Y = β₀ + β_G G + β_E E + β_{GE} G × E + ε, where Y is the phenotype, G is the genotype (e.g., coded 0/1/2 for additive effects), E is the environmental exposure, and the significance of β_{GE} indicates GxE if it deviates from zero under the null of no interaction.^[4] This approach assumes linearity and homoscedasticity, though violations can be addressed via generalized linear models or transformations.^[53] For binary outcomes, such as disease status, logistic regression incorporates GxE similarly: logit(P(Y=1)) = β₀ + β_G G + β_E E + β_{GE} G × E, where interaction is assessed on the log-odds scale, often contrasted against additive (no interaction) or multiplicative models to evaluate departure from risk additivity.^[4] Multiplicative models assume constant relative risks across environments (β_{GE} = 0 on log scale), while additive models test absolute risk differences; empirical choice depends on biological plausibility, as multiplicative forms align better with rare variant effects in population genetics.^[54] In genome-wide association studies (GWAS), these single-variant tests are extended across millions of loci, requiring stringent multiple-testing corrections (e.g., Bonferroni or false discovery rate), though low statistical power for modest effect sizes (typically β_{GE} < 0.1) necessitates large samples exceeding 100,000 individuals for detection.^[55] Variance components models, rooted in quantitative genetics, decompose phenotypic variance into components modulated by environment, capturing GxE as heterogeneity in genetic variance rather than mean shifts. In twin or family designs, the additive genetic variance is parameterized as σ²_A(E) = σ²_{A0} + σ²_{A1} E + σ²_{A2} E², where linear (σ²_{A1}) or quadratic (σ²_{A2}) terms model environment-dependent genetic effects, distinguishable from gene–environment correlation via structural equation modeling.^[18] These models estimate GxE heritability as the proportion of variance due to interacting components, often using maximum likelihood estimation in software like Mx or OpenMx, and have revealed, for instance, increasing genetic influence on IQ with socioeconomic status (linear GxE, β ≈ 0.01 per unit SES).^[56] For polygenic scores (PRS), interaction is tested via PRS × E in regression, or variance components like those in PIGEON, which quantify polygenic GxE as σ²_{PRS-E} under a mixed-effects framework, improving power over single-variant scans by aggregating effects.^[57] In high-dimensional settings, such as GWAS for rare variants or multiple environments, meta-analytic variance components aggregate GxE signals across studies, using methods like HOM-INT-FIX for homogeneous interactions or HET-INT-RAN for heterogeneity, assuming normality of random effects.^[58] These models mitigate overfitting via shrinkage (e.g., ridge penalties) but assume independence of variants, addressed in recent extensions incorporating linkage disequilibrium pruning.^[59] Overall, model selection balances parsimony with fit (e.g., via AIC), prioritizing causal realism by validating assumptions through sensitivity analyses, as unmodeled confounders like population stratification can inflate false positives.^[60]

Traditional Population Genetics Designs

In quantitative population genetics, traditional designs for detecting gene-environment interactions (GxE) emphasize partitioning phenotypic variance into additive genetic (V_A), environmental (V_E), dominance (V_D), and interaction (V_{GxE}) components using structured relatedness or replicated genotypes across environments, predating molecular genotyping. These approaches, rooted in breeding experiments and family studies, assess whether genetic effects or rankings vary by environment, often via analysis of variance (ANOVA) frameworks that test for significant GxE terms indicating non-parallel reaction norms or crossover effects. Such designs estimate the contribution of V_{GxE} to total variance (V_P = V_G + V_E + V_{GxE} + 2Cov(G,E)), where substantial V_{GxE} implies environment-specific breeding values or heritabilities.^[61]^[19] In experimental organisms like plants and livestock, multi-environment trials (METs) represent a core traditional design, evaluating fixed genotypes (e.g., inbred lines or clones) in replicated blocks across diverse conditions such as soil types or climates. Genotype means are modeled as Y_{ij} = μ + G_i + E_j + (G×E){ij} + ε, with significant (G×E) terms signaling interactions; stability statistics like Finlay-Wilkinson regression quantify genotype responsiveness to environmental means. Mating designs, including North Carolina I (nested males within females) and II (cross-classified parents), extend this by generating progeny arrays tested in multiple environments to partition GxE into additive-by-environment and dominance-by-environment variances, aiding selection for stable or plastic traits. These methods, applied since the mid-20th century in crop improvement, reveal empirical V{GxE} often comprising 10-20% of V_P for yield traits.^[19]^[62] For human populations, where experimentation is infeasible, twin and adoption studies serve as analogous designs, estimating narrow-sense heritability (h^2 = V_A / V_P) within environmental strata to infer GxE if h^2 differs significantly (e.g., higher in enriched vs. deprived settings for cognitive traits). Family-based linkage or association tests, such as sib-pair analyses, incorporate environmental covariates to detect variance heterogeneity attributable to GxE, mitigating population stratification via relatedness. Cohort and case-control studies supplement these by fitting multiplicative or additive interaction models (e.g., logistic regression OR_{11} / OR_{01} ≠ OR_{10} / OR_{00}), though power is limited by rare variants and exposures, necessitating samples exceeding 10,000 for modest effect sizes. These designs underscore that GxE often manifests as modulated genetic variance rather than mean shifts, with critiques noting assumptions of genotype-environment independence in case-only variants.^[63]^[1]^[64]

Molecular and Genomic Detection Methods

Molecular detection of gene–environment interactions (GxE) often leverages expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) mapping, where genetic variants are tested for modulation of gene expression levels in response to environmental exposures. In eQTL studies, interaction terms are incorporated into linear regression models, such as Y = \beta_0 + \beta_G G + \beta_E E + \beta_{GE} G \times E + \epsilon, where Y is normalized gene expression, G is genotype, E is the environmental factor, and \beta_{GE} captures the interaction effect.^[65] This approach has identified environment-specific eQTLs, for instance, in lung tissue where smoking alters cis-eQTL effects for genes like HLA-DQA1.^[66] Advanced techniques integrate multiple eQTL datasets to enhance power in GxE detection, using weighted genetic scores derived from tissue-specific eQTLs as predictors in interaction analyses. For pancreatic cancer susceptibility, incorporating pancreas and whole-blood eQTL weights into gene-by-smoking interaction models revealed novel loci near CLPTM1L and ANO1, with odds ratios indicating stronger associations in ever-smokers (OR=1.23, 95% CI: 1.10–1.38).^[67] Model-based inference methods further enable detection of unmeasured environmental factors by iteratively estimating latent variables from expression profiles and testing their interactions with genotypes, improving sensitivity in regulatory GxE without direct environmental assays.^[66] Genomic-scale detection employs variance QTL (vQTL) mapping to identify loci influencing phenotypic variability as a proxy for GxE, since environmental modulation often increases expression variance conditional on genotype. Methods like those simulating heteroscedastic models under GxE scenarios demonstrate that vQTL approaches outperform standard mean-effect tests in low-power settings, with applications in human cohorts revealing variants near FTO modulating BMI variance in response to diet.^[68] Genome-wide interaction scans, such as those using summary statistics to estimate GxE variance components via GxEsum, quantify the proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to interactions without individual-level data, estimating 1–5% for traits like height across ancestries.^[69] Multi-omics integration, including epigenomic assays like methylation QTL (meQTL) interacting with pollutants, provides causal insights; for example, air pollution exposure modifies meQTL effects on AHRR methylation, linking to smoking-related phenotypes with beta coefficients shifting by 0.15–0.30 SD per exposure unit.^[40] Single-cell RNA-seq extends this by resolving cell-type-specific GxE, using mixed-effects models to map eQTLs across environmental perturbations, as in immune cells where interferon exposure reveals dynamic trans-eQTL networks with over 2,000 context-dependent effects.^[65] Tools like PICALO disentangle biological from technical confounders in eQTL data via principal interaction components, identifying hidden environmental contexts that explain up to 20% of expression variance in GTEx cohorts.^[70] Emerging frameworks, such as MonsterLM for unbiased variance partitioning, apply to continuous exposures like BMI, estimating GxE contributions from imputed genotypes and yielding effect sizes comparable to additive models but with improved type I error control (FDR<0.05).^[71] These methods underscore the necessity of large sample sizes (n>10,000) and orthogonal environmental measures to mitigate false positives, as power for detecting small \beta_{GE} (e.g., 0.01) requires thousands of observations per exposure stratum.^[72]

Empirical Evidence

Evidence from Human Studies

Human studies provide robust evidence for gene–environment interactions (G×E) through controlled interventions, prospective cohorts, and genetic association analyses, demonstrating how specific genetic variants modulate environmental influences on phenotypes such as neurodevelopment, behavior, and metabolic traits. A paradigmatic example is phenylketonuria (PKU), caused by mutations in the phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene, which impair phenylalanine metabolism and lead to toxic accumulation unless mitigated by a low-phenylalanine diet. In untreated individuals, PAH deficiency results in severe intellectual disability, with IQ scores often below 50; however, early dietary restriction initiated within weeks of birth normalizes phenylalanine levels and preserves cognitive function, with treated cohorts achieving IQs comparable to the general population (average 90–100).^[73]^[74] This interaction underscores causal specificity, as genotypic severity predicts baseline risk, but environmental control (diet) determines phenotypic outcome, with longitudinal data from newborn screening programs since the 1960s confirming near-complete prevention of neurological damage when adhered to.^[75] Behavioral genetics research has identified G×E effects on antisocial outcomes, notably involving the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, which encodes an enzyme degrading neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine. Low-activity variants of MAOA (e.g., 2-repeat or 3-repeat alleles in the upstream variable number tandem repeat) interact with childhood maltreatment to elevate risk of aggressive and antisocial behavior, particularly in males, with meta-analyses of over 11,000 participants across 31 studies showing odds ratios up to 2.5 for the interaction term in predicting conduct disorder and violence.^[76]^[77] Prospective cohort studies, such as the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, report that maltreated children with low-MAOA activity exhibit 2–3 times higher rates of antisocial personality disorder by age 26 compared to high-MAOA counterparts or non-maltreated low-MAOA individuals, with effects persisting into adulthood and linked to neural hypoactivity in prefrontal regions during emotional processing.^[78] This interaction aligns with causal mechanisms, as MAOA influences monoamine signaling, which maltreatment disrupts via stress-induced epigenetic changes, though effect sizes vary by maltreatment severity and are moderated in females due to X-inactivation.^[79] Metabolic traits also reveal G×E, as seen with variants in the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene, where risk alleles (e.g., rs9939609) associate with higher body mass index (BMI) and obesity odds (per allele OR ≈1.2), but physical activity attenuates this by 25–40%. Meta-analyses of over 200,000 adults from European cohorts demonstrate that vigorous activity reduces FTO-related BMI increase by approximately 0.5–1 kg/m² and obesity risk by 30%, with interaction p-values <10^{-6}, suggesting activity influences energy expenditure and adiposity independently of caloric intake.^[80]^[81] Longitudinal data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Nurses' Health Study confirm this in U.S. populations, with sedentary lifestyles amplifying FTO effects across age groups, while intervention trials show genotype-specific weight loss benefits from exercise programs.^[82] These findings extend to cardiovascular outcomes, where FTO-activity interactions predict coronary heart disease risk modulation.^[83] Epidemiological designs, including twin and adoption studies, further quantify G×E variance, estimating that interactions account for 10–20% of phenotypic variation in traits like depression and cognition, beyond main effects. For instance, genome-wide interaction scans in UK Biobank (n>400,000) identify loci where socioeconomic environment moderates genetic liability for educational attainment, with polygenic scores showing stronger expression in enriched settings.^[40] However, candidate gene studies like the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) polymorphism with life stress for depression have yielded inconsistent results, with some meta-analyses supporting modest interactions (OR≈1.2 for short allele under high stress) but larger ones finding null effects after accounting for publication bias, highlighting the need for large-scale, pre-registered replications.^[84]^[85] Overall, human evidence emphasizes G×E's role in amplifying or buffering genetic risks through modifiable environments, informing precision interventions while underscoring measurement challenges in capturing dynamic exposures.^[86]

Insights from Animal Models

Animal models facilitate the study of gene-environment interactions (GxE) through controlled genetic backgrounds and environmental manipulations, enabling causal inferences about how genotypes respond differently to environmental variation. In Drosophila melanogaster, quantitative trait loci (QTL) influencing abdominal bristle number exhibit significant GEI, with segregating genetic variation for bristle number surpassing predictions from mutation-selection balance models.^[87] Studies mapping bristle number QTL across temperatures reveal non-parallel reaction norms, indicating genotype-specific sensitivities to thermal environments that maintain quantitative genetic variation.^[88] Similarly, QTL for developmental time in Drosophila show strong GxE effects, where gene-by-environment interactions account for 52% of total phenotypic variance, highlighting plastic reaction norms across a large proportion of loci.^[89] In Caenorhabditis elegans, genomic analyses demonstrate GxE in gene expression responses to environmental perturbations such as temperature shifts or bacterial exposure. Across five wild-type genotypes, differential expression to abiotic and biotic factors enriches for sensory perception and stress response pathways, with a genomic bias toward interactions in upstream regulatory elements rather than coding regions.^[90] QTL mapping in C. elegans wild isolates further uncovers GxE for traits like olfactory preference and desiccation tolerance, where climate-correlated alleles interact with local conditions to shape adaptation.^[91]^[92] These invertebrate models underscore how GxE contributes to phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary divergence without confounding human ethical constraints. Rodent models, particularly mice, provide insights into behavioral and disease-related GxE. In ethologically relevant paradigms, genetic strains display interaction effects on anxiety-like behaviors, where environmental novelty modulates genotype-specific responses in open-field and elevated plus-maze tests.^[93] For social dysfunction, mouse models of neurodevelopmental disorders reveal synergistic GxE, such as prenatal immune activation exacerbating social deficits in genetically vulnerable lines, with complex effects emerging from early adversity interactions.^[94] In disease contexts like schizophrenia, targeted genetic manipulations combined with environmental insults (e.g., neonatal ventral hippocampal lesions) demonstrate how susceptibility genes amplify responses to stressors, informing mechanisms of vulnerability.^[95] Prenatal stress models in serotonin transporter variants further illustrate differential susceptibility, where genetic alleles buffer or heighten offspring behavioral outcomes depending on maternal stress exposure.^[96] These findings highlight GxE's role in modulating complex traits, though translation to humans requires caution due to species differences in environmental scaling.

Relation to Heritability and Missing Heritability

Gene–environment interactions (G×E) contribute to phenotypic variance via the interaction term V_{G \times E} in the decomposition V_P = V_G + V_E + 2 \Cov_{G,E} + V_{G \times E}, where V_P is total phenotypic variance. In heritability estimation, narrow-sense heritability h^2 = V_A / V_P (focusing on additive genetic variance V_A) does not explicitly include V_{G \times E}, while broad-sense heritability H^2 may absorb it under certain assumptions. Twin and family studies, which underpin high heritability estimates (e.g., 40–80% for many complex traits), often assume homogeneous environments or marginalize over them, potentially confounding G×E with main genetic or environmental effects; this leads to environment-specific heritability, where genetic variance expression is moderated by environmental context, such as suppression in resource-scarce settings.^[97]^[98] The "missing heritability" gap—where SNP-heritability from genome-wide association studies (GWAS; e.g., ~20–40% for BMI or height) falls short of twin estimates—has been linked to unmodeled G×E, as standard GWAS capture only marginal additive effects averaged across environments, overlooking interaction-driven variance. Variance components methods applied to large datasets like UK Biobank estimate G×E heritability (h^2_{G \times E}) at 1–2% for BMI interacting with smoking pack-years (0.5–0.9%) or lifestyle factors like MET score (0.5–0.7%), contributing modestly to the unexplained portion beyond GWAS hits (which cover ~15–25% for BMI). For neuropsychiatric traits, G×E explains >20% of variance in migraine and ≥30% in ADHD, phobic disorders, or PTSD, indicating potentially larger roles in polygenic diseases with strong environmental triggers.^[99]^[100]^[3] These estimates suggest G×E accounts for part of missing heritability (e.g., 5–10% in some models), but not the majority, with other factors like rare variants, structural variants, and gene–gene interactions playing larger roles; detection remains challenging due to low power for sparse interactions and measurement error in environmental variables. Advanced approaches, including tissue-specific enrichments (e.g., brain G×E for BMI-smoking), highlight how G×E informs trait architecture without fully resolving the gap.^[100]^[101]

Controversies and Limitations

Replication Failures and Candidate Gene Critiques

Candidate gene-by-environment (cG×E) studies, which hypothesize interactions between specific pre-selected genes and environmental factors to explain phenotypic variation, have faced substantial replication challenges since the early 2000s.^[102] A comprehensive review of the first decade of such research in psychiatry (2000–2009) examined 103 published studies reporting novel cG×E effects, identifying 40 distinct findings, yet only one demonstrated replication in an independent sample with comparable effect direction and significance.^[102] This low replication rate aligns with broader patterns in candidate gene research, where initial positive associations often stem from underpowered samples (typically n < 1,000) and fail under larger-scale scrutiny, as evidenced by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that rarely confirm pre-hypothesized candidates.^[102] Publication bias further inflates apparent success, with analyses showing that reported effect sizes decrease upon replication attempts, suggesting selective reporting of significant results.^[102] Prominent examples illustrate these issues, such as the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) variant interacting with life stress to predict depression risk, initially reported in a 2003 study with n=847 but undermined by subsequent meta-analyses of over 14,000 participants showing null or inconsistent effects after accounting for multiple testing and population stratification.^[103] Similarly, the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene's interaction with childhood maltreatment for antisocial behavior, from a 2002 study (n=1,037), yielded mixed replications, with a 2014 meta-analysis of 31 studies finding weak overall effects eroded by ethnic heterogeneity and small sample sizes.^[103] Critiques highlight the candidate approach's reliance on a priori biological plausibility, which often reflects incomplete pathway knowledge and overlooks polygenic architectures where individual variants contribute negligibly (<0.1% variance).^[104] In a 2019 analysis of 18 candidate genes for depression (including GxE variants) across 117,000+ individuals, no associations survived correction, attributing prior positives to inflated type I error rates from uncorrected multiple comparisons and low prior probabilities of large single-gene effects.^[104] These failures have prompted calls to abandon isolated candidate gene pursuits in favor of hypothesis-free, high-powered genomic methods, though challenges persist in detecting GxE at scale due to quadratic increases in tested interactions and environmental measurement errors.^[102] Defenders argue that some non-replications arise from gene-environment correlation or heterogeneous environments across studies, yet empirical evidence consistently shows candidate GxE effects are orders of magnitude smaller than initially claimed, often indistinguishable from noise.^[103] This pattern underscores systemic issues in behavioral genetics, including incentive structures favoring novel positives over nulls, leading to a literature where over 100 cG×E claims accumulated without robust validation.^[102] Transitioning to polygenic risk scores interacting with measured environments offers a path forward, but only with sample sizes exceeding hundreds of thousands to achieve adequate power for subtle effects.^[104]

Statistical Power and Model Assumptions

Detecting gene–environment interactions (GxE) in statistical analyses requires substantially greater sample sizes than detecting main genetic or environmental effects, as interaction terms typically explain a smaller proportion of variance and demand powering for both marginal and joint effects.^[105] For instance, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for GxE often necessitate tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of participants to achieve adequate power (e.g., 80% at α=5×10^{-8}), far exceeding requirements for main effects, due to the rarity of significant interactions and dilution from noise in environmental measurements.^[106] Power further diminishes with smaller interaction effect sizes, lower linkage disequilibrium between markers and causal variants, or binary environmental exposures with unbalanced distributions, sometimes yielding power below 20% in under-resourced candidate gene studies.^[107] To mitigate this, two-step testing strategies—first screening for main genetic effects, then testing interactions among candidates—enhance power over single-step genome-wide scans by reducing multiple-testing burdens, with simulations showing up to 2-fold efficiency gains under realistic effect sizes.^[108] Common statistical models for GxE, such as linear or logistic regression incorporating a product term (G×E), rely on assumptions including linearity in parameters, absence of unmeasured confounders affecting the interaction, and precise, unbiased measurement of environmental variables.^[4] Misspecification of the main environmental effect, such as assuming linearity when the true relationship is nonlinear, can bias interaction estimates and inflate type I error rates, particularly in logistic models for binary outcomes.^[109] Variable scaling also influences results; for example, standardizing genotypes and exposures alters interaction coefficients without changing their statistical significance, but failure to account for collinearity between main effects and their product term can lead to unstable estimates or spurious findings mimicking biological interactions.^[55] Case-only designs, which assume genotype–environment independence in controls, boost power for rare exposures but violate validity if populations exhibit assortative mating or population stratification, potentially generating false positives.^[110] These power and assumption challenges contribute to replication failures, as underpowered initial detections amplify false positives, while rigid model assumptions overlook heterogeneous environmental effects or polygenic architectures, underscoring the need for sensitivity analyses and variance-component methods that relax parametric forms.^[60] Recent advances, including joint modeling of multiple exposures or machine learning hybrids, aim to improve robustness, but empirical validation remains limited by data constraints in diverse cohorts.^[111]

Challenges in Causal Inference and Measurement

Observational studies dominate gene-environment interaction (GxE) research due to ethical and practical barriers against randomizing genetic variants or environmental exposures, complicating causal attribution amid confounders like population stratification, socioeconomic factors, and gene-environment correlation.^[112] Such correlations arise when genotypes influence environmental selection, as in cases where genetic predispositions to traits like educational attainment shape exposure to enriching environments, biasing interaction estimates without quasi-experimental designs.^[113] To address this, researchers employ social science-inspired methods, including fixed-effects models to control for unobserved heterogeneity, adoption studies to break familial confounds, and instrumental variable approaches leveraging genetic variants as proxies for exposures, though these require strong assumptions of instrument validity and relevance that often fail in interaction contexts.^[114] Mendelian randomization extensions for GxE, such as interaction-based estimators, aim to infer causality by exploiting random assortment of alleles, but pleiotropy—where variants affect multiple traits—and weak instrument bias undermine reliability, particularly for polygenic traits.^[115] Reverse causation poses further hurdles, as environmental exposures may alter gene expression via epigenetics, mimicking heritable effects, while longitudinal data needed to disentangle temporality remain scarce and prone to attrition bias.^[116] In genome-wide association studies (GWAS), detecting GxE requires testing millions of variant-exposure pairs, but unmeasured causal exposures or tagging inefficiencies reduce power, leading to inflated type I errors or missed interactions unless corrected via stringent multiple-testing thresholds.^[117] Measurement of environmental factors introduces systematic errors, often relying on retrospective self-reports susceptible to recall inaccuracies and social desirability bias, which attenuate interaction effects or, if differential by genotype, spuriously inflate them—for instance, if genetically higher-IQ individuals more accurately report cognitive stimuli exposures.^[60] Unlike genetic data, where high-throughput sequencing achieves near-perfect accuracy (error rates <0.1% in modern arrays), environmental metrics lack standardization; proxies like air pollution indices or socioeconomic indices aggregate heterogeneous influences, masking granular interactions, as evidenced by underpowered null findings in meta-analyses of stress-related GxE for depression.^[7] Dynamic environments, varying temporally (e.g., prenatal vs. postnatal toxin exposure) or contextually (e.g., urban vs. rural nutrition), demand repeated, objective assessments via biomarkers or sensors, yet such data are costly and rare, with misclassification rates exceeding 20% in self-reported diet studies.^[118] Polygenic scores mitigate single-variant limitations but amplify measurement challenges by aggregating noisy effect sizes, while gene-environment covariance—unobserved gene effects on exposure variance—violates independence assumptions in standard models, necessitating variance-component approaches that demand large samples (often >10,000) for detection.^[119] These issues compound in high-dimensional settings, where unmodeled interactions or collider bias from conditioning on outcomes distorts inferences, underscoring the need for causal graphs to map dependencies prior to analysis.^[4]

Advanced Topics

Polygenic and High-Dimensional Interactions

Polygenic gene-environment interactions extend traditional single-locus analyses by aggregating the effects of numerous genetic variants into polygenic scores (PGS), which are then tested for moderation by environmental exposures. This approach captures the distributed genetic architecture of complex traits, where individual variants have small effects but collectively interact with environments to influence phenotypic variance. PGS-based tests typically regress outcomes on the interaction term PGS × E, revealing how genetic predispositions may amplify or attenuate under varying conditions, such as socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors.^[120]^[121] Empirical studies have identified such interactions for polygenic traits like educational attainment, where PGS effects on years of schooling are stronger in high-socioeconomic environments, explaining up to 10-15% additional variance in some cohorts. Similarly, PGS for neuroticism and ADHD moderate associations with childhood adversity, with genetic risks conferring greater susceptibility to environmental stressors in population samples exceeding 100,000 individuals. In cardiovascular outcomes, polygenic interactions with tobacco exposure and dietary patterns have been linked to blood pressure variability, demonstrating environment-specific genetic influences in UK Biobank data from over 400,000 participants analyzed in 2024. These findings suggest GxE contributes to heterogeneity in trait expression, potentially accounting for portions of "missing heritability" unresolved by main genetic effects alone.^[122]^[120]^[123] High-dimensional GxE analyses address the combinatorial explosion from thousands of SNPs interacting with multiple environmental variables, employing statistical frameworks like penalized regression, sure independence screening, and dimension reduction to mitigate multiple testing burdens and overfitting. Variable selection methods, such as LASSO or groupwise penalties, identify sparse interaction subsets while controlling false positives, as validated in simulations with p > 10^6 tests. Dimension reduction techniques, including principal components or kernel methods, project high-dimensional spaces into lower dimensions for feasible inference, improving power in genome-wide interaction screens. Recent applications, as of 2025, integrate these with pathway-based PGS to pinpoint biologically coherent interactions, though empirical replication remains limited by sample sizes below 50,000 for rare exposures.^[124]^[4]^[125] Challenges in high-dimensional settings include low statistical power for small-effect interactions and confounding from population stratification, necessitating large-scale consortia like those from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Despite these, PGS × E models have outperformed additive genetics in predictive accuracy for traits like depression in stratified environments, with interaction terms boosting R² by 1-5% in meta-analyses. Ongoing methodologic refinements, including Bayesian hierarchical models, aim to enhance detection of pervasive polygenic GxE, underscoring its role in causal pathways for complex diseases.^[126]^[127]^[41]

Gene–Environment–Environment Interactions

Gene–environment–environment (GxExE) interactions represent a higher-order extension of gene–environment (GxE) effects, wherein the influence of a genetic variant on a phenotypic outcome is modulated not by a single environmental factor but by the interplay between two distinct environmental exposures. This occurs when environment-by-environment (ExE) interactions—such as synergistic or antagonistic effects between stressors—vary systematically across genotypes, leading to genotype-specific patterns of phenotypic expression. Empirically, GxExE captures the multifaceted nature of real-world environments, where multiple exposures rarely act in isolation, and has been formalized in statistical models that include three-way interaction terms in regression analyses.^[128] In model organisms, GxExE effects have been robustly demonstrated due to controlled experimental designs and high replication potential. For instance, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast), a 2024 study of approximately 1,000 barcoded mutant strains exposed to pairwise combinations of antifungal drugs revealed prevalent ExExG (equivalent to GxExE), where single-nucleotide mutations in genes like PDR1 and PDR3 altered the direction and magnitude of drug-drug interactions—from synergy in one genetic background to antagonism in another. These genotype-specific ExE patterns clustered by functional gene groups, explaining variances in fitness responses and highlighting how genetic variation reshapes environmental interplay in adaptive evolution, such as antifungal resistance. Similarly, in zebrafish, genetic lines exhibited GxExE in early cardiovascular development, where ontogenetic oxygen environments interacted differently across genotypes to influence heart rate and morphology.^[128]^[129] Human studies of GxExE remain limited by statistical power demands—requiring sample sizes often exceeding those for pairwise GxE due to partitioned effect sizes and multiple testing—but candidate gene approaches have identified instances in complex traits like psychopathology and addiction. In alcohol consumption, a 2015 analysis of longitudinal data from over 1,000 participants found gender-specific GxExE, where variants in alcohol-metabolizing genes (e.g., ADH1B) interacted with both distal (e.g., parental modeling) and proximal (e.g., peer influences) environments to predict heavy drinking trajectories, with stronger effects in males under high-risk combinations. Psychiatric research has similarly reported GxExE involving the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) polymorphism, childhood maltreatment, and adult life stressors in elevating depression and anxiety risk, as replicated in cohorts assessing cumulative environmental load. A 2017 review of such candidate gene studies emphasized the need for life-course models to parse these interactions, noting their potential to explain heterogeneous disorder onsets beyond simpler GxE.^[130]^[131] Detecting GxExE poses methodological challenges, including collinearity between environmental measures, inflated type I errors in low-power designs, and the rarity of genome-wide significant hits in polygenic contexts, where higher-order terms dilute signals amid noise. Nonetheless, incorporating GxExE into variance partitioning models can recover portions of "missing heritability" by accounting for non-additive environmental modulation of genetic effects, informing causal pathways in traits like myopia or aggression. Future advances may leverage machine learning for interaction mining in biobanks, prioritizing longitudinal data to disentangle temporal ExE dynamics.^[128]

Implications

Medical and Therapeutic Applications

Gene–environment interactions (GxE) underpin precision medicine by enabling the identification of individuals whose genetic profiles modulate responses to therapeutic agents or environmental exposures, facilitating targeted interventions to optimize efficacy and minimize adverse effects. In pharmacogenomics, GxE principles guide drug dosing and selection; for instance, variants in the VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genes interact with warfarin therapy to influence anticoagulation outcomes, with CYP2C9 poor metabolizers requiring lower doses to reduce bleeding risk, as established in clinical guidelines integrating genetic testing.^[132] Similarly, HLA-B*57:01 allele carriers face heightened hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir in HIV treatment, prompting pre-treatment screening and alternative regimens to prevent severe immune responses in up to 5-8% of at-risk patients.^[132] Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) variants exemplify GxE in oncology and immunology, where deficient enzyme activity interacts with drug exposure to elevate myelosuppression risk, leading to dose reductions or switches to mercaptopurine alternatives in heterozygous individuals (prevalence ~10%) and avoidance in homozygotes (~0.3%).^[132] Beyond pharmacogenomics, GxE informs preventive strategies by stratifying exposure risks. BAP1 mutation carriers exhibit amplified mesothelioma susceptibility upon asbestos contact, supporting enhanced surveillance or prophylactic measures like fiber avoidance in genetically screened cohorts, as mesothelioma incidence correlates with cumulative exposure modulated by germline variants.^[132] In dermatology, filaggrin (FLG) loss-of-function mutations interact with skin barrier disruptions and Staphylococcus aureus colonization to exacerbate atopic dermatitis progression to asthma, informing barrier-repair therapies such as emollients or biologics tailored to high-risk genotypes.^[40] For arsenic-exposed populations, AS3MT polymorphisms heighten toxicity and skin lesion/cancer risks, enabling community-level interventions like water filtration prioritized for variant carriers in endemic areas such as Bangladesh, where efficient methylation variants increase urinary arsenic retention.^[40]^[132] In infectious diseases, IRF7 variants interact with viral pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 to predispose toward severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, guiding intensified supportive care or antiviral dosing in identified carriers to mitigate cytokine storm severity observed in interferon signaling deficiencies.^[40] These applications extend to psychiatry, where GxE models support environmental modulation therapies; for example, serotonin transporter gene variants combined with chronic stress predict differential antidepressant responses, prompting adjunctive cognitive-behavioral interventions to buffer vulnerability in susceptible individuals, though replication challenges underscore the need for polygenic integration.^[133] Overall, integrating GxE into clinical workflows enhances causal inference for interventions, as evidenced by reduced adverse events in pharmacogenetic-guided trials, but requires robust environmental measurement to avoid confounding.^[134]

Evolutionary and Adaptive Perspectives

Gene–environment interactions (GxE) form the genetic foundation for phenotypic plasticity, where a single genotype produces varying phenotypes across environmental gradients, thereby promoting adaptive responses to heterogeneous conditions.^[135] In evolutionary terms, such interactions evolve when environmental variability selects for genotypes that adjust traits to match local optima, enhancing geometric mean fitness over stochastic environments compared to fixed phenotypes.^[136] Quantitative genetic models illustrate that GxE variance can be partitioned into components for trait means and plasticity, with selection favoring steeper reaction norms under fluctuating selection pressures.^[135] The adaptive significance of GxE manifests in scenarios where canalization—genetic buffering against environmental perturbations—yields to plasticity when predictability is low or costs of mismatch are high.^[137] For instance, in natural variants affecting fitness, GxE effects are widespread across tested conditions, enabling divergent selection and population differentiation without requiring novel mutations.^[138] This plasticity facilitates short-term adaptation in novel habitats, as seen in experimental evolution studies where genotype-specific responses to stressors like temperature or predation lead to higher survival rates.^[139] Evolutionary forces maintaining GxE variation include antagonistic pleiotropy, where alleles confer benefits in one environment at costs in another, and spatial or temporal heterogeneity driving diversifying selection on reaction norms.^[136] Empirical genomic analyses confirm that GxE underlies adaptive clines in traits like body size, with environment-dependent gene expression patterns aligning with fitness gradients in wild populations.^[140] However, costs such as reduced accuracy in cue detection or heightened sensitivity to deleterious environments limit plasticity evolution, often resulting in intermediate levels balanced by stabilizing selection.^[137] In the context of ongoing environmental change, such as anthropogenic climate shifts, heritable GxE variation buffers populations against extinction by exposing cryptic genetic diversity for selection, though mismatches between ancestral and novel cues can erode adaptive potential if plasticity is maladaptive.^[141] Studies on model organisms like Drosophila reveal that GxE for bristle number or development time exemplifies how conditional gene regulation evolves to optimize life-history trade-offs across thermal regimes.^[138] Overall, GxE thus represents a key mechanism in evolutionary diversification, integrating genetic constraints with environmental opportunities for sustained adaptability.^[136]

References

[1]
Gene–Environment Interaction: Definitions and Study Designs - PMC
Gene–environment interaction is defined as a different effect of an environmental exposure on disease risk in persons with different genotypes.
[2]
Gene and Environment Interaction
Subtle differences in one person's genes can cause them to respond differently to the same environmental exposure as another person. As a result, some people ...
[3]
Gene-environment interactions explain a substantial portion of ...
Sep 20, 2022 · In complex diseases, the phenotypic variability can be explained by genetic variation (G), environmental stimuli (E), and interaction of ...
[4]
Statistical methods for gene–environment interaction analysis - Miao
Oct 5, 2023 · Understanding gene–environment interaction (G × E) can provide ... In this article, we aim to review the current state-of-the-art ...Abstract · INTRODUCTION · DEFINING G × E · CONCLUSION
[5]
Gene–environment interactions in human health - Nature
Current challenges and new opportunities for gene–environment interaction studies of complex diseases. Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 753–761 (2017).Missing: article | Show results with:article
[6]
Genotype–environment correlations: implications for determining the ...
Genotype-environment correlations are genetic differences in exposure to environments. There are three types: passive, evocative, and active.<|separator|>
[7]
Gene-environment interactions within a precision environmental ...
Jul 10, 2024 · Review. Gene-environment ... (F) Both the genotype and exposure contribute to trait variance but without a gene-environment interaction.
[8]
Gene Environment Interaction
Gene environment interaction is an influence on the expression of a trait that results from the interplay between genes and the environment.
[9]
Gene-Environment Interaction: Definitions and Study Designs - Nature
Gene-Environment Interaction. • Definition: A different effect of an environmental factor in people with different genotypes. • Examples: People with ...
[10]
[PDF] Gene-Environment Interaction: Definitions and Study Designs
Study of gene–environment interaction is important for improving accuracy and precision in the assess- ment of both genetic and environmental influences.
[11]
[PDF] Dependence of gene-by-environment interactions (GxE) on scaling
Many posit some kind of gene- environment interaction (GxE) where GxE is defined as a differential response to environmental circumstances depending on ...
[12]
[PDF] Understanding Reaction Norms and Developmental Trajectories as ...
The relationship between trait value and environment for a genotype is often called the reaction norm. ... (1985) Genotype-environment interaction and the ...
[13]
Genomic reaction norms inform predictions of plastic and adaptive ...
Apr 21, 2022 · Phenotypic variation due to genes, environment and their interaction is reflected by reaction norm intercepts, slopes (or shapes) and ...
[14]
Phenotypic plasticity, reaction norm, and genotype by environment ...
Phenotypic variation of living organisms is shaped by genetics, environment, reaction norm figure and their interaction.
[15]
The mutation effect reaction norm (mu-rn) highlights environmentally ...
It embodies the fusion of measurements of genetic interactions with the reaction norm, a classic depiction of the performance of genotypes across environments.
[16]
[PDF] Gene-Environment Interaction in Psychological Traits and Disorders
Jan 6, 2011 · Gene-environment interaction (GxE) has be- come a hot topic of research, with an expo- nential increase in interest in this area in the past ...
[17]
[PDF] Gene-Environment Interactions - Moffitt & Caspi - Duke University
Dec 29, 2009 · Gene-environment interaction: overcoming methodological challenges. In: Rutter M, ed. Genetic Effects on Environmental Vulnerability to ...
[18]
[PDF] Variance Components Models for Gene–Environment Interaction in ...
... gxe/. 570. Twin Research December 2002. Shaun Purcell. Page 18. 571. Twin Research December 2002. Variance Components Models for Gene–Environment Interaction in ...<|separator|>
[19]
Chapter 10: G x E – Quantitative Genetics for Plant Breeding
Type 5 GxE Interaction ... A type 5 GxE is due to a failure of the genotypes to have correlated responses across the environments, while the genotypic variability ...
[20]
Limitations of Gene × Environment Interaction Models in Psychiatry
The exception to this is where qualitative interactions occur, whereby the effect of one exposure (for example E) has opposite effects on disease risk ...
[21]
The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction
Jun 6, 2017 · A recounting of Johannsen (1911) in this vein serves not only to introduce his original genotype-phenotype distinction, but also to point to ...
[22]
Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen (1857-1927)
Nov 16, 2012 · For Johannsen, the genotype-phenotype distinction was a strategy for moving genetics away from what he referred to as the transmission concept ...<|separator|>
[23]
The holist tradition in twentieth century genetics. Wilhelm ...
May 30, 2014 · Johannsen's genotype theory represented a holistic approach, emphasizing the level of the whole organism. It rejected the chromosome theory.
[24]
Richard Woltereck's Concept of Reaktionsnorm
Sep 6, 2012 · Richard Woltereck first described the concept of Reaktionsnorm (norm of reaction) in his 1909 paper "Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen ...
[25]
From R.A. Fisher's 1918 Paper to GWAS a Century Later - PMC - NIH
Apr 3, 2019 · A century ago, a paper from RA Fisher reconciled Mendelian and biometrical genetics in a landmark contribution that is now accepted as the main foundation ...
[26]
Quantitative trait loci and gene interaction - Nature
May 1, 2000 · Fisher (1958) asserted that epistasis was effectively equivalent to environmental variance that could be ignored in the study of quantitative ...
[27]
(PDF) Norm of Reaction - ResearchGate
Aug 3, 2023 · ... 1909, Richard Woltereck. (Woltereck, 1909) introduced the concept of. Reaktion norm by utilizing the model organism. water ﬂea Daphnia. He ...
[28]
Half a Century of Studying Genotype × Environment Interactions in ...
Sep 1, 2016 · For the past half century, a variety of statistical models have been used for estimating G×E in plant breeding field experiments to facilitate ...
[29]
The Early History of PKU - MDPI
The story of phenylketonuria (PKU) started in 1934 with Asbjørn Følling's examination of two mentally retarded siblings from a Norwegian family.
[30]
Dissecting gene–environment contributions to Type 2 diabetes - PMC
A classic example of a gene-environment interaction is phenylketonuria (PKU), a disease caused by a mutation in the gene encoding the enzyme phenylalanine ...
[31]
Genetics of life history in Daphnia magna. II. Phenotypic plasticity
Keywords: Cladocera, Daphnia, genetic correlation, heritability, plasticity, reaction norm. ... Woltereck (1909) used helmet length under different feeding ...
[32]
Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a ... - PubMed
This epidemiological study thus provides evidence of a gene-by-environment interaction, in which an individual's response to environmental insults is moderated ...
[33]
A Critical Review of the First 10 Years of Candidate Gene-by ...
Gene-by-environment interactions (G×Es) occur when the effect of the environment depends on a person's genotype or, equivalently, when the effect of a person's ...
[34]
The First Pilot Genome-Wide Gene-Environment Study of ...
Aug 16, 2016 · The aim of the present study is to identify genes that influence the association of stressful events with depression. Therefore, we performed a ...
[35]
Genome-wide gene-environment interactions in neuroticism - Nature
Mar 22, 2021 · We used data from the UK Biobank to perform a series of GWEIS for neuroticism across 25 broadly conceptualised environmental risk factors.
[36]
The moderating role of SES on genetic differences in educational ...
Sep 3, 2019 · Parental socioeconomic status (SES) is a strong predictor of children's educational achievement (EA), with an increasing effect throughout development.
[37]
Environmental exposures influence multigenerational epigenetic ...
Oct 17, 2024 · Epigenetics are also modified by a multitude of environmental exposures, including diet and pollutants, allowing an individual's environment to influence gene ...
[38]
Unraveling the Complexity of Gene-Environment Interactions in ...
Mar 6, 2025 · Our review explores how recent advances in multiomics and AI/ML approaches enhance disease prediction, biomarker discovery, and precision medicine.<|separator|>
[39]
Review of the Gene-Environment Interaction Literature in Cancer
Relevant articles were considered for full article review. After review ... Gene-environment interaction and aetiology of cancer: what does it mean and ...
[40]
Gene–environment interactions and their impact on human health
Dec 30, 2022 · Review Article; Open access; Published: 30 December ... Review of the gene-environment interaction literature in cancer: what do we know?
[41]
Enhanced polygenic risk score incorporating gene–environment ...
Mar 2, 2024 · We developed a novel polygenic and gene–environment interaction risk score (PGIRS) integrating the major genetic effect and gene–environment interaction effect ...Abstract · INTRODUCTION · METHODS · DISCUSSION
[42]
Transcription factors: Bridge between cell signaling and gene ...
Jul 27, 2021 · In this review we focus on the role of TFs as a link between signaling pathways and gene regulation.
[43]
Maternal epigenetics and methyl supplements affect agouti gene ...
Aug 1, 1998 · The present study reveals that specific methyl supplements in the diets of pregnant mouse dams can affect the expression of a specific gene, ...
[44]
Epigenetics: Connecting Environment and Genotype to Phenotype ...
... molecular consequence of gene-environment interaction. Hence, DNA epigenetics constitutes the main and previously missing link among genetics, disease, and ...
[45]
Gene–Stress–Epigenetic Regulation of FKBP5 - Nature
Aug 13, 2015 · The FKBP5 gene is regulated via complex interactions among environmental stressors, FKBP5 genetic variants, and epigenetic modifications of glucocorticoid- ...
[46]
Understanding the Molecular Mechanisms Underpinning Gene by ...
May 15, 2018 · In this review, we present a molecular and cellular model of the consequences of FKBP5 by early adversity interactions. We illustrate how ...
[47]
Epigenetic Mechanisms for the Early Environmental Regulation of ...
Sep 12, 2012 · We review the evidence suggesting that such effects are mediated by epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation across GR promoter ...
[48]
Effects of the social environment and stress on glucocorticoid ...
Numerous reports have investigated GR gene methylation in relationship to early-life experience, parental stress and psychopathology.
[49]
Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current and ...
Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of organisms to produce distinct phenotypes in response to environmental variation.
[50]
Genomics of Developmental Plasticity in Animals - Frontiers
Developmental plasticity refers to the property by which the same genotype produces distinct phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions under ...
[51]
Reaction norm functions and QTL–environment interactions for ...
Aug 1, 1998 · To be able to predict phenotypes in new environments, it is useful to model reaction norms as functions, rather than as a collection of discrete ...
[52]
Polyphenism – A Window Into Gene-Environment Interactions and ...
Feb 25, 2019 · Polyphenism is a special case of phenotypic plasticity where development exhibits reproducible bifurcations revealing multiple distinct outcomes ...
[53]
Statistical methods for gene-environment interaction analysis
In this review, we present state-of-the-art statistical methodologies for G × E analysis. We will survey a spectrum of approaches for single-variant G × E ...
[54]
Statistical Genetic Approaches to Investigate Genotype-by ... - PubMed
Apr 25, 2024 · Statistical genetic models of genotype-by-environment (G×E) interaction can be divided into two general classes, one on G×E interaction in response to ...
[55]
Contemporary Modeling of Gene-by-Environment Effects In ... - NIH
The statistical power associated with the GxE design has been studied in many different ways, and most results show that the small effects expected require ...Results · Confounds In Statistical... · Statistical Genetics And...
[56]
Variance Components Models for Gene–Environment Interaction in ...
Feb 21, 2012 · Variance components models partition genetic effects into a mean part and a part that is a linear function of the environment, allowing for ...
[57]
PIGEON: a statistical framework for estimating gene-environment ...
Oct 5, 2025 · Here, we introduce PIGEON—a unified statistical framework for quantifying polygenic GxE using a variance component analytical approach. Based on ...Results · Pigeon Framework · Estimating Gxe Using Gwis...
[58]
Variance-component-based meta-analysis of gene-environment ...
Jul 2, 2025 · Based on variance component models, we propose four meta-analysis methods of testing G × E effects for rare variants: HOM-INT-FIX, HET-INT-FIX, ...
[59]
LDER-GE estimates phenotypic variance component of gene ...
Jul 9, 2024 · LDER-GE is a method that improves the accuracy of estimating phenotypic variance of gene-environment interactions by using full LD information ...
[60]
Many roads to a gene-environment interaction - ScienceDirect.com
Apr 4, 2024 · Review. Many roads to a gene-environment interaction. Author links open overlay panel. Kenneth E. Westerman 1 2 3 , Tamar Sofer.
[61]
Genotype by Environment Interaction of Quantitative Traits
Jul 1, 2012 · Genotype by environment interaction is a phenomenon that a better genotype in one environment may perform poorly in another environment.Missing: classical | Show results with:classical
[62]
The statistical analysis of multi-environment data: modeling ... - NIH
Genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) is an important phenomenon in plant breeding. This paper presents a series of models for describing, exploring, ...
[63]
Estimating Trait Heritability | Learn Science at Scitable - Nature
Estimation of heritability in populations depends on the partitioning of observed variation into components that reflect unobserved genetic and environmental ...
[64]
Design and analysis issues in gene and environment studies - PMC
Traditional study designs have been used to study gene-environment interaction, including cohort and case–control studies. However some designs tend to favor ...
[65]
Methods and Insights from Single-Cell Expression Quantitative Trait ...
Large-scale eQTL studies typically use bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to profile tissue samples from many individuals and then associate genetic variants with ...
[66]
Detecting regulatory gene–environment interactions with ...
Here, we propose a model-based approach to simultaneously infer unmeasured environmental factors from gene expression profiles and use them in genetic analyses, ...
[67]
Incorporating Multiple Sets of eQTL Weights into Gene-by ...
Incorporating Multiple Sets of eQTL Weights into Gene-by-Environment Interaction Analysis Identifies Novel Susceptibility Loci for Pancreatic Cancer.
[68]
Detecting genetic effects on phenotype variability to capture gene-by ...
Here, we review available methods to detect vQTLs in humans, carry out a simulation study to assess their performance under different biological scenarios of ...
[69]
GxEsum: a novel approach to estimate the phenotypic variance ...
Jun 21, 2021 · It is possible to extend the GxEsum model to fit additional quadratic and polynomial terms or multiple environmental variables simultaneously.<|separator|>
[70]
PICALO: principal interaction component analysis ... - Genome Biology
Jan 22, 2024 · We introduce PICALO, a method for hidden variable inference of eQTL contexts. PICALO identifies and disentangles technical from biological context.
[71]
A versatile, fast and unbiased method for estimation of gene-by ...
Aug 25, 2023 · In this report, we developed a method, MonsterLM, to estimate variance explained by genome-wide interactions with environmental exposures. Using ...
[72]
High-Dimensional Gene–Environment Interaction Analysis
Mar 7, 2025 · Review Article. Open Access. High-Dimensional Gene–Environment ... Review of statistical methods for gene-environment interaction analysis.
[73]
Psychiatric and Cognitive Aspects of Phenylketonuria
Sep 10, 2019 · The severe cognitive impairments seen in untreated PKU can be partially reversed with dietary treatment in many individuals, and the prompt ...
[74]
Phenylketonuria: a review of current and future treatments - Al Hafid
Treatment, which includes a low Phe diet supplemented with amino acid formulas, commences soon after diagnosis within the first weeks of life.
[75]
Genetic etiology and clinical challenges of phenylketonuria
Jul 19, 2022 · This review discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, genetic etiology, and management of phenylketonuria (PKU).
[76]
MAOA, childhood maltreatment and antisocial behavior - NIH
We report a meta-analysis of studies testing the interaction of MAOA genotype and childhood adversities on antisocial outcomes in predominantly non-clinical ...
[77]
[PDF] Meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction - Moffitt & Caspi
Conclusions: We found common regulatory variation in MAOA to moderate effects of childhood maltreatment on male antisocial behaviors, confirming a sentinel ...
[78]
MAOA, Childhood Maltreatment, and Antisocial Behavior
Here, we report a meta-analysis of studies testing the interaction of MAOA genotype and childhood adversities on antisocial outcomes in predominantly ...
[79]
MAOA Genotype, Maltreatment, and Aggressive Behavior
Our study suggests that problems in aggressive behavior in maltreated children are moderated by MAOA genotype, but only up to moderate levels of trauma ...
[80]
Physical Activity and the Association of Common FTO Gene Variants ...
Our results strongly suggest that the increased risk of obesity owing to genetic susceptibility by FTO variants can be blunted through physical activity. These ...
[81]
Physical Activity Attenuates the Influence of FTO Variants on Obesity ...
Nov 1, 2011 · In summary, we have established that PA attenuates the association of the FTO gene with adult BMI and obesity by approximately 30%. We have also ...
[82]
Multiple novel gene-by-environment interactions modify the effect of ...
Sep 6, 2016 · There is strong evidence for an interaction between FTO and physical activity from meta-analyses of North American cohorts and combined European ...
[83]
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.111.000007
[84]
The Serotonin Transporter Promoter Variant (5-HTTLPR), Stress ...
We found strong evidence that a serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) moderates the relationship between stress and depression, with the less ...Missing: GxE | Show results with:GxE
[85]
Gene x Environment: Serotonin Transporter Gene Debate
Collaborative meta-analysis finds no evidence of a strong interaction between stress and 5-HTTLPR genotype contributing to the development of depression.
[86]
Lessons Learned From Past Gene-Environment Interaction Successes
Oct 1, 2017 · Abstract. Genetic and environmental factors are both known to contribute to susceptibility to complex diseases.
[87]
Genotype-environment interaction at quantitative trait loci affecting ...
The magnitude of segregating variation for bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster exceeds that predicted from models of mutation-selection balance.
[88]
Genotype-Environment Interaction at Quantitative Trait Loci Affecting ...
To evaluate the hypothesis that genotype-environment interaction (GEI) maintains variation for bristle number in nature, we quantified the extent of GEI for ...
[89]
Identifying candidate genes affecting developmental time in ...
Aug 8, 2008 · Interestingly, the gene-by-environment interaction accounted for 52% of total phenotypic variance. Plastic reaction norms were found for a large ...
[90]
A genomic bias for genotype–environment interactions in C. elegans
Jun 5, 2012 · Genotype–environment interactions were analyzed in C. elegans by identifying genes that respond differentially to environmental changes across five genotypes.<|separator|>
[91]
Mapping phenotypic plasticity and genotype–environment ... - Nature
Sep 6, 2006 · Some well-known examples are temperature ... Caenorhabditis elegans show genotype–environment interactions, pleiotropy and epistasis.
[92]
Correlations of Genotype with Climate Parameters Suggest ...
Previous studies have also shown that C. elegans tend to be found in humid regions (Frézal and Félix 2015). The same QTL on the right arm of chromosome V was ...C. Elegans Wild Isolate... · Results · Gwa Of Geographic Traits
[93]
Gene-environment interaction influences anxiety-like behavior in ...
Mar 17, 2011 · Gene-environment interaction influences anxiety-like behavior in ethologically based mouse models. Behav Brain Res. 2011 Mar 17;218(1):99-105 ...
[94]
The role of gene-environment interactions in social dysfunction
Dec 15, 2024 · Here we review the available preclinical evidence on the impact of gene-environment interactions on social behaviors and their dysfunction, focusing on studies ...
[95]
Animal models of gene-environment interactions in schizophrenia
Here, we will critically evaluate the most popular approaches to GEI animal models of schizophrenia, and propose that establishing animal and cell models based ...
[96]
Differential susceptibility to prenatal stress exposure in serotonin ...
Sep 23, 2025 · Although such gene x environment interactions have been extensively studied, their validity has been disputed (Risch et al., 2009 ...
[97]
Moderating heritability with genomic data | bioRxiv
May 3, 2024 · We propose a novel method for estimating GxE heritability using genetic marginal effects from GxE genome-wide analyses and LD Score Regression ( ...
[98]
The heritable basis of gene–environment interactions in ... - NIH
Dec 21, 2016 · All cardiometabolic traits had statistically significant heritability estimates, with narrow-sense heritabilities (h 2) ranging from 24% to 47%.
[99]
Gene-environment interaction explains a part of missing heritability ...
Mar 25, 2023 · Our results suggest that G×E interaction may partly explain the missing heritability in BMI, and two G×E interaction loci identified could help in ...
[100]
A scalable and robust variance components method reveals insights ...
Understanding the contribution of gene-environment interactions (GxE) to complex trait variation can provide insights into disease mechanisms, ...Material And Methods · Results · Estimating Gxe Heritability...
[101]
Gene-environment interaction explains a part of missing heritability ...
Mar 25, 2023 · Our results suggest that G×E interaction may partly explain the missing heritability in BMI, and two G×E interaction loci identified could help in ...
[102]
A Critical Review of the First 10 Years of Candidate Gene-by ...
The authors conducted analyses on data extracted from all published studies (103 studies) from the first decade (2000–2009) of cG×E research in psychiatry.
[103]
Candidate gene-environment interaction research - PubMed - NIH
We review several reasons why the rapidly expanding candidate gene-environment interaction (cG×E) literature should be considered with a degree of caution. We ...Missing: critiques GxE
[104]
No Support for Historical Candidate Gene or ... - Psychiatry Online
Mar 8, 2019 · To critics of candidate gene findings, replication failures suggested that the initial findings were artifactual (9–11). However, at least two ...
[105]
Poor statistical power in population-based association study of gene ...
Apr 27, 2024 · Our results show the statistical power increases with the increasing of interaction coefficient, relative risk, and linkage disequilibrium with genetic markers.
[106]
[PDF] Introduction to the Add Health GWAS Data
Statistical Power: Gene-Environment GWAS. Why is statistical power so challenging? 35. N=80,000. Page 36. Statistical Power: Gene-Environment GWAS. We need to ...
[107]
Comparisons of power of statistical methods for gene-environment ...
This simulation study confirms the practical advantage of two-step approaches to interaction testing over more conventional one-step designs.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[108]
An approach to identify gene-environment interactions and reveal ...
Apr 22, 2024 · There is a long-standing debate about the magnitude of the contribution of gene-environment interactions to phenotypic variations of complex ...
[109]
Testing for Gene-Environment Interaction Under Exposure ... - NIH
We study the impact of misspecification of the environmental exposure effect on inference for the GxE interaction term in linear and logistic regression models.
[110]
[PDF] Lecture 7: Interaction Analysis
Case-only analysis can lead to improved power, but be careful of assumptions. ... Null model has to be correctly specified for valid inference. Collapsing ...<|separator|>
[111]
Re-analysis and meta-analysis of summary statistics from gene ...
We introduce two tools to facilitate such analysis, with a focus on statistical models containing multiple gene–exposure and/or gene–covariate interaction terms ...
[112]
The challenge of causal inference in gene-environment interaction ...
This article outlines and provides examples of several prominent research designs that should be used in gene-environment research.
[113]
leveraging research designs from the social sciences | Dalton Conley
The challenge of causal inference in gene–environment interaction research: leveraging research designs from the social sciences | Dalton Conley.
[114]
The Challenge of Causal Inference in Gene–Environment ...
Aug 7, 2025 · ... There are several challenges in examining gene-environmental interaction research, which should be carefully addressed to facilitate causal ...
[115]
Interaction-based Mendelian randomization with measured and ...
Aug 10, 2022 · MR-GxE uses an explicitly defined gene-by-covariate interaction to estimate causal effects, and has previously been framed within a summary- ...
[116]
From Bradford-Hill criteria to complex gene-environment interactions ...
Jun 9, 2011 · There are some well known methodological challenges in interpreting the causal significance of gene-disease associations; they include ...
[117]
[PDF] Is it possible to detect GxE interactions in GWAS when causal ...
Jan 14, 2016 · In this paper, we propose to study the effect of a hidden causal exposure on the power to detect G×E interactions in GWAS.Missing: review | Show results with:review
[118]
Current Challenges and New Opportunities for Gene-Environment ...
This paper highlights current and critical issues and themes in G×E research that need additional consideration, including the improved data analytical methods.
[119]
Current Challenges and New Opportunities for Gene-Environment ...
Oct 1, 2017 · This paper highlights current and critical issues and themes in G×E research that need additional consideration, including the improved data analytical methods.
[120]
Gene-environment interaction using polygenic scores - NIH
The DNA revolution has energized research on interactions between genes and environments (GxE) by creating indices of G (polygenic scores) that are powerful ...
[121]
Interactions between Polygenic Scores and Environments - NIH
An interaction between PGS and environment may then indicate that the influence of genetic factors on the outcome is larger in some environments than others, ...
[122]
Interactions between Polygenic Scores and Environments
Sep 21, 2020 · We articulate some of these key challenges, provide new perspectives on the study of gene–environment interactions, and end by offering some practical guidance.
[123]
Polygenic Interactions With Environmental Exposures in Blood ...
Sep 18, 2024 · We found evidence for gene‐dependent influence of lifestyle factors such as cardiorespiratory fitness, dietary patterns, and tobacco exposure.
[124]
High-Dimensional Gene–Environment Interaction Analysis - PMC
Sep 11, 2025 · The three main families of techniques are hypothesis testing, variable selection, and dimension reduction, which lead to three general ...
[125]
Pathway polygenic risk scores (pPRS) for the analysis of gene ...
The identification of polygenic risk score (PRS) by environment (PRSxE) interactions may provide clues to underlying biology and facilitate targeted disease ...
[126]
Identifying Gene-Environment Interactions across Genome-wide ...
Oct 14, 2025 · Nevertheless, twin and polygenic risk score (PRS) studies suggest that GxE is pervasive and may have a large impact on complex genetic traits.
[127]
Analyzing complex traits and diseases using GxE PRS - Nature
Aug 14, 2025 · Overall, our study highlights key gene-environment interactions, signifying that some genetic effects are modifiable, offering insights into the ...
[128]
Environment by environment interactions (ExE) differ across genetic ...
May 10, 2024 · Search results retrieved from Pubmed on May 3, 2024 demonstrate that publications describing ExE interactions, including GxExE, show ...
[129]
GxExE Whiz The influence of genotype and multiple environments ...
In this study, we tested for genetic variation in the extent to which these ontogenetic oxygen environments interact (GxExE) in the early development of the ...
[130]
Gender-Specific Gene–Environment Interaction in Alcohol ...
In sum, as suggested by research on gender and addiction, the GxExE findings identified here may be attributable to gender differences in the form and potency ...Methods · Multivariate Models · Discussion
[131]
[PDF] Gene-environment interaction and psychiatric disorders
This study aimed to replicate and extend previous findings pertain- ing to gene-x-environment-x-environment interactions (GxExE) between candidate genes, ...
[132]
Gene-environment interactions within a precision environmental ...
A GEI occurs when exposure to an environmental factor affects the risk of developing a disease due to differences in an individual's genetic makeup. Conversely, ...
[133]
Gene-environment interaction in psychiatry. - APA PsycNet
The analysis of gene-environment interaction (GxE) and its application in personalized psychiatry requires deep insight in the conceptualization and ...
[134]
Gene–Environment Interaction in the Era of Precision Medicine
The present paper dissects the advantages and limitations of the current theory of gene–environment interaction stemming from the classical models of genetic ...
[135]
GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION AND THE EVOLUTION ...
Our quantitative genetic models describe the evolution of phenotypic response to the environment, also known as phenotypic plasticity.
[136]
Determining the evolutionary forces shaping G × E - Josephs - 2018
Mar 25, 2018 · Here, I review our understanding of the evolutionary forces shaping G × E, focusing specifically on: what evolutionary forces maintain variation for plasticity.
[137]
Gene‐environment interaction in evolutionary perspective ...
Feb 4, 2014 · An evolutionary perspective led us not only to appreciate the costs as well as benefits of developmental plasticity but, as a result, why ...
[138]
Gene-by-environment interactions are pervasive among natural ...
Apr 12, 2023 · Studies identifying GxE generally come in two main varieties: forward and reverse genetic approaches. Forward genetic approaches leverage ...
[139]
Phenotypic plasticity and experimental evolution
Jun 15, 2006 · The greater induction caused by lemon exposure in the S lines relative to the C lines is an example of a genotype-by-environment interaction.
[140]
Gene-by-environment Interactions and Adaptive Body Size Variation ...
Apr 2, 2025 · Gene expression can be a powerful lens for studying GxE interactions and their role in adaptation (e.g. Kita and Fraser 2016; He et al. 2021; H ...
[141]
Phenotypic plasticity in a gene-centric world: Current Biology
Feb 28, 2022 · The book introduces relevant concepts from quantitative genetics and other fields as well as provides examples and discussions that collectively ...