Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2022 Jun 9;20(6):e3001656. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001656

A lifecourse mendelian randomization study highlights the long-term influence of childhood body size on later life heart structure

Katie O’Nunain 1, Chloe Park 2, Helena Urquijo 1,3, Genevieve M Leyden 1,3,4, Alun D Hughes 2, George Davey Smith 1,3, Tom G Richardson 1,3,5,*
Editor: Jason W Locasale6
PMCID: PMC9182693  PMID: 35679339

Abstract

Children with obesity typically have larger left ventricular heart dimensions during adulthood. However, whether this is due to a persistent effect of adiposity extending into adulthood is challenging to disentangle due to confounding factors throughout the lifecourse. We conducted a multivariable mendelian randomization (MR) study to separate the independent effects of childhood and adult body size on 4 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of heart structure and function in the UK Biobank (UKB) study. Strong evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on all measures of adulthood heart structure was identified, which remained robust upon accounting for adult body size using a multivariable MR framework (e.g., left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), Beta = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23 to 0.43, P = 4.6 × 10−10). Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that other lifecourse measures of body composition were responsible for these effects. Conversely, evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on various other MRI-based measures, such as fat percentage in the liver (Beta = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.23, P = 0.002) and pancreas (Beta = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.33, P = 3.9 × 10−4), attenuated upon accounting for adult body size. Our findings suggest that childhood body size has a long-term (and potentially immutable) influence on heart structure in later life. In contrast, effects of childhood body size on other measures of adulthood organ size and fat percentage evaluated in this study are likely explained by the long-term consequence of remaining overweight throughout the lifecourse.


Children with obesity typically have larger left ventricular heart dimensions during adulthood, but this is challenging to disentangle due to confounding factors throughout life. This study uses Mendelian randomization to provide evidence that being overweight in early life may indeed have a long-term influence on cardiac structure.

Introduction

The prevalence of childhood obesity has increased rapidly in the last 50 years, and it is now a major public health concern worldwide [1]. Research suggests that childhood obesity has serious long-term health consequences including increased risk of cardiovascular disease in adulthood [24]. This has prompted efforts into understanding the effects of childhood obesity on cardiac structure and function in later life, with previous studies noting an association between childhood adiposity and both left ventricular remodeling and left ventricular mass in adulthood [59].

However, evidence of an association between childhood obesity and altered cardiac morphology comes from observational studies, which are prone to confounding and reverse causation. This is the motivation behind an approach known as mendelian randomization (MR), a form of instrumental variable analysis that harnesses genetic variants randomly allocated at birth to investigate evidence of a causal effect between modifiable lifestyle risk factors on complex traits and disease outcomes [10,11]. Therefore, as long as the assumptions of MR hold, differences in an outcome between carriers of specific genetic variants and noncarriers can be attributed to the environmental risk factors they predict.

Multivariable MR is an extension of the conventional MR approach that simultaneously estimates the genetically predicted effects of multiple risk factors on an outcome [12,13]. This approach can help separate the “direct” and “indirect” effects of a risk factor on an outcome (Fig 1). Recently, we derived sets of genetic variants to separate the genetically predicted effects of childhood and adult body size using multivariable MR in a lifecourse context [14]. These scores have already been validated to separate measured childhood and adult body mass index (BMI) [15,16] and have also been leveraged to provide evidence that childhood body size has a direct influence on outcomes such as type 1 diabetes [17] (Fig 1B). In contrast, these scores have provided evidence of an indirect effect on outcomes such as atherosclerosis and heart failure [18] (Fig 1C), suggesting that the association between childhood adiposity and these outcomes is likely attributed to individuals remaining overweight into adulthood. However, this approach has not yet been applied to evaluate the effect of childhood body size on cardiac structure and function in later life, which is vital in terms of understanding the long-term consequences of this early life exposure on the cardiovascular system.

Fig 1. DAGs illustrating the different scenarios through which childhood body size may influence cardiac structure in later life.

Fig 1

Fig 1A illustrates the “total” effect of childhood body size on cardiac structure in adulthood. This may be due to a “direct” effect of childhood body size, which is depicted in Fig 1B or an “indirect” effect, mediated through adult body size, which is depicted in Fig 1C. DAG, directed acyclic graph.

In this study, we applied univariable and multivariable MR to investigate whether genetically predicted childhood body size has a direct effect on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed measures of cardiac structure and function in adulthood independent of adult body size. Although genetic instruments for childhood body size were derived as a surrogate measure of adiposity, we investigated this using various sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether they could be explained by other lifecourse measures of body composition. We next applied univariable and multivariable MR to other MRI-derived measures of abdominal organs measured during adulthood, involving the size and fat percentage of the liver, pancreas, and kidney, as well as volumes of subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT). These abdominal traits were analyzed for comparative purposes, given that we anticipated there to be weak evidence of an effect of childhood body size on them upon accounting for the effect of adult body size. Last, we analyzed cardiomyopathy endpoints using this approach to discern whether putative effects responsible for left ventricular cardiac remodeling may have downstream implications on this disease outcome.

Results

Investigating the direct and indirect effects of childhood body size on cardiac structure and function in later life

An overview of the datasets analyzed in this study and their study characteristics can be found in S1 and S2 Tables, respectively. Univariable MR analyses using the inverse variance weighted (IVW) approach provided strong evidence that childhood body size has a total effect on left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (Beta = 0.36 SD change per change in body size category, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.28 to 0.44, P = 1 × 10−18), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (Beta = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.36, P = 3 × 10−13), and stroke volume (SV) (Beta = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.45, P = 1 × 10−16). However, there was weak evidence of an effect on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (Beta = −0.10, 95% CI = −0.18 to −0.02, P = 0.016) after accounting for multiple testing corrections across all MRI-based measures in this study (P < 0.0045). Similar results were observed for adult body size in the univariable analysis, although effect estimates were typically smaller in magnitude (S3 Table). In addition, childhood body size estimates on measures of heart structure were supported by the weighted median and MR–Egger methods suggesting that our results were robust to horizontal pleiotropy, whereas weak evidence was identified on LVEF when using these approaches (S3 Table).

Multivariable MR analyses provided strong evidence of a direct effect of childhood body size on cardiac measures in adulthood (S4 Table) as effect estimates for LVESV (Beta = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.40, P = 8 × 10−8), LVEDV (Beta = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.43, P = 5 × 10−10), and SV (Beta = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.41, P = 1 × 10−8) remained robust upon accounting for adult body size. Furthermore, multivariable estimates provided little evidence for a direct effect of adult body size independent of childhood body size on cardiac structure when analyzed in the multivariable framework along with childhood body size (S4 Table). Forest plots for both the univariable and multivariable MR results on measures of cardiac structure and function can be found in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood and adult body size on measures of cardiac structure/function and abdominal organ size/fat percentage.

Fig 2

The estimates for child body size are in orange and the estimates for adult body size are in red. The effect estimates are per change in body size category and include the 95% CI. The data underlying this figure can be found in S3, S4, S6, and S7 Tables. CI, confidence interval; LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SAT, subcutaneous adipose tissue; VAT, visceral adiposity tissue.

Validation analyses conducted in the ALSPAC cohort supported a direct effect of childhood body size on measures of cardiac structure at mean age 17.8 years in the lifecourse (S5 Table). In the multivariable MR analyses, childhood body size provided strong evidence of an effect on LVEDV (Beta = 1.65ml per change in body size category, 95% CI = 0.50 to 2.80, P = 0.005), LVESV (Beta = 0.75ml, 95% CI = 0.11 to 1.38, P = 0.022) and SV (Beta = 0.89ml, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.59, P = 0.013). Weak evidence of an effect of childhood body size was found when analysing LVEF (Beta = −0.07, 95% CI = −0.42 to 0.29, P = 0.715) as found in our primary analysis.

Evaluating the direct and indirect effects between childhood body size and abdominal organ size in adulthood

We then applied the same approach to MRI measures of abdominal organs in adulthood for comparison. Univariable MR provided evidence of an effect of child and adult body size on all measures of abdominal organ size and fat percentage with the exception of pancreatic volume (S6 Table). For example, there was strong evidence of a total effect of childhood body size on kidney volume (Beta = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.46, P = 1 × 10−13), liver volume (Beta = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.51, P = 5 × 10−17), pancreatic fat percentage (Beta = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.33, P = 3 × 10−4), and liver fat percentage (Beta = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.23, P = 0.002) using the IVW method. However, the evidence of an effect for child body size drastically attenuated in the multivariable MR analysis accounting for adult body size (with the direction of effect for childhood body size even reversing in some instances). This suggests that child body size acts indirectly through adult body size on abdominal organ size and fat percentage in later life (S7 Table). In addition, there was also strong evidence of a direct effect of adult body size on SAT (Beta = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.07, P = 6 × 10−84) and VAT volume (Beta = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.90, P = 1 × 10−62). All univariable and multivariable MR estimates on abdominal traits are shown in Fig 2.

Incorporating the genetically predicted effects of other measures of lifecourse body composition on cardiac structure

Repeating multivariable MR analyses for childhood body size while accounting for adult fat-free mass index (FFMI) in the model continued to provide evidence of a direct effect of childhood body size on cardiac structure and function in later life (S8 and S9 Tables). Likewise, strong evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on measures of cardiac structure was found upon accounting for birth weight using multivariable MR (S10 and S11 Tables). Forest plots for the univariable and multivariable MR analyses accounting for FFMI and birth weight can be found in S1 and S2 Figs, respectively.

Repeating MR analyses using childhood and adult height as our exposures provided strong evidence on all 4 MRI-assessed measures of cardiac structure and function (S12 Table). For example, we observed evidence of an effect of height using the IVW method at both the childhood (Beta per change in height category = −0.26, 95% CI = −0.31 to −0.21, P = 1 × 10−25) and adult time points (Beta = −0.31, 95% CI = −0.36 to −0.26, P = 1 × 10−34) on LVEF. However, in contrast to our findings for childhood body size, multivariable MR found that evidence of an effect for childhood height on LVEF attenuated drastically and upon accounting for adult height (Beta = −0.05, 95% CI = −0.19 to 0.10, P = 0.53). This suggests that childhood height exerts its effect on LVEF indirectly via the causal pathway involving adult height, but also that our findings for childhood body size may be more likely to be due to higher adiposity as opposed to simply being larger during childhood. Evidence on measures of cardiac structure also typically attenuated for childhood height in comparison to adult height (S13 Table). Forests plots of the MR results for childhood and adult height are depicted in S3 Fig. Finally, evidence of an effect of childhood body size on measures of cardiac structure remained strong in the multivariable model accounting for the effect of childhood height (S14 Table).

Weak evidence that childhood body size directly influences risk of cardiomyopathies in adulthood

Despite strong evidence of an effect on cardiac structure provided by previous analyses, undertaking the same analytical approach on cardiomyopathy endpoints provided weak evidence that childhood body size has a direct effect on these disease outcomes (S15 and S16 Tables). For example, the total effect of childhood body size found in univariable MR analyses of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74 per change in body size category, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.53, P = 0.004) attenuated to include the null in the multivariable MR analyses accounting for adult body size (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.84, P = 0.753).

Discussion

In this study, we provide evidence that childhood body size directly influences cardiac structure in later life independent of adult body size. Furthermore, our effect estimates remained robust even after accounting for genetically predicted lean mass and birth weight, further supporting the hypothesis that childhood body size has an independent effect on cardiac structure. In contrast, there was weak evidence of an effect of childhood body size on LVEF, consistent with findings from the literature suggesting that obesity may influence cardiac remodeling [19]. Additionally, as anticipated evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on adult measures of abdominal organ size and fat percentage attenuated after accounting for body size during adulthood. These results suggest that the total effect of childhood body size is likely attributed to the long-term consequence of remaining overweight throughout the lifecourse and into adulthood. Likewise, although childhood body size increased the risk of cardiomyopathy there was no convincing evidence that this is due to a direct effect (i.e., independently of adult body size).

Previous studies have used cardiac MRI to investigate the effect of childhood adiposity on cardiac structure and function during childhood [20,21]. They report evidence of an association between childhood adiposity and increased left ventricular mass and cardiac remodeling. Findings from our study provides evidence using genetic instrumental variables that these reported associations may be due to a direct effect of childhood body size on cardiac structure. One potential mechanism that has been postulated for this finding is higher levels of adipose tissue in early life increasing circulating blood volume and cardiac output [22,23]. These hemodynamic changes in combination with other metabolic and neurohormonal alterations are thought to drive changes in cardiac morphology [24,25]. Another proposed mechanism that this finding may be attributed is increased early life body size resulting in a persistent change in myocardial energetics [26]. Cardiac remodeling can be a normal physiological process; however, it has also been reported to potentially become irreversible [27,28]. We note, however, that, although our findings highlight the importance of body size during early life as a determinant of cardiac structure in adulthood, further research is required to pinpoint the critical windows during the lifecourse when the consequence of this effect may become immutable.

The genetically predicted effects of childhood body size on cardiac remodeling observed in our study also required further investigation into whether they may lead to pathological consequences and if this translates into an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The current literature suggests that childhood adiposity influences cardiometabolic disease risk only if the levels remain consistently high into adulthood [29]. Of particular note is a recent MR study which found that the effect estimates for childhood body size and 8 cardiovascular disease endpoints attenuated (and in some cases even reversed direction of effect) when accounting for adult body size [18]. We also build on these findings in this study, as evidence that childhood body size increases risk of nonischaemic cardiomyopathy from our univariable analyses did not remain robust to the inclusion of adult body size in the multivariable model. These findings suggest that individuals who are larger in early life are likely at higher risk of nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in later life due to a sustained and long-term effect of adiposity for many years across the lifecourse. However, this research question would be worthwhile revisiting once larger number of cases for cardiomyopathy endpoints are available [30]. Moreover, investigations into the consequences of body size at other time points in the lifecourse would be worthwhile, particularly given that previous observational analyses suggest that adiposity in late adolescence (mean age 18.3 years) may contribute to being diagnosed with cardiomyopathy in adulthood [31]. We also assessed effects on left ventricular function in this study using left ventricular ejection fraction, although alternate measures may be worthwhile investigating once larger sample sizes are available [32].

We additionally incorporated genetic instruments for FFMI, birth weight, and height (during both childhood and adulthood) into our multivariable MR framework to investigate whether these might explain the genetically predicted effect found between childhood body size and measures of cardiac structure. Although previous studies have indicated that cardiac structure is more strongly influenced by lean mass than fat mass, our effect estimates remained robust when accounting for FFMI in adulthood [33]. In addition, the effect estimates for LVESV, LVEDV, and SV did not attenuate when birth weight was incorporated into the multivariable model. These results support the hypothesis that childhood body size has an effect on adult cardiac structure independent of birth weight used as a proxy in this study for body size during the very early stages in the lifecourse. However, future research that incorporates both parental and fetal genotypes into the study design would be more appropriate to fully evaluate the genetically predicted effect of birth weight itself on MRI-derived traits such as cardiac structure [34,35]. Furthermore, the genetically predicted effect of childhood height on cardiac structure did not remain robust after accounting for height during adulthood. Taken together, the evidence of a genetically predicted effect of childhood body size on cardiac structure found in this study may be driven by adiposity rather than these alternate aspects of body composition, although confirmatory evidence from further research is required to support this.

It is important to note that this study has limitations. First, to gain a large number of reliable instrumental variables for childhood body size, we harnessed recall data [36]. However, as mentioned in the methods section, these genetic variants have been validated in 3 separate studies and have even been found to be a better predictor of BMI across multiple time points in childhood compared to the genetic score from derived from the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) of measured childhood BMI to date [37]. Furthermore, although the UK Biobank is by far the largest study to date with MRI measures of cardiac structure and function, the subsample of participants who attended the MRI imaging study have been reported to have a “healthy bias” [38], and these individuals were removed from our GWAS analyses required for instrument derivation. However, this was necessary to prevent overlap between our exposures and outcomes that may induce overfitting into MR analyses and lead estimates away from the null [39].

In conclusion, our findings suggest that childhood body size has a direct and potentially immutable effect on cardiac structure in later life. This is in contrast to results for abdominal organ size and fat percentage, where associations with childhood obesity are likely explained by a persistent effect of adiposity throughout the lifecourse into adulthood. Further research is needed to determine whether early life changes in cardiac morphology caused by childhood body size have pathological consequences.

Materials and methods

Data resources

Genetic instruments for childhood and adult body size

We previously conducted GWASs in the UKB study on measures of childhood and adult body size. Details of these analyses have been reported elsewhere [14]. In brief, the childhood body size measure in UKB was derived using recall questionnaire data asking participants if they were “thinner,” “plumper,” or “about average” when they were aged 10 years old compared to the average (field #1687). Adult measured BMI (field #21001) data (mean age 56.5 years) was then transformed into a 3-tier variable using the same proportions as the childhood measure for comparative purposes. Genetic instruments derived from these GWASs have been previously validated using measured BMI data from 3 independent populations; the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) [14], the Trøndelag Health (HUNT) study [15], and the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study [16]. Furthermore, genetic correlation analyses demonstrate that the childhood body size GWAS is much more highly correlated with measured childhood obesity from an independent sample (rG = 0.85) compared to the adult measure (rG = 0.67). In contrast, results from the adult body size GWAS have been shown to be much more strongly correlated with measured BMI in adulthood (rG = 0.96) compared to the childhood measure (rG = 0.64). Conditional F-statistics generated for childhood (F = 13.6) and adult (F = 16.0) body size instruments suggested that weak instrument bias was unlikely for these sets of genetic variants.

In the current study, we repeated these GWASs in UKB excluding participants who attended UKB assessment centers for MRI data collection. As these MRI measures were analyzed as outcomes in this study, this allowed us to partition UKB into 2 independent samples, meaning there was no sample overlap between our exposures and outcomes which may lead to overfitting in MR analyses [39,40]. GWASs were conducted on n = 407,741 participants with both measures adjusting for age, sex, and genotyping chip, with the childhood body size GWAS additionally adjusted for month of birth. To account for genetic relatedness and geographical structure in UKB, we applied a linear mixed model using the BOLT-LMM software to perform GWAS [41]. Genetic instruments from GWASs were selected based on variants that met the criteria of P < 5 × 10−8 and r2 < 0.001 using a reference panel of n = 10,000 randomly selected unrelated European participants from UKB [42].

Genetic instruments for other measures of lifecourse body composition

Although the childhood body size measure in UKB aims to capture a surrogate measure of adiposity at age 10 (i.e., whether an individual was “thinner,” “plumper,” or “about average”), we sought to assess this by accounting for other measures of body composition at different stages in the lifecourse. Specifically, we sought to investigate whether childhood height, birth weight or fat-free mass index (FFMI) may be responsible for findings using the childhood body size instruments rather than adiposity at age 10. The same protocol described above was therefore repeated to identify genetic instruments in the UKB study for childhood height (field #1697), adult height (field #50), birth weight (field #20022), and FFMI (field #23101 divided by field #50 squared). Childhood and adult height measures were categorized in the same manner as their body size counterparts, whereas birth weight was kept as a continuous trait to maximize sample sizes in analyses. All GWASs were adjusted for age, sex, and genotyping chip, with the exception of childhood height, which was additionally adjusted for month of birth.

Genetic effect estimates on MRI-assessed measures of cardiac structure and function

Genome-wide genetic variant effects on measures of cardiac structure and function were obtained from a previous GWAS of cardiac MRI-derived left ventricular measurements in 36,041 UKB participants who attended follow-up clinics [30]. These measures were LVEDV, LVESV, SV and LVEF. GWASs were undertaken using BOLT-LMM with adjustment for age, sex, year of birth, and MRI scanner’s unique identifiers. Estimates from these GWASs were unadjusted for BMI and height, which is why they were selected over others available.

Genetic effect estimates on MRI-assessed measures of abdominal organs

We additionally obtained genome-wide estimates on 5 measures of abdominal organ traits [43]. These were liver volume, liver fat percentage, pancreas volume, pancreas fat percentage, and kidney volume. As a further analysis, we also extracted estimated on SAT and VAT volume. These GWASs were conducted using BOLT-LMM with adjustment for age, age2, sex, imagine center, scan date, scan time, and genotyping batch.

Genome-wide association studies of cardiomyopathy endpoints

We obtained genome-wide results from a previously conducted GWAS of 1,816 cases of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and 388,326 controls from the UKB study. Details of this GWAS have been described previously [44]. In brief, cases were defined as patients with reported hospitalization or death due to dilated cardiomyopathy or left ventricular failure (defined as ICD10 codes I420, I421, I422, I501, or ICD9 code 4281) and an absence of CAD (defined based on ICD9 and ICD10 codes reported in S1 Table). Additionally, we applied our BOLT-LMM GWAS pipeline described above to derived genetic estimates on dilated and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy separately (based on ICD10 codes I420 and I421/I422, respectively) with adjustment for age and sex. An overview of all the GWAS datasets analyzed in this study can be found in S1 Table. Characteristics of these datasets can be found in S2 Table.

Early life measures of cardiac structure from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

ALSPAC is a population-based cohort investigating genetic and environmental factors that affect the health and development of children. The study methods are described in detail elsewhere [45,46]. In brief, 14,541 pregnant women residents in the former region of Avon, UK, with an expected delivery date between April 1, 1991 and December 31, 1992, were eligible to take part in ALSPAC. Detailed phenotypic information, biological samples, and genetic data, which have been collected from the ALSPAC participants, are available through a searchable data dictionary (http://www.bris.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data). Written informed consent was obtained for all study participants. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees.

We obtained data from ALSPAC participants enrolled in the Growth Related effects in ALSPAC on Cardiac Endpoints (GRACE) substudy [47]. At mean age = 17.8 years (range = 16.3 to 20 years), participants underwent an echocardiogram test that obtained measures of left ventricular structure and function. These measures were then analyzed using linear regression with weighted genetic risk scores for childhood and adult body size both individually and together in the same model with adjustment for age and sex.

Statistical analysis

Univariable mendelian randomization

First, we conducted 2-sample univariable MR to investigate the total effect of genetically predicted childhood body size on each of the MRI-derived outcomes in turn. This was estimated using the IVW method [48] for initial analyses followed by the weighted median [49] and MR–Egger [50] methods as sensitivity analyses. This was to evaluate the robustness of our IVW estimates to horizontal pleiotropy, which is the phenomenon whereby genetic variants exert their effects on exposure and outcome via 2 separate biological pathways [51]. All univariable analyses were repeated for adult body size as well as all other exposures investigated in this study. F-statistics were derived for each set of instruments to assess whether findings may be prone to weak instrument bias.

Multivariable mendelian randomization

We next investigated the direct and indirect effect of childhood body size on each of the MRI-derived outcomes using 2-sample multivariable MR [12,13]. This involved including adult body size in our model along with childhood body size to simultaneously estimate their genetically predicted effects on each outcome in turn. This analysis was then repeated using the genetic instruments for childhood and adult height, allowing us to investigate whether results for body size were likely due to adiposity rather than simply being larger in childhood.

Further sensitivity analyses were also conducted estimating the direct effect of childhood body size using multivariable MR while accounting for both FFMI and birth weight. As described previously, we accounted for birth weight in this study to investigate whether an individual’s body size in very early life (for example before age 5 in the lifecourse) may be responsible for the results identified using our childhood body size genetic instruments [17]. The focus of this study was on childhood body size at age 10 in the lifecourse, and as such, investigating the relationship between birth weight and cardiac structure was outside its scope. Furthermore, an appropriate study design for this research question would require an assessment of the effect of parental genotypes, which we did not have access to in UKB [34,35].

All MR analyses were undertaken in R (version 3.5.1) using the “TwoSampleMR” package [52]. Forest plots in this paper were generated using the R package “ggplot2” [53].

Supporting information

S1 Fig

Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood body size BMI and FFMI on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S8 and S9 Tables. BMI, body mass index; FFMI, fat-free mass index; LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

(PNG)

S2 Fig

Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood body size BMI and BW on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S10 and S11 Tables. BMI, body mass index; BW, birth weight; LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

(PNG)

S3 Fig

Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood and adult height on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S12 and S13 Tables. LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

(PNG)

S1 Table. Overview of the datasets analyzed in this study.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Characteristics for the exposures and outcomes analyzed in this study.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on heart structure measures. MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on heart structure measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Validation univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size in the ALSPAC cohort on heart structure measures.

ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S6 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on abdominal measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S7 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on abdominal measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S8 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood body size and FFMI on heart structure measures.

FFMI, fat-free mass index; MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S9 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood body size and FFMI on heart structure measures.

FFMI, fat-free mass index; MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S10 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood body size and BW on heart structure measures.

BW, birth weight; MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S11 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and BW on heart structure measures.

BW, birth weight; MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S12 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult height on heart structure measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S13 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult height on heart structure measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S14 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood body size and childhood height on heart structure measures.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S15 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on risk of cardiomyopathy outcomes.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

S16 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on risk of cardiomyopathy outcomes.

MR, mendelian randomization.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives for their help in recruiting them, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists, and nurses. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. Genetic data were generated by Sample Logistics and Genotyping Facilities at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe.

Disclaimers

This research was conducted at the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. This publication is the work of the authors and TGR will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper.

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained for all study participants. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees, and data were accessed under application C2823. Data from the UKB were accessed under application #15825, which has obtained ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC; approval number: 11/NW/0382).

Abbreviations:

ALSPAC

Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

BMI

body mass index

CI

confidence interval

FFMI

fat-free mass index

GRACE

Growth Related effects in ALSPAC on Cardiac Endpoints

GWAS

genome-wide association studies

IVW

inverse variance weighted

LVEF

left ventricular ejection fraction

LVEDV

left ventricular end-diastolic volume

LVESV

left ventricular end-systolic volume

MR

mendelian randomization

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

OR

odds ratio

SAT

subcutaneous adipose tissue

SV

stroke volume

UKB

UK Biobank

VAT

visceral adiposity tissue

Data Availability

Summary statistics from genome-wide association studies can be found as referenced in S1 Table and additional underlying data supporting this paper can be found within S2-S16 Tables. All individual level data analysed in this study can be accessed via an approved application to ALSPAC (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/) and the UK Biobank study (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Integrative Epidemiology Unit which receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the University of Bristol (MC_UU_00011/1). AH received support from the Wellcome Trust (086676/7/08/Z) and the British Heart Foundation (PG/06/145, CS/15/6/31468 & SP/F/21/150020). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Collaboration NCDRF. Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627–42. Epub 2017/10/17. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5735219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baker JL, Olsen LW, Sorensen TI. Childhood body-mass index and the risk of coronary heart disease in adulthood. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(23):2329–37. Epub 2007/12/07. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072515 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3062903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Flechtner-Mors M, Neuhauser H, Reinehr T, Roost HP, Wiegand S, Siegfried W, et al. Blood pressure in 57,915 pediatric patients who are overweight or obese based on five reference systems. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(11):1587–94. Epub 2015/04/12. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.02.063 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Weihrauch-Bluher S, Schwarz P, Klusmann JH. Childhood obesity: increased risk for cardiometabolic disease and cancer in adulthood. Metabolism. 2019;92:147–52. Epub 2018/12/12. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2018.12.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tapp RJ, Venn A, Huynh QL, Raitakari OT, Ukoumunne OC, Dwyer T, et al. Impact of adiposity on cardiac structure in adult life: the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health (CDAH) study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014;14:79. Epub 2014/07/02. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-79 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4090182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lai CC, Sun D, Cen R, Wang J, Li S, Fernandez-Alonso C, et al. Impact of long-term burden of excessive adiposity and elevated blood pressure from childhood on adulthood left ventricular remodeling patterns: the Bogalusa Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(15):1580–7. Epub 2014/10/11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.072 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4194028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Toprak A, Wang H, Chen W, Paul T, Srinivasan S, Berenson G. Relation of childhood risk factors to left ventricular hypertrophy (eccentric or concentric) in relatively young adulthood (from the Bogalusa Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(11):1621–5. Epub 2008/05/21. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.01.045 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Li X, Li S, Ulusoy E, Chen W, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. Childhood adiposity as a predictor of cardiac mass in adulthood: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Circulation. 2004;110(22):3488–92. Epub 2004/11/24. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000149713.48317.27 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sivanandam S, Sinaiko AR, Jacobs DR Jr., Steffen L, Moran A, Steinberger J. Relation of increase in adiposity to increase in left ventricular mass from childhood to young adulthood. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(3):411–5. Epub 2006/07/25. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.02.044 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ’Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22. Epub 2003/04/12. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg070 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Richmond RC, Davey Smith G. Mendelian Randomization: Concepts and Scope. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2022;12(1). Epub 2021/08/25. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a040501 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8725623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Burgess S, Freitag DF, Khan H, Gorman DN, Thompson SG. Using multivariable Mendelian randomization to disentangle the causal effects of lipid fractions. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e108891. Epub 2014/10/11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108891 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4193746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sanderson E, Davey Smith G, Windmeijer F, Bowden J. An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):713–27. Epub 2018/12/12. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy262 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Richardson TG, Sanderson E, Elsworth B, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Use of genetic variation to separate the effects of early and later life adiposity on disease risk: mendelian randomisation study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1203. Epub 2020/05/08. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1203 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7201936 at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: funding by grants from the Medical Research Council and Health Data Research UK for the submitted work; no support from any other organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any other organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Brandkvist M, Bjorngaard JH, Odegard RA, Asvold BO, Smith GD, Brumpton B, et al. Separating the genetics of childhood and adult obesity: a validation study of genetic scores for body mass index in adolescence and adulthood in the HUNT Study. Hum Mol Genet. 2020. Epub 2020/12/05. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa256 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Richardson TG, Mykkanen J, Pahkala K, Ala-Korpela M, Bell JA, Taylor K, et al. Evaluating the direct effects of childhood adiposity on adult systemic metabolism: a multivariable Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2021. Epub 2021/03/31. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab051 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Richardson TG, Crouch DJM, Power GM, Berstein FM, Hazelwood E, Fang S, et al. Childhood body size directly increases type 1 diabetes risk based on a lifecourse Mendelian randomization approach. Nat Commun 13, 2337 (2022). doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29932-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Power GM, Tyrrell J, Frayling TM, Davey Smith G, Richardson TG. Mendelian Randomization Analyses Suggest Childhood Body Size Indirectly Influences End Points From Across the Cardiovascular Disease Spectrum Through Adult Body Size. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(17):e021503. Epub 2021/09/02. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.021503 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8649247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Turkbey EB, McClelland RL, Kronmal RA, Burke GL, Bild DE, Tracy RP, et al. The impact of obesity on the left ventricle: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(3):266–74. Epub 2010/03/13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.10.012 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3037096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jing L, Binkley CM, Suever JD, Umasankar N, Haggerty CM, Rich J, et al. Cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in childhood obesity: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(1):28. Epub 2016/05/12. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0247-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4863365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jing L, Nevius CD, Friday CM, Suever JD, Pulenthiran A, Mejia-Spiegeler A, et al. Ambulatory systolic blood pressure and obesity are independently associated with left ventricular hypertrophic remodeling in children. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017;19(1):86. Epub 2017/11/10. doi: 10.1186/s12968-017-0401-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5679494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Aurigemma GP, de Simone G, Fitzgibbons TP. Cardiac remodeling in obesity. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(1):142–52. Epub 2013/01/17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.964627 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Poirier P, Giles TD, Bray GA, Hong Y, Stern JS, Pi-Sunyer FX, et al. Obesity and cardiovascular disease: pathophysiology, evaluation, and effect of weight loss. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26(5):968–76. Epub 2006/04/22. doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000216787.85457.f3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alpert MA, Omran J, Bostick BP. Effects of Obesity on Cardiovascular Hemodynamics, Cardiac Morphology, and Ventricular Function. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(4):424–34. Epub 2016/10/17. doi: 10.1007/s13679-016-0235-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Alpert MA, Karthikeyan K, Abdullah O, Ghadban R. Obesity and Cardiac Remodeling in Adults: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;61(2):114–23. Epub 2018/07/11. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2018.07.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rayner JJ, Peterzan MA, Clarke WT, Rodgers CT, Neubauer S, Rider OJ. Obesity modifies the energetic phenotype of dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2021. Epub 2021/09/21. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab663 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Saavedra WF, Tunin RS, Paolocci N, Mishima T, Suzuki G, Emala CW, et al. Reverse remodeling and enhanced adrenergic reserve from passive external support in experimental dilated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(12):2069–76. Epub 2002/06/27. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01890-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cokkinos DV, Belogianneas C. Left Ventricular Remodelling: A Problem in Search of Solutions. Eur Cardiol. 2016;11(1):29–35. Epub 2016/08/01. doi: 10.15420/ecr.2015:9:3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6159423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Juonala M, Magnussen CG, Berenson GS, Venn A, Burns TL, Sabin MA, et al. Childhood adiposity, adult adiposity, and cardiovascular risk factors. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1876–85. Epub 2011/11/18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1010112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pirruccello JP, Bick A, Wang M, Chaffin M, Friedman S, Yao J, et al. Analysis of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in 36,000 individuals yields genetic insights into dilated cardiomyopathy. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2254. Epub 2020/05/10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15823-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7206184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Robertson J, Schaufelberger M, Lindgren M, Adiels M, Schioler L, Toren K, et al. Higher Body Mass Index in Adolescence Predicts Cardiomyopathy Risk in Midlife. Circulation. 2019;140(2):117–25. Epub 2019/05/28. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039132 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6635044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Marwick TH. Ejection Fraction Pros and Cons: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(19):2360–79. Epub 2018/11/06. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2162 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Toemen L, Santos S, Roest AA, Jelic G, van der Lugt A, Felix JF, et al. Body Fat Distribution, Overweight, and Cardiac Structures in School-Age Children: A Population-Based Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(13):e014933. Epub 2020/06/23. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014933 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7670529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Warrington NM, Beaumont RN, Horikoshi M, Day FR, Helgeland O, Laurin C, et al. Maternal and fetal genetic effects on birth weight and their relevance to cardio-metabolic risk factors. Nat Genet. 2019;51(5):804–14. Epub 2019/05/03. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0403-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6522365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hwang LD, Davies NM, Warrington NM, Evans DM. Integrating Family-Based and Mendelian Randomization Designs. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020. Epub 2020/03/04. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a039503 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:211–7. Epub 2016/05/25. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4862344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bann D, Wright L, Hardy R, Williams DM, Davies NM. Polygenic and socioeconomic risk for high body mass index: 69 years of follow-up across life. medRxiv. 2021:2021.11.08.21265748. doi: 10.1101/2021.11.08.21265748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lyall DM, Quinn T, Lyall LM, Ward J, Anderson JJ, Smith DJ, et al. Quantifying bias in psychological and physical health in the UK Biobank imaging sub-sample. PsyArXiv. 2021. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/upvb9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fang S, Hemani G, Richardson TG, Gaunt TR, Davey Smith G. An in-depth evaluation of jackknife resampling Mendelian randomization to mitigate bias induced by overlapping samples. Forthcoming [2021]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Burgess S, Davies NM, Thompson SG. Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(7):597–608. Epub 2016/10/19. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21998 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5082560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Loh PR, Tucker G, Bulik-Sullivan BK, Vilhjalmsson BJ, Finucane HK, Salem RM, et al. Efficient Bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nat Genet. 2015;47(3):284–90. Epub 2015/02/03. doi: 10.1038/ng.3190 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4342297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kibinge NK, Relton CL, Gaunt TR, Richardson TG. Characterizing the Causal Pathway for Genetic Variants Associated with Neurological Phenotypes Using Human Brain-Derived Proteome Data. Am J Hum Genet. 2020. Epub 2020/05/16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.04.007 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Liu Y, Basty N, Whitcher B, Bell JD, Sorokin EP, van Bruggen N, et al. Genetic architecture of 11 organ traits derived from abdominal MRI using deep learning. Elife. 2021;10. Epub 2021/06/16. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65554 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8205492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Aragam KG, Chaffin M, Levinson RT, McDermott G, Choi SH, Shoemaker MB, et al. Phenotypic Refinement of Heart Failure in a National Biobank Facilitates Genetic Discovery. Circulation. 2018. Epub 2018/12/28. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035774 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6511334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J, Lawlor DA, Fraser A, Henderson J, et al. Cohort Profile: the ’children of the 90s’—the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):111–27. Epub 2012/04/18. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys064 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3600618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fraser A, Macdonald-Wallis C, Tilling K, Boyd A, Golding J, Davey Smith G, et al. Cohort Profile: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):97–110. Epub 2012/04/18. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys066 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3600619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ferreira DLS, Fraser A, Howe LD, Jones S, Smith GD, Lawlor DA, et al. Associations of Central and Peripheral Blood Pressure With Cardiac Structure and Function in an Adolescent Birth Cohort: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(18):2048–50. Epub 2015/05/09. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.01.060 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4618307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37(7):658–65. Epub 2013/10/12. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21758 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4377079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet Epidemiol. 2016;40(4):304–14. Epub 2016/04/12. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4849733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(2):512–25. Epub 2015/06/08. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4469799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Davey Smith G, Holmes MV, Davies NM, Ebrahim S. Mendel’s laws, Mendelian randomization and causal inference in observational data: substantive and nomenclatural issues. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(2):99–111. Epub 2020/03/25. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00622-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7125255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, Wade KH, Haberland V, Baird D, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife. 2018;7. Epub 2018/05/31. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34408 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5976434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ginestet C. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. J R Stat Soc a Stat. 2011;174:245–. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00676_9.x WOS:000285969600026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lucas Smith

12 Apr 2022

Dear Tom,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Childhood body size has a long-term influence on later life heart structure: A lifecourse Mendelian randomization study" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. I have been handling your manuscript since my colleague Lucas is currently out of the office on parental leave.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you as we confirmed the previous Circulation reports and evaluated your submission with an academic editor with the relevant expertise. I'm writing to let you know that we would like to send a minor revision based on your responses to the previous reviews at Circulation.

However, before we can this, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for further consideration. Once your manuscript has passed the checks we'll be able to register the actual decision itself. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Feb 11 2022 11:59PM.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

On behalf of:

Lucas Smith

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

lsmith@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Decision Letter 1

Lucas Smith

19 Apr 2022

Dear Tom,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Childhood body size has a long-term influence on later life heart structure: A lifecourse Mendelian randomization study" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting this decision to you due to the recent Easter holiday. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, yours was evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors as well as by an Academic Editor. We asked the Academic Editor whether they would be able to use the previous reviews to reach a decision on your manuscript without recourse to further review.

Based on these discussions with the Academic Editor, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the remaining data-related requests that I have provided below (points A-F):

(A) After discussions within the editorial team, we would like to consider your manuscript as a Discovery Report. The editorial criteria for this article type can be found at the following link. (https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/what-we-publish#loc-discovery-report). During resubmission, we ask that you please change your submission to this article type.

(B) We would to suggest the following modification to the title, to make it more compelling for our broad readership:

"A lifecourse Mendelian randomization study reveals that childhood body size has a long-term influence on later life heart structure"

(C) In your ethics statement, please include the approval number provided by the ethics committee that approved the study.

(D) You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

- Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

- Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figures, as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it.

Figure 2A-B

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

(E) Please also ensure that each of the relevant figure legends in your manuscript include information on *WHERE THE UNDERLYING DATA CAN BE FOUND*, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

(F) Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found and is in final format, as it will be published as written there. This includes referencing where the underlying data can be found in the Supplementary Information, as well as providing the accession numbers for any data deposited in public databases.

------------------

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

On behalf of:

Lucas Smith, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

lsmith@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Decision Letter 2

Richard Hodge

3 May 2022

Dear Tom,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Jason Locasale, I am happy to say that we can in principle accept your Discovery Report entitled "A lifecourse Mendelian randomization study highlights the long-term influence of childhood body size on later life heart structure" for publication in PLOS Biology, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email that will follow this letter and that you will usually receive within 2-3 business days, during which time no action is required from you. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

During this time, we also ask that you please update your Data Availability Statement in the submission system to the following statement, just for some additional clarity:

“Summary statistics from genome-wide association studies can be found as referenced in Supplementary Table 1 and additional underlying data supporting this paper can be found within the Supplementary Tables 2-16. All individual level data analysed in this study can be accessed via an approved application to ALSPAC (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/) and the UK Biobank study (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access)."

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood body size BMI and FFMI on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S8 and S9 Tables. BMI, body mass index; FFMI, fat-free mass index; LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

    (PNG)

    S2 Fig

    Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood body size BMI and BW on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S10 and S11 Tables. BMI, body mass index; BW, birth weight; LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

    (PNG)

    S3 Fig

    Forest plots illustrating (A) univariable and (B) multivariable MR effect estimates of childhood and adult height on measures of cardiac structure and function. The data underlying this figure can be found in S12 and S13 Tables. LV, left ventricular; MR, mendelian randomization; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

    (PNG)

    S1 Table. Overview of the datasets analyzed in this study.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Characteristics for the exposures and outcomes analyzed in this study.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on heart structure measures. MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on heart structure measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. Validation univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size in the ALSPAC cohort on heart structure measures.

    ALSPAC, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S6 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on abdominal measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on abdominal measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S8 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood body size and FFMI on heart structure measures.

    FFMI, fat-free mass index; MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S9 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood body size and FFMI on heart structure measures.

    FFMI, fat-free mass index; MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S10 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood body size and BW on heart structure measures.

    BW, birth weight; MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S11 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and BW on heart structure measures.

    BW, birth weight; MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S12 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult height on heart structure measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S13 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult height on heart structure measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S14 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood body size and childhood height on heart structure measures.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S15 Table. Univariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on risk of cardiomyopathy outcomes.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    S16 Table. Univariable and multivariable MR analyses for childhood and adult body size on risk of cardiomyopathy outcomes.

    MR, mendelian randomization.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_responses.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Editorial_comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Summary statistics from genome-wide association studies can be found as referenced in S1 Table and additional underlying data supporting this paper can be found within S2-S16 Tables. All individual level data analysed in this study can be accessed via an approved application to ALSPAC (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/access/) and the UK Biobank study (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/apply-for-access).


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES