Does the Father's Size at Birth Influence My Baby's Size
Abstruse
Background Parental weight and height correlate with offspring birthweight and weight gain, suggesting genetic and ecology influences on fetal growth. The differential contributions of the mother's and father's summit and weight to birthweight, or weight proceeds in infancy, remain unclear and were examined using data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study.
Methods We calculated z-scores for birthweight and provisional weight gain to age 9 months (weight proceeds adjusted for birthweight) for 6811 term white singleton infants living with natural parents, using the British 1990 growth reference. Nosotros also calculated parental elevation and weight z-scores. The furnishings of parental size on birthweight and weight gain were analysed using multivariable regression, with a novel reparameterization to test for differences in effect size between mother and father.
Results Maternal weight had a far greater influence than paternal weight on birthweight [coefficient for the difference betwixt parents (95% CI): 0.15 (0.100.20)], while parental pinnacle contributions were like [0.03 (−0.02 to 0.07)]. Weights and heights of mothers and fathers contributed as to infant weight proceeds [deviation coefficients −0.03 (−0.09 to 0.02) and 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07), respectively].
Conclusions The influences of parental pinnacle and weight on birthweight and infant weight gain are similar for the 2 parents, with the exception of the influence of weight on birthweight where the female parent is much more influential than the father. Parental size associations with infant growth result from a complex combination of genetic and environmental influences. This novel reparameterization of parental anthropometry is applicable to other studies examining parental influences on offspring size and growth across the life course.
Fetal growth is adamant by both genetic and environmental factors. Evidence for genetic regulation comes from intergenerational studies that have shown parental birthweight, growth in childhood, and developed anthropometry to exist associated with offspring birthweight. ane There is some show to propose that paternal height is a more important determinant of offspring birth length (neonatal skeletal size) than maternal height, while maternal weight, or BMI, has the greater influence on offspring birthweight. ii, , three However, the statistical methods used in these earlier studies did not examination formally the (in)equality of coefficients between maternal and paternal influences. Similarly, while the intrauterine environment and post-natal period are important for growth and subsequent obesity risk, 4, 5 few studies take examined the contribution of parental size to infancy weight proceeds 6 and whether maternal or paternal size exerts a greater influence on birthweight or weight gain.
We used data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study to examine the contribution of parental height and weight to offspring birthweight and weight gain in infancy. We tested the differential contributions of each parent to these outcomes using a novel reparameterization of the regression model.
Methods
We investigated birthweight and weight gain of 8053 infants. These infants were members of the Millennium Cohort Study, comprising 18 819 children born in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland betwixt 2000 and 2002 (overall response rate: 72%). 7, 8 Cohort members were excluded if they were from multiple conceptions (156), or multiple births (522), not built-in at term (3741 weeks) (3342), were not living with their natural female parent (thirty) or male parent (3289), if they were non white (3298), or if their terminal weight was not measured between 8 and ten months of age (4318). We excluded all infants from indigenous minority groups to obtain a homogeneous sample, and this study is, therefore, representative of the UK white population only.
Parental report of infant birthweight and child's last weight was obtained at interview when the children were ∼9 months former. We take previously shown a loftier level of agreement between MCS reported birthweights and birth registration data, nine and the child'south last weight was confirmed by 85% of the mothers past referring to the personal child wellness tape, a booklet used by mothers and health professionals in the UK to monitor a child's early on growth and development. ix, 10 Parents also reported their current height and weight (including pre-pregnancy weight for mothers). Data were missing for maternal peak (23), maternal weight (272), paternal superlative (936), and paternal weight (1002). It was assumed that the fifteen% missing parental data were missing at random. Attributable to this and the large sample size, the missing information were not imputed. Consummate data were, therefore, bachelor for 6811 baby–parent triads.
We calculated z-scores for birthweight and provisional weight gain to age 9 months, that is weight gain adjusted for the child'south birthweight, using the British 1990 growth reference. 11, 12 We besides calculated internal parental meridian and weight z-scores by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. This was done to allow for the difference in standard deviations between the sexes in adult height and weight.
We used a novel reparameterization to provide regression coefficients that are the hateful and difference of the separate parental coefficients. To reach this two summary variables were constructed: the sum (maternal + paternal), and one-half difference (maternal − paternal)/two, of the ii parental z-scores (see Appendix for rationale).
The contribution of parental size to birthweight and weight gain was tested using multivariable regression with allowance made for the survey design (Stata viii.2, StataCorp, Higher Station, TX). The Millennium Cohort study was approved by the South Westward Multicentre Enquiry Ideals Committee.
Results
The mutually adjusted coefficients for maternal and paternal height and weight z-scores were all positively and significantly associated with birthweight and provisional weight gain (Tabular array 1, model 1). For example, the coefficient of 0.18 for maternal weight is the increase in offspring birthweight z-score per unit increment in maternal weight z-score. The variation in birthweight was more than 5 times greater for the mother than the father. Adjusting for potential confounders such as parity, smoking and infant feeding practice made little difference to the results (data not shown). The R-squared values were 0.063 and 0.036 for the birthweight and weight proceeds regression models, respectively.
Table i
Regression coefficients for birthweight and provisional weight gain on maternal and paternal height and weight (model i), and the same coefficients expressed as the mean and divergence for the two parents (model two)
| Model | Variable | Birthweight a | R-Squared b | Conditional weight proceeds a | R-Squared b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mother'south weight c z-score | 0.18 (0.150.21) | 0.052 | 0.05 (0.010.08) | 0.006 |
| Male parent'due south weight z-score | 0.03 (0.000.06) | 0.009 | 0.08 (0.040.12) | 0.012 | |
| Female parent'south height z-score | 0.09 (0.070.12) | 0.027 | 0.11 (0.080.fourteen) | 0.013 | |
| Male parent's height z-score | 0.06 (0.030.10) | 0.009 | 0.09 (0.050.13) | 0.012 | |
| ii | Difference in weight coefficients d | 0.15 (0.100.20) | −0.03 (−0.09 to 0.02) | ||
| Deviation in height coefficients d | 0.03 (−0.02 to 0.07) | 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07) | |||
| Hateful parental weight coefficient | 0.xi (0.090.13) | 0.06 (0.040.08) | |||
| Mean parental height coefficient | 0.08 (0.060.10) | 0.10 (0.080.12) |
| Model | Variable | Birthweight a | R-Squared b | Conditional weight gain a | R-Squared b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mother's weight c z-score | 0.eighteen (0.150.21) | 0.052 | 0.05 (0.010.08) | 0.006 |
| Begetter'southward weight z-score | 0.03 (0.000.06) | 0.009 | 0.08 (0.040.12) | 0.012 | |
| Mother's height z-score | 0.09 (0.070.12) | 0.027 | 0.xi (0.080.14) | 0.013 | |
| Father's summit z-score | 0.06 (0.030.x) | 0.009 | 0.09 (0.050.thirteen) | 0.012 | |
| 2 | Difference in weight coefficients d | 0.15 (0.100.twenty) | −0.03 (−0.09 to 0.02) | ||
| Difference in height coefficients d | 0.03 (−0.02 to 0.07) | 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07) | |||
| Mean parental weight coefficient | 0.11 (0.090.xiii) | 0.06 (0.040.08) | |||
| Mean parental meridian coefficient | 0.08 (0.060.10) | 0.x (0.080.12) |
aAdjusted for other variables in table and infant's sexual practice.
bFor univariate unadjusted associations.
cMother's weight = pre-pregnancy weight.
dDifference = maternal − paternal.
Table 1
Regression coefficients for birthweight and conditional weight gain on maternal and paternal pinnacle and weight (model one), and the same coefficients expressed as the mean and departure for the two parents (model two)
| Model | Variable | Birthweight a | R-Squared b | Provisional weight gain a | R-Squared b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mother's weight c z-score | 0.18 (0.150.21) | 0.052 | 0.05 (0.010.08) | 0.006 |
| Begetter'due south weight z-score | 0.03 (0.000.06) | 0.009 | 0.08 (0.040.12) | 0.012 | |
| Mother's height z-score | 0.09 (0.070.12) | 0.027 | 0.eleven (0.080.14) | 0.013 | |
| Male parent'due south tiptop z-score | 0.06 (0.030.10) | 0.009 | 0.09 (0.050.13) | 0.012 | |
| 2 | Divergence in weight coefficients d | 0.xv (0.100.20) | −0.03 (−0.09 to 0.02) | ||
| Difference in height coefficients d | 0.03 (−0.02 to 0.07) | 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07) | |||
| Mean parental weight coefficient | 0.11 (0.090.13) | 0.06 (0.040.08) | |||
| Hateful parental height coefficient | 0.08 (0.060.10) | 0.10 (0.080.12) |
| Model | Variable | Birthweight a | R-Squared b | Conditional weight gain a | R-Squared b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mother's weight c z-score | 0.18 (0.150.21) | 0.052 | 0.05 (0.010.08) | 0.006 |
| Begetter's weight z-score | 0.03 (0.000.06) | 0.009 | 0.08 (0.040.12) | 0.012 | |
| Mother's peak z-score | 0.09 (0.070.12) | 0.027 | 0.11 (0.080.xiv) | 0.013 | |
| Father's height z-score | 0.06 (0.030.ten) | 0.009 | 0.09 (0.050.13) | 0.012 | |
| 2 | Difference in weight coefficients d | 0.15 (0.100.xx) | −0.03 (−0.09 to 0.02) | ||
| Difference in acme coefficients d | 0.03 (−0.02 to 0.07) | 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07) | |||
| Mean parental weight coefficient | 0.11 (0.090.xiii) | 0.06 (0.040.08) | |||
| Hateful parental elevation coefficient | 0.08 (0.060.10) | 0.x (0.080.12) |
aAdjusted for other variables in table and infant's sexual activity.
bFor univariate unadjusted associations.
cMother's weight = pre-pregnancy weight.
dDeparture = maternal − paternal.
Model 2 in Table ane presents the same coefficients as model i, but rearranged equally the difference in coefficients and mean coefficient for the ii parents. Thus for birthweight the difference in weight coefficients is 0.15, reflecting the difference between the maternal and paternal coefficients in model 1 of 0.eighteen and 0.03. The reward of the reparameterization is that the difference coefficient has its own standard error, confirming the highly significantly greater maternal influence on birthweight. Conversely the parental top contributions were like and not significantly different (0.09 vs 0.06, deviation coefficient 0.03). For baby weight gain, at that place were no differential parental contributions.
Discussion
Our findings advise that in that location are important paternal genetic and environmental effects on birthweight and weight gain, independent of maternal influences. By using a novel approach to formally compare parental contributions with birthweight and weight gain, we accept shown that maternal weight exerts a greater influence than paternal weight on birthweight. In contrast we did not find whatever differential parental superlative contributions to birthweight, or weight and tiptop contributions to weight gain, in this big cohort study of nearly 7000 infants. These observations confirm findings of other smaller studies, which have reported maternal and paternal size to be meaning and independent determinants of offspring birthweight. two, thirteen
Although based on maternal report, nosotros have previously confirmed that accuracy of birthweight in this cohort is high, ix and 85% of mothers were able to verify reported infant weight in their child's personal child health record. 10 Measurements of infant length were non obtained, then we were unable to examine parental influences on infant skeletal size and growth. Maternal and paternal self-reported weights and heights are thought to be generally reliable just differential systematic errors in reporting of maternal and paternal weight remain possible. In particular, any overestimation of maternal simply not paternal weight might benumb the effect sizes reported and, hence, the approximate of maternal relative to paternal contributions to birthweight and babe weight proceeds.
We accept, in addition, proposed a novel statistical method for comparison the contribution of parental anthropometry to baby size and growth, which tin be applied to examining these influences at other stages in the life class.
In conclusion, both maternal and paternal elevation and weight exert contained and meaning influences on offspring birthweight and weight gain in infancy. There are important paternal effects on birthweight and weight gain, independent of maternal genetic and environmental influences, although maternal weight has a far greater influence on birthweight than paternal weight. The interaction between these maternal and paternal genetic, and environmental, influences is complex. Under the conflict theory xiv fathers endeavour to ensure maximal growth of the child, while mothers maximize their take a chance of survival by limiting fetal growth. These results make clear that the mother wins this conflict in that her genome has a much greater influence than the father'southward on offspring birthweight. Further research is needed to understand both the genetic and epigenetic fifteen mechanisms involved and to determine the relevance of these intergenerational influences to time to come health and weight proceeds.
Appendix
Consider the regression equation
(1)
where z ch, z ma, and z pa are z-scores for the kid, mother, and father, α is the intercept, and β and γ are regression coefficients for the mother and father, respectively. The aim is to reparameterize (rearrange) the equation so that the first regression coefficient is the hateful of the two parental regression coefficients, (β + γ)/2, while the second is the divergence between the two coefficients, (β−γ). This is achieved by constructing a new equation in this form, with unknown weightings for z ma and z pa, and the weightings are obtained past equating coefficients. The rearranged equation is:
(2)
where A, B, C and D are the unknown weightings to be derived. Equating coefficients for z ma in (1) and (ii) gives
so that 
and 
. From this 
, A = 1 and 
.
Equating coefficients for z pa in (i) and (2) gives
and then that 
and 
. From this 
, B = i and 
.
Substituting A, B, C, and D into (2) gives
(iii)
which is in the required form and simplifies to (1). Thus constructed variables consisting of the sum and one-half-departure of the parental z-scores pb to coefficients that are, respectively, the mean and divergence of the separate parental coefficients.
Notation that since Equations (1) and (3) are algebraically equivalent, other variables can be added to the regression without affecting the reparameterization. This ways that further regression adjustments tin can be included equally necessary.
Nosotros would like to thank the Millennium Cohort families who provided the information for this study, and Professor Heather Joshi and other members of the MCS Direction Team at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. The other members of the MCS Child Health Group who contributed to this work were: Suzanne Bartington, Lamiya Samad, Helen Bedford, Summertime Sherburne Hawkins, Catherine Police, Jugnoo Rahi, Catherine Peckham, and Suzanne Walton. Nosotros are also grateful to Professor Gudrun Moore for reviewing an earlier draft of this Manuscript. The MCS is funded by the ESRC and a consortium of regime departments led by ONS. Research at the Institute of Child Health and Bang-up Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust benefits from R&D funding received from the NHS Executive. Lucy Griffiths is supported by a MRC Special Training Fellowship in Health Services and Wellness of the Public Research; Carol Dezateux is supported by HEFCE; Tim Cole is supported by MRC programme grant G9827821.
-
Maternal and paternal height and weight exert independent and meaning influences on offspring birthweight and weight gain in infancy.
-
There are no differential parental summit contributions to birthweight or weight and peak contributions to weight gain.
-
Maternal weight has a greater influence on birthweight than paternal weight.
References
1
, , , .
Parents' growth in babyhood and the nativity weight of their offspring
,
Epidemiology
,
2004
, vol.
15
(pg.
308
-
16
)
2
, , , , , .
Evidence of genetic regulation of fetal longitudinal growth
,
Early Hum Dev
,
2005
, vol.
81
(pg.
823
-
31
)
3
, , , et al.
Intergenerational effects on size at nativity in South Bharat
,
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
,
2004
, vol.
eighteen
(pg.
361
-
70
)
4
, , .
Early growth and babyhood obesity: historical accomplice study
,
Arch Dis Child
,
2005
, vol.
90
(pg.
1122
-
27
)
5
, , , .
Childhood predictors of adult obesity: a systematic review
,
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
,
1999
, vol.
23
Suppl 8:
(pg.
S1
-
107
)
6
, , , , , and the ALSPAC Study Team
Family, socioeconomic and prenatal factors associated with failure to thrive in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)
,
Int J Epdemiol
,
2004
, vol.
33
(pg.
839
-
47
)
7
Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Millennium cohort report
,
2006
London: CLS
viii
.
Millennium accomplice study: Technical written report on sampling
,
2004
Institute of Teaching, Academy of London
9
, , , .
Factors affecting a mother's remember of her baby'southward birth weight
,
Int J Epidemiol
,
2005
, vol.
34
(pg.
688
-
95
)
10
, , .
Use of personal child wellness records in the Great britain: findings from the millennium accomplice study
,
BMJ
,
2006
, vol.
332
(pg.
269
-
70
)
11
, , , , , .
Cantankerous sectional stature and weight reference curves for the United kingdom, 1990
,
Arch Dis Child
,
1995
, vol.
73
(pg.
17
-
24
)
12
.
Conditional reference charts to assess weight gain in British infants
,
Curvation Dis Child
,
1995
, vol.
73
(pg.
8
-
16
)
13
, , .
Parental growth at different life stages and offspring birthweight: an intergenerational cohort study
,
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
,
2004
, vol.
18
(pg.
168
-
77
)
14
, .
Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war
,
Trends Genet
,
1991
, vol.
seven
(pg.
45
-
49
)
fifteen
, .
Genomic imprinting in fetal growth and development
,
Expert Rev Mol Med
,
2002
, vol.
2002
(pg.
1
-
nineteen
)
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.
Does the Father's Size at Birth Influence My Baby's Size
Source: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/1/104/665562
0 Response to "Does the Father's Size at Birth Influence My Baby's Size"
Post a Comment