Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours

  • Jacqueline A. Vernarelli (a1)

Genetic susceptibility testing for common complex disease is a practice that is currently in clinical use. There are two types of gene mutations, and therefore, two varieties of genotype testing: deterministic and susceptibility. As the term suggests, deterministic genes determine whether or not a person will develop a given trait in Mendelian fashion, such as Huntington's disease. Genotype screening for such deterministic mutations has existed for decades, and is commonly used in routine medical practice. In recent years, the sequencing of the human genome has identified several ‘susceptibility genes’ or genes with incomplete penetrance. Mutations in these genes may increase disease susceptibility, but are not causative for disease. Genetic susceptibility testing allows unaffected individuals to obtain risk information for a variety of common complex diseases and health conditions including Alzheimer's disease (AD), CVD, cancer and diabetes. The availability of genetic susceptibility testing has increased over the past decade, and several studies are now focusing on the impact that genetic testing has on health and other lifestyle behaviours related to nutrition. The aim of this paper is to review the literature and evaluate what, if any, impact genetic risk assessment has on behaviours related to nutrition and physical activity. This paper summarises seven clinical studies that evaluated the impact of disclosing genetic risk information for disease on nutrition-related health behaviour changes. Of these seven studies, only three studies reported that health behaviour change was influenced by genotype disclosure.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours
      Available formats
Corresponding author
Corresponding author: Dr Jacqueline Vernarelli, fax +1 814 865 5870, email:
Hide All
1. VernarelliJA (2010) Genetic Risk Assessment and Nutrition Behaviors: Influence and Impact. Boston, MA: Boston University.
2. O'NeillSC, KaufmanE, DeMarcoT et al. (2008) Changes in diet and physical activity following brca1/2 testing. J Psychosoc Oncol 26, 6380.
3. QuachJ, PorterK, LeventhalH et al. (2009) Health behaviors among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals receiving counseling for brca1 and brca2 mutations. Fam Cancer 8, 241250.
4. MarteauT, SeniorV, HumphriesSE. et al. (2004) Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A 128, 285293.
5. ChaoS, RobertsJS, MarteauTM et al. (2008) Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the reveal study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 22, 9497.
6. VernarelliJA, RobertsJS, HirakiS et al. (2010) Effect of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 14021407.
7. HendershotCS, OttoJM, CollinsSE et al. (2010) Evaluation of a brief web-based genetic feedback intervention for reducing alcohol-related health risks associated with aldh2. Ann Behav Med 40, 7788.
8. TaylorJY & WuCY (2009) Effects of genetic counseling for hypertension on changes in lifestyle behaviors among African–American women. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc 20, 110.
9. HowladerN, NooneAM, KrapchoM et al. (2009) Seer Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute.
10. TerdimanJP, ConradPG & SleisengerMH (1999) Genetic testing in hereditary colorectal cancer: indications and procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 94, 23442356.
11. SolomonCH, PhoLN & BurtRW (2002) Current status of genetic testing for colorectal cancer susceptibility. Oncology 16, 161171;discussion 76, 79–80.
12. ChenYJ, ChenC, WuDC et al. (2006) Interactive effects of lifetime alcohol consumption and alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenase polymorphisms on esophageal cancer risks. Int J Cancer 119, 28272831.
13. YokoyamaA & OmoriT (2003) Genetic polymorphisms of alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases and risk for esophageal and head and neck cancers. Jpn J Clin Oncol 33, 111121.
14. FarrerLA, CupplesLA, van DuijnCM et al. (1995) Apolipoprotein e genotype in patients with Alzheimer's disease: implications for the risk of dementia among relatives. Ann Neurol 38, 797808.
15. CupplesLA, FarrerLA, SadovnickAD et al. (2004) Estimating risk curves for first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer's disease: the reveal study. Genet Med 6, 192196.
16. ScuteriA, SannaS, ChenWM. et al. (2007) Genome-wide association scan shows genetic variants in the fto gene are associated with obesity-related traits. PLoS Genet 3, e115.
17. LoosRJ & BouchardC (2008) Fto: the first gene contributing to common forms of human obesity. Obes Rev 9, 246250.
18. PengS, ZhuY, XuF. et al. (2011) Fto gene polymorphisms and obesity risk: a meta-analysis. BMC Med 9, 71.
19. ShawC, AbramsK & MarteauTM (1999) Psychological impact of predicting individuals’ risks of illness: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 49, 15711598.
20. MarteauTM, FrenchDP, GriffinSJ. et al. (2010) Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD007275.
21. O'NeillSC, ValdimarsdottirHB, DemarcoTA et al. (2010) Brca1/2 test results impact risk management attitudes, intentions, and uptake. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124, 755764.
22. SchwartzMD, IsaacsC, GravesKD et al. (2011) Long-term outcomes of brca1/brca2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance. Cancer 118, 510517.
23. Calderon-MargalitR & PaltielO (2004) Prevention of breast cancer in women who carry brca1 or brca2 mutations: a critical review of the literature. Int J Cancer 112, 357364.
24. MetcalfeKA, Birenbaum-CarmeliD, LubinskiJ et al. (2008) International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in brca1 and brca2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 122, 20172022.
25. Meijers-HeijboerH, BrekelmansCT, Menke-PluymersM et al. (2003) Use of genetic testing and prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in women with breast or ovarian cancer from families with a brca1 or brca2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 21, 16751681.
26. MetcalfeKA, LubinskiJ, GhadirianP et al. (2008) Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a brca1 or brca2 mutation: the hereditary breast cancer clinical study group. J Clin Oncol 26, 10931097.
27. MetcalfeKA, FoulkesWD, Kim-SingC et al. (2008) Family history as a predictor of uptake of cancer preventive procedures by women with a brca1 or brca2 mutation. Clin Genet 73, 474479.
28. PhillipsKA, JenkinsMA, LindemanGJ et al. (2006) Risk-reducing surgery, screening and chemoprevention practices of brca1 and brca2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Clin Genet 70, 198206.
29. CeballosRM, NewcombPA, BeasleyJM et al. (2008) Colorectal cancer cases and relatives of cases indicate similar willingness to receive and disclose genetic information. Genet Test 12, 415420.
30. McBrideCM, BeplerG, LipkusIM et al. (2002) Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11, 521528.
31. CarpenterMJ, StrangeC, JonesY et al. (2007) Does genetic testing result in behavioral health change? Changes in smoking behavior following testing for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Ann Behav Med 33, 2228.
32. StrangeC, DicksonR, CarterC et al. (2004) Genetic testing for alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency. Genet Med 6, 204210.
33. CarpenterMJ, AlbergAJ, GrayKM et al. (2010) Motivating the unmotivated for health behavior change: a randomized trial of cessation induction for smokers. Clin Trials 7, 157166.
34. MarkowitzSM, ParkER, DelahantyLM et al. (2011) Perceived impact of diabetes genetic risk testing among patients at high phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34, 568573.
35. RobertsJS & TersegnoSM (2010) Estimating and disclosing the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease: challenges, controversies and future directions. Future Neurol 5, 501517.
36. GreenRC, RobertsJS, CupplesLA et al. (2009) Disclosure of apoE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 361, 245254.
37. RobertsJS, CupplesLA, RelkinN et al. (2005) Genetic risk assessment for adult children of people with Alzheimer's disease: the Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL) study. J Geriatr Psychiatr Neurol 18, 250255.
38. BlossCS, SchorkNJ & TopolEJ (2011) Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 364, 524534.
39. RosenstockIM (1966) Why people use health services. Milbank Mem Fund Q 44, Suppl., 94127.
40. LeventhalH, MeyerD & NerenzD (1980) The common sense representation of illness danger. In Contributions to Medical Psychology, pp. 730 [Rachman S, editor] New York: Pergamon Press.
41. AlamianA, RouleauI, SimardJ et al. (2006) Use of dietary supplements among women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) tested for cancer susceptibility. Nutr Cancer 54, 157165.
42. NichterM & ThompsonJJ (2006) For my wellness, not just my illness: North Americans’ use of dietary supplements. Cult Med Psychiatry 30, 175222.
43. ReichenbachS & JuniP (2012) Medical food and food supplements: not always as safe as generally assumed. Ann Intern Med 156, 894895.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
  • ISSN: 0029-6651
  • EISSN: 1475-2719
  • URL: /core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 87 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 192 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.