4.2 Review

Using the tools of genetic epidemiology to understand sex differences in neuropsychiatric disorders

Journal

GENES BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12660

Keywords

family study; genetic epidemiology; multifactorial polygenic model; psychiatric disorders; sex differences; substance use disorder; twin study

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM031575]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [MH061622, MH119690, MH119737, MH120739]
  3. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [AA008401]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many neuropsychiatric disorders exhibit differences in prevalence, age of onset, symptoms or course of illness between males and females. For the most part, the origins of these differences are not well understood. In this article, we provide an overview of sex differences in psychiatric disorders including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, schizophrenia, eating disorders and risk of suicide. We discuss both genetic and nongenetic mechanisms that have been hypothesized to underlie these differences, including ascertainment bias, environmental stressors, X- or Y-linked risk loci, and differential liability thresholds in males and females. We then review the use of twin, family and genome-wide association approaches to study potential genetic mechanisms of sex differences and the extent to which these designs have been employed in studies of psychiatric disorders. We describe the utility of genetic epidemiologic study designs, including classical twin and family studies, large-scale studies of population registries, derived recurrence risks, and molecular genetic analyses of genome-wide variation that may enhance our understanding sex differences in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available