4.7 Article

Analysis of high-resolution HapMap of DTNBP1 (dysbindin) suggests no consistency between reported common variant associations and schizophrenia

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 79, Issue 5, Pages 903-909

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/508942

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

DTNBP1 was first identified as a putative schizophrenia-susceptibility gene in Irish pedigrees, with a report of association to common genetic variation. Several replication studies have reported confirmation of an association to DTNBP1 in independent European samples; however, reported risk alleles and haplotypes appear to differ between studies, and comparison among studies has been confounded because different marker sets were employed by each group. To facilitate evaluation of existing evidence of association and further work, we supplemented the extensive genotype data, available through the International HapMap Project (HapMap), about DTNBP1 by specifically typing all associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms reported in each of the studies of the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH)-derived HapMap sample (CEU). Using this high-density reference map, we compared the putative disease-associated haplotype from each study and found that the association studies are inconsistent with regard to the identity of the disease-associated haplotype at DTNBP1. Specifically, all five replication studies define a positively associated haplotype that is different from the association originally reported. We further demonstrate that, in all six studies, the European-derived populations studied have haplotype patterns and frequencies that are consistent with HapMap CEU samples (and each other). Thus, it is unlikely that population differences are creating the inconsistency of the association studies. Evidence of association is, at present, equivocal and unsatisfactory. The new dense map of the region may be valuable in more-comprehensive follow-up studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available