4.7 Article

Is the P300 wave an endophenotype for schizophrenia? A meta-analysis and a family study

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 960-968

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.022

Keywords

P300; meta-analysis; endophenotype; schizophrenia; psychosis; genetic

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  2. Department of Health [PDA/02/06/016] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the usefulness of the P300 wave as endophenotype for schizophrenia by means of a meta-analysis of the literature as well as our own family study. Method: Meta-analysis: We conducted a systematic search for articles published between 1983 and 2003 that reported P300 measures in nonpsychotic relatives of schizophrenic patients and in healthy controls. Meta-regression analyses were performed using a random effects procedure. The pooled standardized effect size (PSES) was calculated as the difference between the means of the two groups divided by the common standard deviation. Local study: We examined the P300 wave with a standard two-tone oddball paradigm in 30 patients with schizophrenia, 40 non-psychotic relatives, and 40 controls using linear mixed models. Results: Meta-analysis: We pooled 472 relatives and 513 controls. The P300 amplitude was significantly reduced in relatives (PSES = 0.61; 95% Cl: 0.30 to 0.91; P < 0.001). The P300 latency was significantly delayed in relatives (PSES of-0.50; 95% Cl: -0.88 to -0.13; P=0.009]. Local study: The patients showed a trend for amplitude reductions (P = 0.06) and significant latency delays (P < 0.01). The relatives displayed normal amplitude but had significant latency delays (P = 0.01). The P300 amplitude and especially the P300 latency are promising alternative phenotypes for genetic research into schizophrenia. (C) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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