4.6 Article

Polygenic dissection of the bipolar phenotype

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 198, Issue 4, Pages 284-288

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.087866

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [076113]
  2. Medical Research Council
  3. Medical Research Council [G9817803B, G1000708, G0801418B, G0801418] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0801418, G1000708] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Recent data provide strong support for a substantial common polygenic contribution (i.e. many alleles each of small effect) to genetic susceptibility for schizophrenia and overlapping susceptibility for bipolar disorder. Aims To test hypotheses about the relationship between schizophrenia and psychotic types of bipolar disorder. Method Using a polygenic score analysis to test whether schizophrenia polygenic risk alleles, en masse, significantly discriminate between individuals with bipolar disorder with and without psychotic features. The primary sample included 1829 participants with bipolar disorder and the replication sample comprised 506 people with bipolar disorder. Results The subset of participants with Research Diagnostic Criteria schizoaffective bipolar disorder (n=277) were significantly discriminated from the remaining participants with bipolar disorder (n=1552) in both the primary (P=0.00059) and the replication data-sets (P=0.0070). In contrast, those with psychotic bipolar disorder as a whole were not significantly different from those with non-psychotic bipolar disorder in either data-set. Conclusions Genetic susceptibility influences at least two major domains of psychopathological variation in the schizophrenia-bipolar disorder clinical spectrum: one that relates to expression of a 'bipolar disorder-like' phenotype and one that is associated with expression of 'schizophrenia-like' psychotic symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available