4.2 Article

A Danish Twin Study of Schizophrenia Liability: Investigation from Interviewed Twins for Genetic Links to Affective Psychoses and for Cross-Cohort Comparisons

期刊

BEHAVIOR GENETICS
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 193-204

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-015-9765-z

关键词

Schizophrenia; Genetics; Twins; Endophenotype; Affective psychoses; ICD-10; Denmark

资金

  1. Sygekassernes Helsefond
  2. Forskerakademiet
  3. Forskningsinitiativet under Arhus University
  4. Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation
  5. Fonden til Forskning af Sindslidelse
  6. Fonden til Psykiatriens Fremme (Petra & Cris Andersens Fond)
  7. Eli Lilly Denmark AIS
  8. University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Psychology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied schizophrenia liability in a Danish population-based sample of 44 twin pairs (13 MZ, 31 DZ, SS plus OS) in order to replicate previous twin study findings using contemporary diagnostic criteria, to examine genetic liability shared between schizophrenia and other disorders, and to explore whether variance in schizophrenia liability attributable to environmental factors may have decreased with successive cohorts exposed to improvements in public health. ICD-10 diagnoses were determined by clinical interview. Although the best-fitting, most parsimonious biometric model of schizophrenia liability specified variance attributable to additive genetic and non-shared environmental factors, this model did not differ significantly from a model that also included non-additive genetic factors, consistent with recent interview-based twin studies. Schizophrenia showed strong genetic links to other psychotic disorders but much less so for the broader category of psychiatric disorders in general. We also observed a marginally significant decline in schizophrenia variance attributable to environmental factors over successive Western European cohorts, consistent perhaps with improvements in diagnosis and in prenatal and perinatal care and with a secular decline in the prevalence of schizophrenia in that region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据