4.7 Article

Dissecting clinical heterogeneity of bipolar disorder using multiple polygenic risk scores

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-020-00996-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Marriott Foundation
  2. Thomas and Elizabeth Grainger Fund in Bipolar Functional Genomics and Drug Development
  3. NIMH [R0MH121921]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bipolar disorder (BD) has high clinical heterogeneity, frequent psychiatric comorbidities, and elevated suicide risk. To determine genetic differences between common clinical sub-phenotypes of BD, we performed a systematic polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis using multiple PRSs from a range of psychiatric, personality, and lifestyle traits to dissect differences in BD sub-phenotypes in two BD cohorts: the Mayo Clinic BD Biobank (N=968) and Genetic Association Information Network (N=1001). Participants were assessed for history of psychosis, early-onset BD, rapid cycling (defined as four or more episodes in a year), and suicide attempts using questionnaires and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. In a combined sample of 1969 bipolar cases (45.5% male), those with psychosis had higher PRS for SCZ (OR=1.3 per S.D.; p=3e-5) but lower PRSs for anhedonia (OR=0.87; p=0.003) and BMI (OR=0.87; p=0.003). Rapid cycling cases had higher PRS for ADHD (OR=1.23; p=7e-5) and MDD (OR=1.23; p=4e-5) and lower BD PRS (OR=0.8; p=0.004). Cases with a suicide attempt had higher PRS for MDD (OR=1.26; p=1e-6) and anhedonia (OR=1.22; p=2e-5) as well as lower PRS for educational attainment (OR=0.87; p=0.003). The observed novel PRS associations with sub-phenotypes align with clinical observations such as rapid cycling BD patients having a greater lifetime prevalence of ADHD. Our findings confirm that genetic heterogeneity contributes to clinical heterogeneity of BD and consideration of genetic contribution to psychopathologic components of psychiatric disorders may improve genetic prediction of complex psychiatric disorders.

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

4.7
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