4.7 Review

Shared genetic architecture across psychiatric disorders

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 13, 页码 2210-2216

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721000829

关键词

Comorbidity; cross-disorder genomics; GWAS; pleiotropy; psychiatric genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychiatric disorders show substantial genetic overlap, with over a hundred genetic variants identified that affect multiple disorders and more to be uncovered as sample sizes continue to grow. Psychiatric genomics has made rapid progress in the last decade, shedding light on the biological makeup of cross-disorder risk.
Psychiatric disorders overlap substantially at the genetic level, with family-based methods long pointing toward transdiagnostic risk pathways. Psychiatric genomics has progressed rapidly in the last decade, shedding light on the biological makeup of cross-disorder risk at multiple levels of analysis. Over a hundred genetic variants have been identified that affect multiple disorders, with many more to be uncovered as sample sizes continue to grow. Cross-disorder mechanistic studies build on these findings to cluster transdiagnostic variants into meaningful categories, including in what tissues or when in development these variants are expressed. At the upper-most level, methods have been developed to estimate the overall shared genetic signal across pairs of traits (i.e. single-nucleotide polymorphism-based genetic correlations) and subsequently model these relationships to identify overarching, genomic risk factors. These factors can subsequently be associated with external traits (e.g. functional imaging phenotypes) to begin to understand the makeup of these transdiagnostic risk factors. As psychiatric genomic efforts continue to expand, we can begin to gain even greater insight by including more fine-grained phenotypes (i.e. symptom-level data) and explicitly considering the environment. The culmination of these efforts will help to inform bottom-up revisions of our current nosology.

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