4.8 Review

Genetic substrates of bipolar disorder risk in Latino families

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 154-167

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01705-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic studies of bipolar disorder have been conducted in Latin American populations, identifying significant loci and genes associated with the disorder. Studies have also found linkage loci for bipolar disorder endophenotypes in these populations. Candidate gene association analyses have confirmed the role of certain genes in conferring bipolar disorder risk in Latinos.
Genetic studies of bipolar disorder (BP) have been conducted in the Latin American population, to date, in several countries, including Mexico, the United States, Costa Rica, Colombia, and, to a lesser extent, Brazil. These studies focused primarily on linkage-based designs utilizing families with multiplex cases of BP. Significant BP loci were identified on Chromosomes 18, 5 and 8, and fine mapping suggested several genes of interest underlying these linkage peaks. More recently, studies in these same pedigrees yielded significant linkage loci for BP endophenotypes, including measures of activity, sleep cycles, and personality traits. Building from findings in other populations, candidate gene association analyses in Latinos from Mexican and Central American ancestry confirmed the role of several genes (including CACNA1C and ANK3) in conferring BP risk. Although GWAS, methylation, and deep sequencing studies have only begun in these populations, there is evidence that CNVs and rare SNPs both play a role in BP risk of these populations. Large segments of the Latino populations in the Americas remain largely unstudied regarding BP genetics, but evidence to date has shown that this type of research can be successfully conducted in these populations and that the genetic underpinnings of BP in these cohorts share at least some characteristics with risk genes identified in European and other populations.

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

4.8
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