4.1 Article

Genome scan of schizophrenia families in a large veterans affairs cooperative study sample: Evidence for linkage to 18p11.32 and for racial heterogeneity on chromosomes 6 and 14

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30213

关键词

genome scan; schizophrenia; race; linkage; genetics; chromosome 18; racial heterogeneity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide linkage analyses of schizophrenia have identified several regions that may harbor schizophrenia susceptibility genes but, given the complex etiology of the disorder, it is unlikely that all susceptibility regions have been detected. We report results from a genome scan of 166 schizophrenia families collected through the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. Our definition of affection status included schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, depressed type and we defined families as European American (EA) and African American (AA) based on the probands' and parents' races based on data collected by interviewing the probands. We also assessed evidence for racial heterogeneity in the regions most suggestive of linkage. The maximum LOD score across the genome was 2.96 for chromosome 18, at 0.5 cM in the combined race sample. Both racial groups showed LOD scores greater than 1.0 for chromosome 18. The empirical P-value associated with that LOD score is 0.04 assuming a single genome scan for the combined sample with race narrowly defined, and 0.06 for the combined sample allowing for broad and narrow definitions of race. The empirical P-value of observing a LOD score as large as 2.96 in the combined sample, and of at least 1.0 in each racial group, allowing for narrow and broad racial definitions, is 0.04. Evidence for the second and third largest linkage signals come solely from the AA sample on chromosomes 6 (LOD 2.11 at 33.2 cM) and 14 (LOD = 2.13 at 51.0). The linkage evidence differed between the AA and EA samples (chromosome 6 P-value = 0.007 and chromosome 14 P-value = 0.004). (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.1
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