Kenneth S. Kendler, Henrik Ohlsson, Jan Sundquist, Kristina Sundquist
{"title":"探讨个案选择方法在精神病学分子遗传学研究中的意义","authors":"Kenneth S. Kendler, Henrik Ohlsson, Jan Sundquist, Kristina Sundquist","doi":"10.1038/s41380-025-03015-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers selecting probands for molecular genetic studies confront a range of sampling issues with modest empirical guidance. In this paper, using cases of major depression (MD), anxiety disorders (AD) alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ) from a large population cohort of all native Swedes born 1940–2003, we examine the implications of three proband selection decisions by exploring profiles of genetic risks assessed using the validated family genetic risk scores. The impact of censoring cases with comorbid diagnoses is quite variable, depending on the frequency of that disorder in the case sample and the genetic relationship of the censored to the primary disorder. In an MD cohort, censoring SZ cases produces only a focal small decrease in schizophrenia genetic risk while censoring AD cases produces a wide-spread reduction in genetic risk for MD and most other disorders. We examine the value of censoring cases of SZ, BD and MD whose onset was preceded by one to two years by first episodes of DUD or AUD. We do not see any increase in genetic risk for these “screened” cohorts. Secondary ascertainment, where disorder A is ascertained as a comorbid diagnosis in a sample collected for disorder B, can, in certain situations, produces large increases in the genetic risk for disorder B and associated disorders in cases of A. However, if disorder B is closely genetically related to disorder A (as seen with MD/AD and DUD/AUD pairings), the pattern differs dramatically and produces a general moderate elevation across the genetic risk profile. These findings provide guidelines for future investigators and suggest caution when screening out comorbid disorders and when utilizing secondary ascertainment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19008,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Psychiatry","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the implications of case selection methods for psychiatric molecular genetic studies\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth S. Kendler, Henrik Ohlsson, Jan Sundquist, Kristina Sundquist\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41380-025-03015-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Researchers selecting probands for molecular genetic studies confront a range of sampling issues with modest empirical guidance. In this paper, using cases of major depression (MD), anxiety disorders (AD) alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ) from a large population cohort of all native Swedes born 1940–2003, we examine the implications of three proband selection decisions by exploring profiles of genetic risks assessed using the validated family genetic risk scores. The impact of censoring cases with comorbid diagnoses is quite variable, depending on the frequency of that disorder in the case sample and the genetic relationship of the censored to the primary disorder. In an MD cohort, censoring SZ cases produces only a focal small decrease in schizophrenia genetic risk while censoring AD cases produces a wide-spread reduction in genetic risk for MD and most other disorders. We examine the value of censoring cases of SZ, BD and MD whose onset was preceded by one to two years by first episodes of DUD or AUD. We do not see any increase in genetic risk for these “screened” cohorts. Secondary ascertainment, where disorder A is ascertained as a comorbid diagnosis in a sample collected for disorder B, can, in certain situations, produces large increases in the genetic risk for disorder B and associated disorders in cases of A. However, if disorder B is closely genetically related to disorder A (as seen with MD/AD and DUD/AUD pairings), the pattern differs dramatically and produces a general moderate elevation across the genetic risk profile. These findings provide guidelines for future investigators and suggest caution when screening out comorbid disorders and when utilizing secondary ascertainment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03015-y\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03015-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究人员在为分子遗传学研究选择受试者时面临一系列取样问题,而经验指导却不多。本文利用 1940-2003 年出生的瑞典本地人组成的大型人群队列中的重度抑郁症 (MD)、焦虑症 (AD)、酒精使用障碍 (AUD)、药物使用障碍 (DUD)、双相情感障碍 (BD) 和精神分裂症 (SZ) 病例,通过探索使用有效家族遗传风险评分评估的遗传风险特征,研究了三种原型选择决策的影响。剔除有合并诊断的病例所产生的影响是多种多样的,这取决于该疾病在病例样本中的频率以及被剔除病例与原发疾病之间的遗传关系。在精神分裂症队列中,剔除 SZ 病例只会使精神分裂症的遗传风险出现小幅下降,而剔除 AD 病例则会使精神分裂症和大多数其他疾病的遗传风险普遍下降。我们研究了剔除发病前一到两年首次出现 DUD 或 AUD 的 SZ、BD 和 MD 病例的价值。我们没有发现这些 "筛查 "队列的遗传风险有任何增加。在某些情况下,二次确诊(即在针对 B 病症收集的样本中确诊 A 病症为合并诊断)会导致 B 病症和 A 病症相关病症的遗传风险大幅增加。然而,如果 B 病症与 A 病症的遗传关系密切(如 MD/AD 和 DUD/AUD 配对),则情况会截然不同,并导致整个遗传风险概况普遍适度升高。这些发现为未来的研究人员提供了指导,并建议在筛查合并障碍和利用二次确定时要谨慎。
Exploring the implications of case selection methods for psychiatric molecular genetic studies
Researchers selecting probands for molecular genetic studies confront a range of sampling issues with modest empirical guidance. In this paper, using cases of major depression (MD), anxiety disorders (AD) alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ) from a large population cohort of all native Swedes born 1940–2003, we examine the implications of three proband selection decisions by exploring profiles of genetic risks assessed using the validated family genetic risk scores. The impact of censoring cases with comorbid diagnoses is quite variable, depending on the frequency of that disorder in the case sample and the genetic relationship of the censored to the primary disorder. In an MD cohort, censoring SZ cases produces only a focal small decrease in schizophrenia genetic risk while censoring AD cases produces a wide-spread reduction in genetic risk for MD and most other disorders. We examine the value of censoring cases of SZ, BD and MD whose onset was preceded by one to two years by first episodes of DUD or AUD. We do not see any increase in genetic risk for these “screened” cohorts. Secondary ascertainment, where disorder A is ascertained as a comorbid diagnosis in a sample collected for disorder B, can, in certain situations, produces large increases in the genetic risk for disorder B and associated disorders in cases of A. However, if disorder B is closely genetically related to disorder A (as seen with MD/AD and DUD/AUD pairings), the pattern differs dramatically and produces a general moderate elevation across the genetic risk profile. These findings provide guidelines for future investigators and suggest caution when screening out comorbid disorders and when utilizing secondary ascertainment.
期刊介绍:
Molecular Psychiatry focuses on publishing research that aims to uncover the biological mechanisms behind psychiatric disorders and their treatment. The journal emphasizes studies that bridge pre-clinical and clinical research, covering cellular, molecular, integrative, clinical, imaging, and psychopharmacology levels.