OBJECTIVE: Impaired attention has frequently been observed in studies of unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia. To assess the suitability of impaired attention for use as an intermediate phenotype in genetic studies, the authors estimated the relative risk of impaired attention in a large group of siblings. METHOD: The authors used the Continuous Performance Test, 1-9 version, with and without a distraction condition, to study 147 patients with schizophrenia, 193 of their siblings, and 47 normal comparison subjects. Relative risk (l) was estimated by using cutoff scores that were one, two, and three standard deviations below the mean sensitivity index value (d cent) of the normal comparison group in both Continuous Performance Test conditions. RESULTS: Patients but not their siblings performed worse than the normal comparison subjects in both conditions. Fifty percent of the patients, 24% of their siblings, and 18% of the normal comparison subjects scored one standard deviation below the mean score of the comparison group for the more difficult distraction version of the Continuous Performance Test. The patients with Continuous Performance Test scores one standard deviation below the mean score of the comparison group had a total of 97 siblings. Compared with the comparison group, this subgroup of siblings had significantly lower Continuous Performance Test scores. Relative risk was also significantly higher for the siblings of patients whose scores were one standard deviation (l=2. 1) and two standard deviations (l=3.3) below the mean of comparison subjects. Attempts to assess ascertainment bias suggest that this may be an underestimate. CONCLUSIONS: Poor performance on the Continuous Performance Test appears to be familial and, possibly, genetic. Relative risk estimates were in the moderate range. Given the ease of administering the Continuous Performance Test, the use of impaired attention as an intermediate phenotype could increase the power of genetic studies of schizophrenia.
OBJECTIVE: Impaired attention has frequently been observed in studies of unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia. To assess the suitability of impaired attention for use as an intermediate phenotype in genetic studies, the authors estimated the relative risk of impaired attention in a large group of siblings. METHOD: The authors used the Continuous Performance Test, 1-9 version, with and without a distraction condition, to study 147 patients with schizophrenia, 193 of their siblings, and 47 normal comparison subjects. Relative risk (l) was estimated by using cutoff scores that were one, two, and three standard deviations below the mean sensitivity index value (d cent) of the normal comparison group in both Continuous Performance Test conditions. RESULTS:Patients but not their siblings performed worse than the normal comparison subjects in both conditions. Fifty percent of the patients, 24% of their siblings, and 18% of the normal comparison subjects scored one standard deviation below the mean score of the comparison group for the more difficult distraction version of the Continuous Performance Test. The patients with Continuous Performance Test scores one standard deviation below the mean score of the comparison group had a total of 97 siblings. Compared with the comparison group, this subgroup of siblings had significantly lower Continuous Performance Test scores. Relative risk was also significantly higher for the siblings of patients whose scores were one standard deviation (l=2. 1) and two standard deviations (l=3.3) below the mean of comparison subjects. Attempts to assess ascertainment bias suggest that this may be an underestimate. CONCLUSIONS: Poor performance on the Continuous Performance Test appears to be familial and, possibly, genetic. Relative risk estimates were in the moderate range. Given the ease of administering the Continuous Performance Test, the use of impaired attention as an intermediate phenotype could increase the power of genetic studies of schizophrenia.
Authors: Kristin K Nicodemus; Amanda J Law; Eugenia Radulescu; Augustin Luna; Bhaskar Kolachana; Radhakrishna Vakkalanka; Dan Rujescu; Ina Giegling; Richard E Straub; Kate McGee; Bert Gold; Michael Dean; Pierandrea Muglia; Joseph H Callicott; Hao-Yang Tan; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-10
Authors: Michael F Egan; Richard E Straub; Terry E Goldberg; Imtiaz Yakub; Joseph H Callicott; Ahmad R Hariri; Venkata S Mattay; Alessandro Bertolino; Thomas M Hyde; Cynthia Shannon-Weickert; Mayada Akil; Jeremy Crook; Radha Krishna Vakkalanka; Rishi Balkissoon; Richard A Gibbs; Joel E Kleinman; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-08-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Heike Tost; Bhaskar Kolachana; Shabnam Hakimi; Herve Lemaitre; Beth A Verchinski; Venkata S Mattay; Daniel R Weinberger; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Krista M Wisner; Brita Elvevåg; James M Gold; Daniel R Weinberger; Dwight Dickinson Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Alice M Saperstein; Rebecca L Fuller; Matthew T Avila; Helene Adami; Robert P McMahon; Gunvant K Thaker; James M Gold Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2006-05-10 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Karen E Muñoz; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Ahmad R Hariri; Carolyn B Mervis; Venkata S Mattay; Colleen A Morris; Karen Faith Berman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kristin K Nicodemus; Joseph H Callicott; Rachel G Higier; Augustin Luna; Devon C Nixon; Barbara K Lipska; Radhakrishna Vakkalanka; Ina Giegling; Dan Rujescu; David St Clair; Pierandrea Muglia; Yin Yao Shugart; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.132