Sofie Ragnhild Aminoff1, Martin Tesli2, Francesco Bettella2, Monica Aas2, Trine Vik Lagerberg2, Srdjan Djurovic2, Ole A Andreassen2, Ingrid Melle2. 1. Department of Specialized Inpatient Treatment, Division of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Norway; NORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: s.r.aminoff@medisin.uio.no. 2. NORMENT, KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a genetically and clinically heterogeneous disorder. Current classifications of BD rely on clinical presentations without any validating biomarkers, making homogenous and valid subtypes warranted. This study aims at investigating whether a BD polygenic risk score (PGRS) can validate BD subtypes including diagnostic sub-categories (BD-I versus BD-II), patients with and without psychotic symptoms, polarity of first presenting episode and age at onset based groups. We also wanted to investigate whether illness severity indicators were associated with a higher polygenic risk for BD. METHODS: Analyze differences in BD PGRS scores between suggested subtypes of BD and between healthy controls (CTR) and BD in a sample of N=669 (255 BD and 414 CTR). RESULTS: The BD PGRS significantly discriminates between BD and CTR (p<0.001). There were no differences in BD PGRS between groups defined by diagnostic sub-categories, presenting polarity and age at onset. Patients with psychotic BD had nominally significantly higher BD PGRS than patients with non-psychotic BD after controlling for diagnostic sub-category (p=0.019). These findings remained trend level significant after Bonferroni corrections (p=0.079). LIMITATIONS: The low explained variance of the current PGRS method could lead to type II errors. CONCLUSIONS: There are nominally significant differences in BD PGRS scores between patients with and without psychotic symptoms, indicating that these two forms of BD might represent distinct subtypes of BD based in its polygenic architecture and a division between BD with and without psychotic symptoms could represent a more valid subclassification of BD than current diagnostic sub-categories. If replicated, this finding could affect future research, diagnostics and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND:Bipolar disorder (BD) is a genetically and clinically heterogeneous disorder. Current classifications of BD rely on clinical presentations without any validating biomarkers, making homogenous and valid subtypes warranted. This study aims at investigating whether a BD polygenic risk score (PGRS) can validate BD subtypes including diagnostic sub-categories (BD-I versus BD-II), patients with and without psychotic symptoms, polarity of first presenting episode and age at onset based groups. We also wanted to investigate whether illness severity indicators were associated with a higher polygenic risk for BD. METHODS: Analyze differences in BD PGRS scores between suggested subtypes of BD and between healthy controls (CTR) and BD in a sample of N=669 (255 BD and 414 CTR). RESULTS: The BD PGRS significantly discriminates between BD and CTR (p<0.001). There were no differences in BD PGRS between groups defined by diagnostic sub-categories, presenting polarity and age at onset. Patients with psychotic BD had nominally significantly higher BD PGRS than patients with non-psychotic BD after controlling for diagnostic sub-category (p=0.019). These findings remained trend level significant after Bonferroni corrections (p=0.079). LIMITATIONS: The low explained variance of the current PGRS method could lead to type II errors. CONCLUSIONS: There are nominally significant differences in BD PGRS scores between patients with and without psychotic symptoms, indicating that these two forms of BD might represent distinct subtypes of BD based in its polygenic architecture and a division between BD with and without psychotic symptoms could represent a more valid subclassification of BD than current diagnostic sub-categories. If replicated, this finding could affect future research, diagnostics and clinical practice.
Authors: Janos L Kalman; Sergi Papiol; Andreas J Forstner; Urs Heilbronner; Franziska Degenhardt; Jana Strohmaier; Mazda Adli; Kristina Adorjan; Nirmala Akula; Martin Alda; Heike Anderson-Schmidt; Till Fm Andlauer; Ion-George Anghelescu; Raffaella Ardau; Bárbara Arias; Volker Arolt; Jean-Michel Aubry; Lena Backlund; Kim Bartholdi; Michael Bauer; Bernhard T Baune; Thomas Becker; Frank Bellivier; Antonio Benabarre; Susanne Bengesser; Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee; Joanna M Biernacka; Armin Birner; Clara Brichant-Petitjean; Monika Budde; Pablo Cervantes; Caterina Chillotti; Sven Cichon; Scott R Clark; Francesc Colom; Ashley L Comes; Cristiana Cruceanu; Piotr M Czerski; Udo Dannlowski; Alexandre Dayer; Maria Del Zompo; Jay Raymond DePaulo; Detlef E Dietrich; Bruno Étain; Thomas Ethofer; Peter Falkai; Andreas Fallgatter; Christian Figge; Laura Flatau; Here Folkerts; Louise Frisen; Mark A Frye; Janice M Fullerton; Katrin Gade; Sébastien Gard; Julie S Garnham; Fernando S Goes; Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu; Anna Gryaznova; Maria Hake; Joanna Hauser; Stefan Herms; Per Hoffmann; Liping Hou; Markus Jäger; Stephane Jamain; Esther Jiménez; Georg Juckel; Jean-Pierre Kahn; Layla Kassem; John Kelsoe; Sarah Kittel-Schneider; Sebastian Kliwicki; Farah Klohn-Sagatholislam; Manfred Koller; Barbara König; Carsten Konrad; Nina Lackner; Gonzalo Laje; Mikael Landén; Fabian U Lang; Catharina Lavebratt; Marion Leboyer; Susan G Leckband; Mario Maj; Mirko Manchia; Lina Martinsson; Michael J McCarthy; Susan L McElroy; Francis J McMahon; Philip B Mitchell; Marina Mitjans; Francis M Mondimore; Palmiero Monteleone; Vanessa Nieratschker; Caroline M Nievergelt; Tomas Novák; Urban Ösby; Andrea Pfennig; James B Potash; Daniela Reich-Erkelenz; Andreas Reif; Jens Reimer; Eva Reininghaus; Markus Reitt; Stephan Ripke; Guy A Rouleau; Janusz K Rybakowski; Martin Schalling; Harald Scherk; Max Schmauß; Peter R Schofield; K Oliver Schubert; Eva C Schulte; Sybille Schulz; Fanny Senner; Giovanni Severino; Tatyana Shekhtman; Paul D Shilling; Christian Simhandl; Claire M Slaney; Carsten Spitzer; Alessio Squassina; Thomas Stamm; Sophia Stegmaier; Sebastian Stierl; Pavla Stopkova; Andreas Thiel; Sarah K Tighe; Alfonso Tortorella; Gustavo Turecki; Eduard Vieta; Julia Veeh; Martin von Hagen; Moritz E Wigand; Jens Wiltfang; Stephanie Witt; Adam Wright; Peter P Zandi; Jörg Zimmermann; Markus Nöthen; Marcella Rietschel; Thomas G Schulze Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Lukasz Smigielski; Sergi Papiol; Peter Falkai; Thomas G Schulze; Edna Grünblatt; Anastasia Theodoridou; Karsten Heekeren; Miriam Gerstenberg; Diana Wotruba; Roman Buechler; Per Hoffmann; Stefan Herms; Kristina Adorjan; Heike Anderson-Schmidt; Monika Budde; Ashley L Comes; Katrin Gade; Maria Heilbronner; Urs Heilbronner; Janos L Kalman; Farahnaz Klöhn-Saghatolislam; Daniela Reich-Erkelenz; Sabrina K Schaupp; Eva C Schulte; Fanny Senner; Ion-George Anghelescu; Volker Arolt; Bernhard T Baune; Udo Dannlowski; Detlef E Dietrich; Andreas J Fallgatter; Christian Figge; Markus Jäger; Georg Juckel; Carsten Konrad; Vanessa Nieratschker; Jens Reimer; Eva Reininghaus; Max Schmauß; Carsten Spitzer; Martin von Hagen; Jens Wiltfang; Jörg Zimmermann; Anna Gryaznova; Laura Flatau-Nagel; Markus Reitt; Milena Meyers; Barbara Emons; Ida Sybille Haußleiter; Fabian U Lang; Thomas Becker; Moritz E Wigand; Stephanie H Witt; Franziska Degenhardt; Andreas J Forstner; Marcella Rietschel; Markus M Nöthen; Till F M Andlauer; Wulf Rössler; Susanne Walitza Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Madeline L Page; Elizabeth L Vance; Matthew E Cloward; Ed Ringger; Louisa Dayton; Mark T W Ebbert; Justin B Miller; John S K Kauwe Journal: Commun Biol Date: 2022-09-02