| Literature DB >> 32231276 |
Na Cai1,2,3, Joana A Revez4, Mark J Adams5, Till F M Andlauer6,7, Gerome Breen8,9, Enda M Byrne4, Toni-Kim Clarke5, Andreas J Forstner10,11,12, Hans J Grabe13, Steven P Hamilton14, Douglas F Levinson15, Cathryn M Lewis9,16, Glyn Lewis17, Nicholas G Martin18, Yuri Milaneschi19, Ole Mors20,21, Bertram Müller-Myhsok6,22,23, Brenda W J H Penninx19, Roy H Perlis24,25, Giorgio Pistis26, James B Potash27, Martin Preisig26, Jianxin Shi28, Jordan W Smoller25,29,30, Fabien Streit31, Henning Tiemeier32,33,34, Rudolf Uher35, Sandra Van der Auwera13, Alexander Viktorin36, Myrna M Weissman37,38, Kenneth S Kendler39, Jonathan Flint40.
Abstract
Minimal phenotyping refers to the reliance on the use of a small number of self-reported items for disease case identification, increasingly used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Here we report differences in genetic architecture between depression defined by minimal phenotyping and strictly defined major depressive disorder (MDD): the former has a lower genotype-derived heritability that cannot be explained by inclusion of milder cases and a higher proportion of the genome contributing to this shared genetic liability with other conditions than for strictly defined MDD. GWAS based on minimal phenotyping definitions preferentially identifies loci that are not specific to MDD, and, although it generates highly predictive polygenic risk scores, the predictive power can be explained entirely by large sample sizes rather than by specificity for MDD. Our results show that reliance on results from minimal phenotyping may bias views of the genetic architecture of MDD and impede the ability to identify pathways specific to MDD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32231276 PMCID: PMC7906795 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-020-0594-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Genet ISSN: 1061-4036 Impact factor: 38.330