Jessica L Bourdon1, Rachel A Davies2, Elizabeth C Long3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, jbourdon@wellbridge.org. 2. Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Division of Behavioral Neuroscience and Psychiatric Disorders, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric genetics has had limited success in translational efforts. A thorough understanding of the present state of translation in this field will be useful in the facilitation and assessment of future translational progress. PURPOSE: A narrative literature review was conducted. Combinations of 3 groups of terms were searched in EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The review occurred in multiple steps, including abstract collection, inclusion/exclusion criteria review, coding, and analysis of included papers. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen articles were analyzed for the narrative review. Across those, 4 bottlenecks were noted that, if addressed, may provide insights and help improve and increase translation in the field of psychiatric genetics. These 4 bottlenecks are emphasizing linear translational frameworks, relying on molecular genomic findings, prioritizing certain psychiatric disorders, and publishing more reviews than experiments. CONCLUSIONS: These entwined bottlenecks are examined with one another. Awareness of these bottlenecks can inform stakeholders who work to translate and/or utilize psychiatric genetic information. Potential solutions include utilizing nonlinear translational frameworks as well as a wider array of psychiatric genetic information (e.g., family history and gene-environment interplay) in this area of research, expanding which psychiatric disorders are considered for translation, and when possible, conducting original research. Researchers are urged to consider how their research is translational in the context of the frameworks, genetic information, and psychiatric disorders discussed in this review. At a broader level, these efforts should be supported with translational efforts in funding and policy shifts.
BACKGROUND:Psychiatric genetics has had limited success in translational efforts. A thorough understanding of the present state of translation in this field will be useful in the facilitation and assessment of future translational progress. PURPOSE: A narrative literature review was conducted. Combinations of 3 groups of terms were searched in EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The review occurred in multiple steps, including abstract collection, inclusion/exclusion criteria review, coding, and analysis of included papers. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen articles were analyzed for the narrative review. Across those, 4 bottlenecks were noted that, if addressed, may provide insights and help improve and increase translation in the field of psychiatric genetics. These 4 bottlenecks are emphasizing linear translational frameworks, relying on molecular genomic findings, prioritizing certain psychiatric disorders, and publishing more reviews than experiments. CONCLUSIONS: These entwined bottlenecks are examined with one another. Awareness of these bottlenecks can inform stakeholders who work to translate and/or utilize psychiatric genetic information. Potential solutions include utilizing nonlinear translational frameworks as well as a wider array of psychiatric genetic information (e.g., family history and gene-environment interplay) in this area of research, expanding which psychiatric disorders are considered for translation, and when possible, conducting original research. Researchers are urged to consider how their research is translational in the context of the frameworks, genetic information, and psychiatric disorders discussed in this review. At a broader level, these efforts should be supported with translational efforts in funding and policy shifts.
Authors: Giulio Perugi; Pietro De Rossi; Andrea Fagiolini; Paolo Girardi; Giuseppe Maina; Gabriele Sani; Alessandro Serretti Journal: Int Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.659
Authors: Lucas M Walden; Eva J Brandl; Amtul Changasi; Jessica E Sturgess; Alexander Soibel; Janna Fe D Notario; Sheraz Cheema; Nicole Braganza; Victoria S Marshe; Natalie Freeman; Arun K Tiwari; James L Kennedy; Daniel J Müller Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Peter M Visscher; Naomi R Wray; Qian Zhang; Pamela Sklar; Mark I McCarthy; Matthew A Brown; Jian Yang Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Michael V Holmes; Tina Shah; Christine Vickery; Liam Smeeth; Aroon D Hingorani; Juan P Casas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240