Schizophrenia Research Forum - A Catalyst for Creative Thinking

Bigger Schizophrenia GWAS Yields More Hits

August 30, 2013. More than 20 regions of the human genome can be linked to risk for schizophrenia, according to the latest progress report from the ongoing effort to identify common gene variants through genomewide association studies (GWAS). Thirteen of the genomic regions highlighted in the paper posted online August 25 in Nature Genetics represent new loci, write Patrick Sullivan of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

"We increased the number of loci for schizophrenia by a factor of two or three," Sullivan told SRF. He also pointed to new data that support earlier findings that genes coding for calcium channel subunits and microRNA-137 may be altered in schizophrenia. However, Sullivan and his colleagues point out that the "hits" do not identify specific genes as contributing to schizophrenia, but rather identify areas for closer inspection, as they may contain multiple genes, not to mention DNA that codes for RNAs or has no known function.

Sullivan, who is an advisor to SRF, also focused attention on the modeling analyses described in the paper, which suggest that they are now able, using GWAS data, to show that common genetic variation (i.e., found in more than 5 percent of the population) is responsible for one-half to three-quarters of the heritable risk for schizophrenia.

"Given how controversial GWAS is, it shows what this method can accomplish if we actually wield it correctly in the sense of having enough samples," said Sullivan.

Smorgasbord of genotypes
What is new is the most recent GWAS report is a sample of 5,001 schizophrenia cases and 6,243 controls collected by the study's Swedish collaborators. First author Stephan Ripke of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and colleagues combined these subjects with the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium sample already reported on (see SRF related news story) to generate an initial meta-analysis of 13,833 cases and 18,310 controls, and genomewide significant hits in 12 genomic regions.

The authors write that imputation for this study—the ability to make educated predictions about missing genotype information—was improved over early GWAS reports because the researchers were able to use data from the more recent 1000 Genomes Study. Ripke and colleagues thus generated >10,000 hits for some degree of association with schizophrenia, considerably more than HapMap imputation generated (<1,600 hits).

The researchers then took the analysis a step further, digging down into the Swedish/PGC results to pull out single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that were below the cutoff for genomewide significance but had p values of at least 5 x 10-10. These data were combined with data from an additional 7,413 cases and 19,762 controls from several other European schizophrenia cohorts, bringing the combined analysis to more than 21,000 cases and 38,000 controls. It was from this analysis that Ripke and colleagues found genomewide significant hits at 22 genomic regions.

However, the authors do not devote much attention to specific genes, in the recognition that there are a number of genes, not to mention non-gene-coding DNA, in these regions that may be driving a given positive SNP association.

"Most of these associations are in intronic or intergenic regions. Going from genetic variations to what’s happening at a molecular level is one of the big questions," Sullivan said. "I think it’s possible to work that through systematically, quite carefully, as a number of people are doing."

Instead, the researchers discuss trends they see within the data, including the fact that they replicated several signals near genes coding for calcium channel subunits that have been implicated already in schizophrenia or psychiatric disorders more broadly (see SRF related news story; SRF news story; SRF news story), as well as a hit near the region coding for microRNA-137, which helps control gene expression. And similar to previous studies dating back to linkage analysis, Ripke and colleagues found plenty of association in the tangled web of the major histocompatibility complex on chromosome 6.

Which part of nature?
The nature-nurture debate has generally been settled for most physiological traits, as well as most diseases, as a draw, with both at work. For schizophrenia, the outstanding questions are, How much of nature versus nurture, and what accounts for the nature portion—common genetic variants, rare variants, epigenetic marks, or the previously misnamed "junk DNA"?

With the combined Swedish/PGC data, Ripke and colleagues applied two recently developed analysis methods—genomewide complex trait analysis (GCTA) and applied Bayesian polygenic analysis (ABPA)—to model the contribution of common variants to the estimated 65 percent heritability of schizophrenia. They came up with 52 percent (GCTA) and 78 percent (ABPA), two very different numbers that will require more study but an argument for the importance of common variants, in any case.

"As others have pointed out before, the heritability of schizophrenia isn’t missing but rather hidden, and it’s hidden because of insufficient sample size and because our technology isn’t getting at all the things that it needs to," said Sullivan.—Hakon Heimer.

Reference:
Ripke S, O'Dushlaine C, Chambert K, Moran JL, Kähler AK, Akterin S, Bergen SE, Collins AL, Crowley JJ, Fromer M, Kim Y, Lee SH, Magnusson PK, Sanchez N, Stahl EA, Williams S, Wray NR, Xia K, Bettella F, Borglum AD, Bulik-Sullivan BK, Cormican P, Craddock N, de Leeuw C, Durmishi N, Gill M, Golimbet V, Hamshere ML, Holmans P, Hougaard DM, Kendler KS, Lin K, Morris DW, Mors O, Mortensen PB, Neale BM, O'Neill FA, Owen MJ, Milovancevic MP, Posthuma D, Powell J, Richards AL, Riley BP, Ruderfer D, Rujescu D, Sigurdsson E, Silagadze T, Smit AB, Stefansson H, Steinberg S, Suvisaari J, Tosato S, Verhage M, Walters JT; Multicenter Genetic Studies of Schizophrenia Consortium, Levinson DF, Gejman PV, Kendler KS, Laurent C, Mowry BJ, O'Donovan MC, Owen MJ, Pulver AE, Riley BP, Schwab SG, Wildenauer DB, Dudbridge F, Holmans P, Shi J, Albus M, Alexander M, Campion D, Cohen D, Dikeos D, Duan J, Eichhammer P, Godard S, Hansen M, Lerer FB, Liang KY, Maier W, Mallet J, Nertney DA, Nestadt G, Norton N, O'Neill FA, Papadimitriou GN, Ribble R, Sanders AR, Silverman JM, Walsh D, Williams NM, Wormley B; Psychosis Endophenotypes International Consortium, Arranz MJ, Bakker S, Bender S, Bramon E, Collier D, Crespo-Facorro B, Hall J, Iyegbe C, Jablensky A, Kahn RS, Kalaydjieva L, Lawrie S, Lewis CM, Lin K, Linszen DH, Mata I, McIntosh A, Murray RM, Ophoff RA, Powell J, Rujescu D, Van Os J, Walshe M, Weisbrod M, Wiersma D; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2; Management Committee:, Donnelly P, Barroso I, Blackwell JM, Bramon E, Brown MA, Casas JP, Corvin AP, Deloukas P, Duncanson A, Jankowski J, Markus HS, Mathew CG, Palmer CN, Plomin R, Rautanen A, Sawcer SJ, Trembath RC, Viswanathan AC, Wood NW; Data and Analysis Group:, Spencer CC, Band G, Bellenguez C, Freeman C, Hellenthal G, Giannoulatou E, Pirinen M, Pearson RD, Strange A, Su Z, Vukcevic D, Donnelly P; DNA, Genotyping, Data QC and Informatics Group:, Langford C, Hunt SE, Edkins S, Gwilliam R, Blackburn H, Bumpstead SJ, Dronov S, Gillman M, Gray E, Hammond N, Jayakumar A, McCann OT, Liddle J, Potter SC, Ravindrarajah R, Ricketts M, Tashakkori-Ghanbaria A, Waller MJ, Weston P, Widaa S, Whittaker P, Barroso I, Deloukas P; Publications Committee:, Mathew CG, Blackwell JM, Brown MA, Corvin AP, McCarthy MI, Spencer CC, Bramon E, Corvin AP, O'Donovan MC, Stefansson K, Scolnick E, Purcell S, McCarroll SA, Sklar P, Hultman CM, Sullivan PF. Genome-wide association analysis identifies 13 new risk loci for schizophrenia. Nat Genet. 2013 Aug 25. Abstract

Comments on News and Primary Papers
Comment by:  Sven Cichon
Submitted 30 August 2013
Posted 30 August 2013

This paper is an important addition to the psychiatric genetics literature. One important message of it is that increasing the GWAS sample size in a complex neuropsychiatric phenotype such as schizophrenia identifies more common risk loci.

In the first-wave schizophrenia mega-analysis two years ago (Schizophrenia Psychiatric Genome-Wide Association Study Consortium, 2011), five risk loci at genomewide significance were detected, and it was speculated that more would follow with larger sample sizes. In fact, by performing a meta-analysis of a new Swedish schizophrenia sample (about 5,000 patients and 6,000 controls) and the first-wave PGC sample (about 9,000 patients and 12,000 controls) plus follow-up/replication in large, independent samples, the authors now find 22 genomic loci at genomewide significance. This is another important step forward in schizophrenia genetics.

It is reassuring (and important for the scientific community to know) that there is support for some of the previously reported loci. As expected, the findings are getting much more consistent now with the increasing power of the samples. Interestingly, some loci pop up now at genomewide significance that were known from bipolar disorder or combined phenotype analyses (schizophrenia + bipolar), such as CACNA1C and CACNB2. Together with the finding that there is an enrichment of smaller p values in genes encoding calcium channel subunits, there is now growing evidence that calcium signaling is involved in both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Calcium signaling is a crucial neuronal process and relevant in a number of human diseases, as the authors nicely review. Importantly, calcium channel complexes may be useful for clinical translation (e.g., as drug targets).

Variation in another gene that was implicated in bipolar disorder before, NCAN, was found at genomewide significance in schizophrenia in the study by Ripke et al. (in fact, an association with schizophrenia was already reported earlier by Mühleisen et al., 2012). It seems that another "theme" of disease-relevant genes may be neurodevelopmental effects in both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The different lincRNAs implicated now among the 22 genomewide significant findings may also point in this direction.

What I find particularly interesting are the considerations regarding the much debated genetic architecture of schizophrenia. The authors’ simulations, although certainly still not perfectly exact, substantiate previous calculations that common SNPs make substantial contributions to the risk for schizophrenia.

To my knowledge, for the first time there are estimates regarding the absolute number of common SNPs that contribute to the etiology of schizophrenia: The authors estimate "6,300 to 10,200 independent and mostly common SNPs." While it is difficult to deduce the number of genes or functional units covered by these SNPs, several thousand are well possible. Many of these loci/genes will fall into the same biological pathways, and the identification of a subset of these will probably suffice to identify the most important biological processes. The authors estimate that the top 2,000 loci might be sufficient, and maybe it is even fewer. At the same time, they estimate that such a number of identified loci is not completely out of reach. Sixty thousand patients and 60,000 controls should have enough statistical power to identify between 400 and 1,100 common loci at genomewide significance. Psychiatrists will agree that a great collaborative effort will be required to recruit such a large number of patients. But it is not impossible. The next wave of the PGC schizophrenia group is already moving in this direction.

References:

Schizophrenia Psychiatric Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) Consortium (2011) Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci. Nat Genet. 43:969-76. Abstract

Mühleisen TW, Mattheisen M, Strohmaier J, et al. (2012) Association between schizophrenia and common variation in neurocan (NCAN), a genetic risk factor for bipolar disorder. Schizophr Res. 138:69-73. Abstract

View all comments by Sven CichonComment by:  Ole A. AndreassenMartin Tesli
Submitted 6 October 2013
Posted 7 October 2013
  I recommend the Primary Papers

The recent genomewide association study (GWAS) by Ripke and co-workers is a very important contribution to our knowledge of the genetic underpinnings of schizophrenia. By adding ~5,000 schizophrenia cases and ~6,000 healthy controls from Sweden to the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) results from 2011 (PGC, 2011), the authors identified 22 gene loci (including 13 novel) at genomewide significance. These findings confirm that previous schizophrenia GWAS have been statistically underpowered, and that increasing the sample size is a successful approach to bridge the gap between the high heritability estimates in schizophrenia and low variance explained by currently identified genetic variants.

With increasing sample size, consistency is also enhanced. Reassuringly, of the 100 most significant SNPs in the Sweden/PGC meta-analysis, 90 percent had the same sign. Moreover, previously reported signals from immune-related genes in the MHC region on chromosome 6 were confirmed, as well as genes encoding calcium channel subunits, miR-137, and targets of miR-137. Additionally, the authors found enrichment in an extended set of genes with predicted miR-137 target sites. The results also pointed to long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs), as 13 out of 22 identified regions contain lincRNAs. Interestingly, there is evidence that lincRNAs have functions related to epigenetic regulation.

Using two newly developed methods—genomewide complex trait analysis (GCTA) and applied Bayesian polygenic analysis (ABPA)—the authors estimated that common variants account for 52 percent and 78 percent, respectively, of the phenotypic variation in schizophrenia. These numbers are, although imprecisely, in accordance with the high heritability estimates from meta-analyses on twin studies (81 percent) (Sullivan et al., 2003) and large epidemiological studies (64 percent) (Lichtenstein et al., 2009), and indicate that a substantial proportion of the genetic risk for schizophrenia can be explained by common variants identified in GWAS. With the ABPA method, the authors also estimated that between 6,300 and 10,200 SNPs explain 50 percent of the variance in schizophrenia susceptibility. This clearly shows the high polygenicity in schizophrenia.

The authors suggest that 60,000 schizophrenia cases and 60,000 controls are warranted to identify ~800 markers at genomewide significance level. With the combined effort from the PGC, this might be achievable, and a larger proportion of the hidden heritability will undoubtedly be revealed. However, when using the PGC schizophrenia sample as the discovery set and the Swedish sample as the test set, explained variance (Nagelkerke pseudo R2) was only ~0.06 (contrasted by an impressive significance level of 2 x 10-114). This is slightly disappointing, as the explained variance with similar methodology was found to be ~0.03 in a study by Purcell and co-workers in 2009 (Purcell et al., 2009). By increasing the sample size five times (~6,000 vs. ~30,000 individuals), explained variance has only increased from 3 to 6 percent. Although a further increase in the PGC sample will provide important information on risk variants, a refinement of the method is probably also needed to discover larger parts of the hidden heritability for the highly polygenic disorder schizophrenia. Such methods might include Bayesian models for weighing SNPs based on prior evidence, for example, related to pleiotropic effects (Andreassen et al., 2013) and genic annotation (Schork et al., 2013). A combination of large numbers and methodological refinement might prove particularly potent, both in terms of explaining more of the variance and identifying underlying molecular pathways.

References:

PGC. Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci. Nat Genet . 2011 Oct ; 43(10):969-76. Abstract

Andreassen OA, Thompson WK, Schork AJ, Ripke S, Mattingsdal M, Kelsoe JR, Kendler KS, O'Donovan MC, Rujescu D, Werge T, Sklar P, , , Roddey JC, Chen CH, McEvoy L, Desikan RS, Djurovic S, Dale AM. Improved detection of common variants associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder using pleiotropy-informed conditional false discovery rate. PLoS Genet . 2013 Apr ; 9(4):e1003455. Abstract

Lichtenstein P, Yip BH, Björk C, Pawitan Y, Cannon TD, Sullivan PF, Hultman CM. Common genetic determinants of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in Swedish families: a population-based study. Lancet . 2009 Jan 17 ; 373(9659):234-9. Abstract

Purcell SM, Wray NR, Stone JL, Visscher PM, O'Donovan MC, Sullivan PF, Sklar P. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature . 2009 Aug 6 ; 460(7256):748-52. Abstract

Schork AJ, Thompson WK, Pham P, Torkamani A, Roddey JC, Sullivan PF, Kelsoe JR, O'Donovan MC, Furberg H, Schork NJ, Andreassen OA, Dale AM. All SNPs are not created equal: genome-wide association studies reveal a consistent pattern of enrichment among functionally annotated SNPs. PLoS Genet . 2013 Apr ; 9(4):e1003449. Abstract

Sullivan PF, Kendler KS, Neale MC. Schizophrenia as a complex trait: evidence from a meta-analysis of twin studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2003 Dec ; 60(12):1187-92. Abstract

View all comments by Ole A. Andreassen
View all comments by Martin Tesli

Comments on Related News


Related News: Channeling Mental Illness: GWAS Links Ion Channels, Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Melvin G. McInnis
Submitted 19 August 2008
Posted 19 August 2008

The work by Ferreira et al. exemplifies the growing enthusiasm for collaborative work among investigators and marks the new era of collaborative genetic research in complex disorders. The LD data found in the extant HapMap SNPs allow investigators to use sophisticated computational approaches to impute genotypes based on these HapMap data sets and the data generated from the experimental sample, thereby maximizing the utility of the actual genotyping itself. Nothing short of brilliant. Correlates between imputed and true genotypes were estimated to be 0.987, which is quite good. The significance estimates of the combined data analyses of the three data sets identifies two genes (ANK3 and CACNA1C) in the genomewide significance range with a p value of 10-8, which is most reassuring and even more so considering that the CACNA1C gene was identified previously. The humbling fact in the mix is that the odds ratios are modest, ranging from 1.2 to 1.4, which is nonetheless in a similar arena as other complex genetic disorders such as diabetes. It is further humbling (and consistent with the modest ORs) to consider that the frequency of the risk allele for the CACNA1C gene is 7.5 percent in the BP cases and 5.6 percent in the unaffected control individuals. Finally, there was no effect of the sub-diagnostic categories, age of onset, presence of psychosis, or sex. The highly encouraging point is that these genes appear to be in pathways that are affected by lithium, the gold standard of care for BP disorder. The anchorage of a genetic finding within a mechanism of an established treatment for BP disorder (lithium) lends substantial credibility to overall results. The next questions of research will relate to the efficacy of lithium relative to genotypes of these genes and others within their pathways. These findings raise several clinical questions, and integration of clinical outcome patterns with genetic data can be expected to shed further light on the etiology of the disease and the genetics of treatment response. Long live lithium.

View all comments by Melvin G. McInnis

Related News: Channeling Mental Illness: GWAS Links Ion Channels, Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  John I. Nurnberger, Jr.
Submitted 19 August 2008
Posted 19 August 2008

Ferreira et al. propose two specific genes to be related to bipolar disorder, ANK3, which is indirectly related to sodium channels, and CACNA1C, which is a calcium channel subunit. They hypothesize that bipolar disorder is, at least in part, a channelopathy. This hypothesis is consistent with a number of physiological observations made over the past several decades, as reviewed elsewhere.

The genetic data these authors present is certainly suggestive. They have analyzed three independent data sets, STEP-UCL (Sklar et al., 2008), Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, 2007), and a third set called ED-DUB-STEP2 (not yet published). Their total sample exceeds 4,000 cases and 6,000 controls. They have direct genotype data on >300,000 SNPs and have imputed nearly 1.5 million additional. Their highest significance values (10-7 to 10-9) include a combination of genotyped and imputed SNPs. For each of these, the combined p value is a product of modest but consistent associations in the three independent data sets.

ANK3 features rs10994336 at 9x10e-9 and rs1938526 at 1x10e-8. By my reading, these two polymorphisms are both slightly distal to the gene but the second is within 10-20 kB. The first of these is imputed, and thus the p value should probably be judged as more imprecise. Both of these polymorphisms are associated with an odds ratio of ~1.4 and a minor allele frequency of ~5 percent in controls.

The CACNA1C data is based on more common polymorphisms (~30 percent in controls) and an OR~1.2. Again two SNPs are featured (rs1006737 at 7x10e-8, genotyped, and rs1024582 at 2x10-7, imputed). A third region near an uncharacterized gene (on 15q14) is also featured.

Examination of available published data from STEP-UCL and WTCCC on ANK3 and CACNA1C does not show obvious evidence of association among SNPs across each of the named genes, but reasonably consistent signals of modest significance, which is what one might expect, and this does suggest that the featured SNPs are not completely anomalous, but may represent a pattern of genotype deviation across the two genes.

Needless to say, our investigators in the GAIN (Genetic Analysis Information Network) bipolar group are extremely interested in this report and are avidly following the lead provided by Ferreira to attempt to confirm these signals in our own data. I am also pleased to say that GAIN has provided the stimulus for an international consortium that includes representatives from the Ferreira group as well as many other investigators, dedicated to assembling yet larger samples of bipolar cases and controls to elucidate the genetics of this condition through genomewide methods.

This is an important report, and it may represent a breakthrough in bipolar genetic studies. The signals for ANK3 and CACNA1C appear very promising, and we hope that they prove to be consistently observed in other data sets as well. We anticipate that additional confirmed single genes will emerge soon as well, and that the genetic structure of these disorders will be elucidated using similar methods in large data sets in the coming years.

View all comments by John I. Nurnberger, Jr.

Related News: Channeling Mental Illness: GWAS Links Ion Channels, Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Peter P. Zandi
Submitted 21 August 2008
Posted 21 August 2008

Are we there yet? Have we in the field of bipolar genetics finally been delivered to the promised land by GWAS? For the past year or so since GWAS burst on the scene, we have had to watch with envy as an impressive list of genes were convincingly implicated in a range of other complex diseases like type 2 diabetes, the apparent poster child for GWAS. Now, is it our turn?

The first attempts at individual-level GWAS of bipolar disorder by WTCCC and STEP-UCL were exciting because of their novelty, but the results were not particularly overwhelming. None of the findings withstood correction for the massive multiple testing inherent in GWAS, and those at the top were of ambiguous relevance to bipolar disorder. Confronted with such uninspiring findings, one could not be faulted for experiencing pangs of doubt that maybe for psychiatric disorders, GWAS would prove no better than its dusty old predecessor, the genomewide linkage study, in illuminating the underlying genetic architecture.

Nevertheless, encouraged by the lessons learned from GWAS of type 2 diabetes that the road to the promised land is not paved in individual glory but in collaborations and consortiums, the investigators of WTCCC and STEP-UCL combined samples with a third previously unstudied collection (dubbed ED-DUB-STEP2) to assemble one of the largest samples in bipolar disorder yet to be analyzed by GWAS. The combined sample included 4,387 cases and 6,209 controls genotyped at 325,690 overlapping SNPs, which after imputation yielded data on 1.8 million variants. The results from this effort were recently reported in a manuscript by Ferreira and colleagues published in the latest edition of Nature Genetics.

Despite potential concerns about the genetic and/or clinical heterogeneity of the combined sample (e.g., the genomic inflation factor was estimated to be 1.11, even after controlling for two quantitative indices of population ancestry, which might suggest residual stratification or other unaccounted biases), the results from this effort are encouraging and provide some hope to those who may have been losing their faith. The most notable findings were in ANK3 on chromosome 10q21 and CACNA1C on chromosome 12p13. Multiple SNPs were associated across a 195-kb region of ANK3, and the top SNPs had p-values <5 x 10-8 which is often invoked as an appropriate threshold for genomewide significance in GWAS. Multiple nearby SNPs were also reassuringly associated in CACNA1C, although the top SNP just missed the threshold for genomewide significance. In both ANK3 and CACNA1C the top SNPs were consistently associated in the same direction across all three individual samples, lending credence to the claim that these associations are real. Lending further credence is the fact that ANK3 and CACNA1C are biologically plausible candidates for bipolar disorder, and indeed highlight the possibility that this disorder is an ion channelopathy. Interestingly, the associations with ANK3 and CACNA1C in each of the individual samples were relatively modest and became remarkable only in the combined sample, thus providing support for the rationale to combine samples in order to increase the power to detect those more modest signals that are presumably real but buried amidst the noise of a single study.

Although the evidence is promising, more samples will be needed to confirm the findings before we can say with confidence that we have in hand our first real bipolar susceptibility genes. Fortunately, several such samples have been or will soon be GWASed, including one from GAIN, and it will be of great interest to see whether the current findings are sustained in these new samples. Moreover, there are plans to combine all existing GWAS of bipolar disorder, as part of the initiative referred to as the Psychiatric GWAS Consortium, which should provide an even more definitive picture of the role of ANK3 and CACNA1C, as well as reveal other genes with more modest relative risks whose identities up until now have been obscured.

So, are we there yet? Maybe not just yet, but we are headed in the right direction and I think I can see the promised land.

View all comments by Peter P. Zandi

Related News: GWAS Goes Bigger: Large Sample Sizes Uncover New Risk Loci, Additional Overlap in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  David J. Porteous, SRF Advisor
Submitted 21 September 2011
Posted 21 September 2011

Consorting with GWAS for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: same message, (some) different genes
On 18 September 2011, Nature Genetics published the results from the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium of two separate, large-scale GWAS analyses, for schizophrenia (Ripke et al., 2011) and for bipolar disorder (Sklar et al., 2011), and a joint analysis of both. By combining forces across several consortia who have previously published separately, we should now have some clarity and definitive answers.

For schizophrenia, the Stage 1 GWAS discovery data came from 9,394 cases and 12,462 controls from 17 studies, imputing 1,252,901 SNPs. The Stage 2 replication sample comprised 8,442 cases and 21,397 controls. Of the 136 SNPs which reached genomewide significance in Stage 1, 129 (95 percent) mapped to the MHC locus, long known to be associated with risk of schizophrenia. Of the remaining seven SNPs, five mapped to previously identified loci. In total, just 10 loci met or exceeded the criteria of genomewide significance of p <5 x 10-8 at Stage 1 and/or Stage 2. The 10 "best" SNPs identified eight loci: MIR137, TRIM26, CSM1, CNNM2, NT5C2 and TCF4 were tagged by intragenic SNPs, while the remaining two were at some distance from a known gene (343 kb from PCGEM1 and 126 kb from CCDC68). More important than the absolute significance levels, the overall odds ratios (with 95 percent confidence intervals) ranged from 1.08 (0.96-1.20) to 1.40 (1.28-1.52). These fractional increases contrast with the ~10-fold increase in risk to the first-degree relative of someone with schizophrenia (Gottesman et al., 2010).

Six of these eight loci have been reported previously, but ZNF804A, a past favorite, was noticeably absent from the "top 10" list. The main attention now will surely be on MIR137, a newly discovered locus which encodes a microRNA, mir137, known to regulate neuronal development. The authors remark that 17 predicted MIR137 targets had a SNP with a p <10-4, more than twice as many as for the control gene set (p <0.01), though this relaxed significance cutoff seems somewhat arbitrary and warrants further examination. The result for MIR137 immediately begs the questions, Does the "risk" SNP affect MIR137 function directly or indirectly, and if so, does it affect the expression of any of the putative targets identified here? These are fairly straightforward questions: positive answers are vital to the biological validation of these statistical associations. As has been the case for follow-up studies of ZNF804A, however (reviewed by Donohoe et al., 2010), unequivocal answers from GWAS "hits" can be hard to come by, not least because of the very modest relative risks that they confer. Let us hope that this is not the case for MIR137, but it is of passing note that for two of the eight replication cohorts, the direction of effect for MIR137 was in the opposite direction from the Stage 1 finding. Taken together with the odds ratios reported in the range of 1.11-1.22, the effect size for the end phenotype of schizophrenia may be challenging to validate functionally. Perhaps a relevant intermediate phenotype more proximal to the gene will prove tractable.

For bipolar disorder, Stage 1 comprised 7,481 cases versus 9,250 controls, and identified 34 promising SNPs. These were replicated in Stage 2 in an independent set of 4,496 cases and a whopping 42,422 controls: 18 of the 34 SNPs survived at p <0.05. Taking Stage 1 and 2 together confirmed the previous "hot" finding for CACNA1C (Odds ratio = 1.14) and introduced a new candidate in ODZ4 (Odds ratio = 0.88, i.e., the minor allele is presumably "protective" or under some form of selection). Previous candidates ANK3 and SYNE1 looked promising at Stage 1, but did not replicate at Stage 2.

Finally, in a combined analysis of schizophrenia plus bipolar disorder versus controls, three of the respective "top 10" loci, CACNA1C, ANK3, and the ITIH3-ITIH4 region, came out as significant overall. This is consistent with the earlier evidence from the ISC for an overlap between the polygenic index for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Purcell et al., 2009). It is also consistent with the epidemiological evidence for shared genetic risk between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Lichtenstein et al., 2009; Gottesman et al., 2010).

What can we take from these studies? The authorship lists alone speak to the size of the collaborative effort involved and the sheer organizational task, depending on your point of view, that most of the positive findings were reported on previously could be seen as valuable "replication," or unnecessary duplication of cost and effort. Whichever way you look at it, though, just two new loci for schizophrenia and one for bipolar looks like a modest return for such a gargantuan investment. It begs the question as to whether the GWAS approach is gaining the hoped-for traction on major mental illness. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the technology tide is rapidly turning away from allelic association methods and towards rare mutation detection by copy number variation, exome, and/or whole-genome sequencing (Vacic et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2011).

Family studies are, as ever and always, of critical importance in genetics, and to distinguish between inherited and de-novo mutations. While the emphasis of GWAS has been on the impact of common, ancient allelic variation, it has become ever more obvious from both past linkage studies and from contemporary GWAS and CNV studies just how heterogeneous these conditions are, and how little note individual cases and families take of conventional DSM diagnostic boundaries. Improved genetic and other tools through which to stratify risk, define phenotypes, and predict outcomes are clearly needed. Whether such tools can be derived for GWAS data remains to be seen. It is important to remind ourselves of two things. First, case/association studies tell us something about the average impact (odds ratio, with confidence interval) of a given allele in the population studied. In these very large GWAS, this measure of impact will be approximating to the European population average. The odds ratios tell us that the impact per allele is modest. More importantly in some ways, the allele frequencies also tell us that the vast majority of allele carriers are not affected. Likewise, a high proportion of cases are not carriers. In the main, they are subtle risk modifiers rather than causal variants. That said, follow-up studies may define rare, functional genetic variants in MIR137 or CACNA1C or ANK3 that are tagged by the risk allele and that have sufficiently strong effects in a subset of cases for a causal link to be made. With this new GWAS data in hand, these sorts of questions can now be addressed.

It should also be said that there is clearly a wealth of potentially valuable information lying below the surface of the most statistically significant findings, but how to sort the true from the false associations? Should the MIR137 finding, and the targets of MIR137, be substantiated by biological analysis, then that would certainly be something well worth knowing and following up on. Network analysis by gene ontology and protein-protein interaction may yield more, but these approaches need to be approached with caution when not securely anchored from a biologically validated start point. Epistasis and pleiotropy are most likely playing a role, but even in these large sample sets, the power to determine statistical (as opposed to biological) evidence is challenging. All told, one is left thinking that more incisive findings have and will in the future come from family-based approaches, through structural studies (CNVs and chromosome translocations), and, in the near future, whole-genome sequencing of cases and relatives.

References:

Ripke S, Sanders AR, Kendler KS, Levinson DF, Sklar P, Holmans PA, Lin DY, Duan J, Ophoff RA, Andreassen OA, Scolnick E, Cichon S, St Clair D, Corvin A, Gurling H, Werge T, Rujescu D, Blackwood DH, Pato CN, Malhotra AK, Purcell S, Dudbridge F, Neale BM, Rossin L, Visscher PM, Posthuma D, Ruderfer DM, Fanous A, Stefansson H, Steinberg S, Mowry BJ, Golimbet V, de Hert M, Jönsson EG, Bitter I, Pietiläinen OP, Collier DA, Tosato S, Agartz I, Albus M, Alexander M, Amdur RL, Amin F, Bass N, Bergen SE, Black DW, Børglum AD, Brown MA, Bruggeman R, Buccola NG, Byerley WF, Cahn W, Cantor RM, Carr VJ, Catts SV, Choudhury K, Cloninger CR, Cormican P, Craddock N, Danoy PA, Datta S, de Haan L, Demontis D, Dikeos D, Djurovic S, Donnelly P, Donohoe G, Duong L, Dwyer S, Fink-Jensen A, Freedman R, Freimer NB, Friedl M, Georgieva L, Giegling I, Gill M, Glenthøj B, Godard S, Hamshere M, Hansen M, Hansen T, Hartmann AM, Henskens FA, Hougaard DM, Hultman CM, Ingason A, Jablensky AV, Jakobsen KD, Jay M, Jürgens G, Kahn RS, Keller MC, Kenis G, Kenny E, Kim Y, Kirov GK, Konnerth H, Konte B, Krabbendam L, Krasucki R, Lasseter VK, Laurent C, Lawrence J, Lencz T, Lerer FB, Liang KY, Lichtenstein P, Lieberman JA, Linszen DH, Lönnqvist J, Loughland CM, Maclean AW, Maher BS, Maier W, Mallet J, Malloy P, Mattheisen M, Mattingsdal M, McGhee KA, McGrath JJ, McIntosh A, McLean DE, McQuillin A, Melle I, Michie PT, Milanova V, Morris DW, Mors O, Mortensen PB, Moskvina V, Muglia P, Myin-Germeys I, Nertney DA, Nestadt G, Nielsen J, Nikolov I, Nordentoft M, Norton N, Nöthen MM, O'Dushlaine CT, Olincy A, Olsen L, O'Neill FA, Orntoft TF, Owen MJ, Pantelis C, Papadimitriou G, Pato MT, Peltonen L, Petursson H, Pickard B, Pimm J, Pulver AE, Puri V, Quested D, Quinn EM, Rasmussen HB, Réthelyi JM, Ribble R, Rietschel M, Riley BP, Ruggeri M, Schall U, Schulze TG, Schwab SG, Scott RJ, Shi J, Sigurdsson E, Silverman JM, Spencer CC, Stefansson K, Strange A, Strengman E, Stroup TS, Suvisaari J, Terenius L, Thirumalai S, Thygesen JH, Timm S, Toncheva D, van den Oord E, van Os J, van Winkel R, Veldink J, Walsh D, Wang AG, Wiersma D, Wildenauer DB, Williams HJ, Williams NM, Wormley B, Zammit S, Sullivan PF, O'Donovan MC, Daly MJ, Gejman PV. Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci. Nat Genet . 2011 Sep 18. Abstract

Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group, Sklar P, Ripke S, Scott LJ, Andreassen OA, Cichon S, Craddock N, Edenberg HJ, Nurnberger JI Jr, Rietschel M, Blackwood D, Corvin A, Flickinger M, Guan W, Mattingsdal M, McQuillin A, Kwan P, Wienker TF, Daly M, Dudbridge F, Holmans PA, Lin D, Burmeister M, Greenwood TA, Hamshere ML, Muglia P, Smith EN, Zandi PP, Nievergelt CM, McKinney R, Shilling PD, Schork NJ, Bloss CS, Foroud T, Koller DL, Gershon ES, Liu C, Badner JA, Scheftner WA, Lawson WB, Nwulia EA, Hipolito M, Coryell W, Rice J, Byerley W, McMahon FJ, Schulze TG, Berrettini W, Lohoff FW, Potash JB, Mahon PB, McInnis MG, Zöllner S, Zhang P, Craig DW, Szelinger S, Barrett TB, Breuer R, Meier S, Strohmaier J, Witt SH, Tozzi F, Farmer A, McGuffin P, Strauss J, Xu W, Kennedy JL, Vincent JB, Matthews K, Day R, Ferreira MA, O'Dushlaine C, Perlis R, Raychaudhuri S, Ruderfer D, Hyoun PL, Smoller JW, Li J, Absher D, Thompson RC, Meng FG, Schatzberg AF, Bunney WE, Barchas JD, Jones EG, Watson SJ, Myers RM, Akil H, Boehnke M, Chambert K, Moran J, Scolnick E, Djurovic S, Melle I, Morken G, Gill M, Morris D, Quinn E, Mühleisen TW, Degenhardt FA, Mattheisen M, Schumacher J, Maier W, Steffens M, Propping P, Nöthen MM, Anjorin A, Bass N, Gurling H, Kandaswamy R, Lawrence J, McGhee K, McIntosh A, McLean AW, Muir WJ, Pickard BS, Breen G, St Clair D, Caesar S, Gordon-Smith K, Jones L, Fraser C, Green EK, Grozeva D, Jones IR, Kirov G, Moskvina V, Nikolov I, O'Donovan MC, Owen MJ, Collier DA, Elkin A, Williamson R, Young AH, Ferrier IN, Stefansson K, Stefansson H, Thornorgeirsson T, Steinberg S, Gustafsson O, Bergen SE, Nimgaonkar V, Hultman C, Landén M, Lichtenstein P, Sullivan P, Schalling M, Osby U, Backlund L, Frisén L, Langstrom N, Jamain S, Leboyer M, Etain B, Bellivier F, Petursson H, Sigur Sson E, Müller-Mysok B, Lucae S, Schwarz M, Schofield PR, Martin N, Montgomery GW, Lathrop M, Oskarsson H, Bauer M, Wright A, Mitchell PB, Hautzinger M, Reif A, Kelsoe JR, Purcell SM. Large-scale genome-wide association analysis of bipolar disorder reveals a new susceptibility locus near ODZ4. Nat Genet. 2011 Sep 18. Abstract

Lichtenstein P, Yip BH, Björk C, Pawitan Y, Cannon TD, Sullivan PF, Hultman CM. Common genetic determinants of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in Swedish families: a population-based study. Lancet . 2009 Jan 17 ; 373(9659):234-9. Abstract

Gottesman II, Laursen TM, Bertelsen A, Mortensen PB. Severe mental disorders in offspring with 2 psychiatrically ill parents. Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2010 Mar 1 ; 67(3):252-7. Abstract

Donohoe G, Morris DW, Corvin A. The psychosis susceptibility gene ZNF804A: associations, functions, and phenotypes. Schizophr Bull . 2010 Sep 1 ; 36(5):904-9. Abstract

Purcell SM, Wray NR, Stone JL, Visscher PM, O'Donovan MC, Sullivan PF, Sklar P. Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature . 2009 Aug 6 ; 460(7256):748-52. Abstract

Vacic V, McCarthy S, Malhotra D, Murray F, Chou HH, Peoples A, Makarov V, Yoon S, Bhandari A, Corominas R, Iakoucheva LM, Krastoshevsky O, Krause V, Larach-Walters V, Welsh DK, Craig D, Kelsoe JR, Gershon ES, Leal SM, Dell Aquila M, Morris DW, Gill M, Corvin A, Insel PA, McClellan J, King MC, Karayiorgou M, Levy DL, DeLisi LE, Sebat J. Duplications of the neuropeptide receptor gene VIPR2 confer significant risk for schizophrenia. Nature . 2011 Mar 24 ; 471(7339):499-503. Abstract

Xu B, Roos JL, Dexheimer P, Boone B, Plummer B, Levy S, Gogos JA, Karayiorgou M. Exome sequencing supports a de novo mutational paradigm for schizophrenia. Nat Genet . 2011 Jan 1 ; 43(9):864-8. Abstract

View all comments by David J. Porteous

Related News: GWAS Goes Bigger: Large Sample Sizes Uncover New Risk Loci, Additional Overlap in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Patrick Sullivan, SRF Advisor
Submitted 26 September 2011
Posted 26 September 2011
  I recommend the Primary Papers

The two papers appearing online in Nature Genetics last Sunday are truly important additions to our increasing knowledge base for these disorders. The core analyses have been presented multiple times at international meetings in the past two years.

Since then, the available sample sizes for both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have grown considerably. If the recently published data are any guide, the next round of analyses should be particularly revealing.

The PGC results and almost all of the data that were used in these reports are available by application to the controlled-access repository.

Please see the references for views of this area that contrast with those of Professor Porteous.

References:

Sullivan P. Don't give up on GWAS. Molecular Psychiatry. 2011 Aug 9. Abstract

Kim Y, Zerwas S, Trace SE, Sullivan PF. Schizophrenia genetics: where next? Schizophr Bull. 2011;37:456-63. Abstract

View all comments by Patrick Sullivan

Related News: GWAS Goes Bigger: Large Sample Sizes Uncover New Risk Loci, Additional Overlap in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Edward Scolnick
Submitted 28 September 2011
Posted 29 September 2011
  I recommend the Primary Papers

It is clear in human genetics that common variants and rare variants have frequently been detected in the same genes. Numerous examples exist in many diseases. The bashing of GWAS in schizophrenia and bipolar illness indicates, by those who make such comments, a lack of understanding of human genetics and where the field is. When these studies were initiated five years ago, next-generation sequencing was not available. Large samples of populations or trios or quartets did not exist. The international consortia have worked to collect such samples that are available for GWAS now, as well as for detailed sequencing studies. Before these studies began there was virtually nothing known about the etiology of schizophrenia and bipolar illness. The DISC1 gene translocation in the famous family was an important observation in that family. But almost a decade later there is still no convincing data that variants in Disc1 or many of its interacting proteins are involved in the pathogenesis of human schizophrenia or major mental illness.

Sequencing studies touted to be the Occam's razor for the field are beginning, and already, as in the past in this field, preemptive papers are appearing inadequately powered to draw any conclusions with certainty. Samples collected by the consortia will be critical to clarify the role of rare variants. This will take time and care so as not to set the field back into the morass it used to be. GWAS are basically modern public health epidemiology providing important clues to disease etiology. Much work is clearly needed once hits are found, just as it has been in traditional epidemiology. But in many fields, GWAS has already led to important biological insights, and it is certain it will do so in this field as well because the underlying principles of human genetics apply to this field, also. The primary problem in the field is totally inadequate funding by government organizations that consistently look for shortcuts to gain insights and new treatments, and forget how genetics has transformed cancer, immunology, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, and led to better diagnostics and treatments. The field will never understand the pathogenesis of these illnesses until the genetic architecture is deciphered. The first enzyme discovered in E. coli DNA biochemistry was a repair enzyme—not the enzyme that replicated DNA—and this was discovered through genetics. The progress in this field has been dramatic in the past five years. All doing this work realize that this is only a beginning and that there is a long hard road to full understanding. But to denigrate the beginning, which is clearly solid, makes no sense and indicates a provincialism unbecoming to a true scientist.

View all comments by Edward Scolnick

Related News: GWAS Goes Bigger: Large Sample Sizes Uncover New Risk Loci, Additional Overlap in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Nick CraddockMichael O'Donovan (SRF Advisor)
Submitted 11 October 2011
Posted 11 October 2011

At the start of the millennium, only two molecular genetic findings could be said with a fair amount of confidence to be etiologically relevant to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The first of these was that deletions of chromosome 22q11 that are known to cause velo-cardio-facial syndrome also confer a substantial increase in risk of psychosis. The second was the discovery by David St Clair, Douglas Blackwood, and colleagues (St Clair et al., 1990) of a balanced translocation involving chromosomes 1 and 11 that co-segregates with a range of psychiatric phenotypes in a single large family, was clearly relevant to the etiology of illness in that family (Blackwood et al., 2001). The latter finding has led to the conjecture, based upon a translocation breakpoint analysis reported by Kirsty Millar, David Porteous, and colleagues (Millar et al., 2000), that elevated risk in that family is conferred by altered function of a gene eponymously named DISC1. Just over a decade later, what can we now say with similar degrees of confidence? The relevance of deletions of 22q11 has stood the test of time—indeed, has strengthened—through further investigation (Levinson et al., 2011, being only one example), while the relevance of DISC1 remains conjecture. That the evidence implicating this gene is no stronger than it was all those years ago provides a clear illustration of the difficulties inherent in drawing etiological inferences from extremely rare mutations regardless of their effect size.

However, with the publication of several GWAS and CNV papers, culminating in the two mega-analyses reported by the PGC that are the subject of this commentary, one on schizophrenia, one on bipolar disorder, together reporting a total of six novel loci, very strong evidence has accumulated for approximately 20 new loci in psychosis. The majority of these are defined by SNPs, the remainder by copy number variants, and virtually all (including the rare, relatively high-penetrance CNVs) have emerged through the application of GWAS technology to large case-control samples, not through the study of linkage or families. Have GWAS approaches proven their worth? Clearly, the genetic findings represent the tip of a very deeply submerged iceberg, and it is possible that not all will stand the test of time and additional data, although the current levels of statistical support suggest the majority will do so. Nevertheless, the findings of SNP and CNV associations (including 22q11 deletions) seem to us to provide the first real signs of progress in uncovering strongly supported findings of primary etiological relevance to these disorders. Although SNP effects are small, the experience from other complex phenotypes is that statistically robust genetic associations, even those of very small effect, can highlight biological pathways of etiological (height; Lango Allen et al., 2010) and of possible therapeutic relevance (Alzheimer's disease; Jones et al., 2010). Moreover, it would seem intuitively likely that even if capturing the total heritable component of a disorder is presently a distant goal, the greater the number of associations captured, the better will be the snapshot of the sorts of processes that contribute to a disorder, and that might therefore be manipulated in its treatment. Thus, there is evidence that building even a very incomplete picture of the sort of genes that influence risk is an excellent method of informing understanding of pathogenesis of a highly complex disorder (or set of disorders).

As in previous GWAS and CNV endeavors, the PGC studies have required a significant degree of altruism from the hundreds of investigators and clinicians who have shared their data with little hope of significant academic credit. Moreover, where ethical approval permitted, the datasets have been made virtually open source for other investigators who are not part of the study. Sadly, this generosity of spirit is not matched in the rather curmudgeonly commentary provided by David Porteous. Rather than challenging the science or conduct of the study, it appears to us that the commentary takes the easier route of damnation by faint praise, distortion, and even innuendo.

The strongest finding, that being of association to the extended MHC region, is dismissed as "long known to be associated with risk of schizophrenia." How that knowledge was acquired a long time ago is unclear, but it cannot have been based upon data. It is true that weak and inconsistent associations at the MHC locus have been reported, even predating the molecular genetic era (McGuffin et al., 1978), but not until the landmark studies of the International Schizophrenia Consortium (2009), the Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia Consortium (AbstractShi et al., 2009), and the SGENE+ Consortium (Stefansson et al., 2009) have the findings been strong enough to be described as knowledge. Porteous’ dismissive tone continues with the phrase "just 10 loci met….," the word "just" being a qualifier that seems designed to denigrate rather than challenge the results. Given the paucity of etiological clues, others might consider this a good yield. The observation in which the effect sizes at the detected loci are contrasted "with the ~10-fold increase in risk to the first-degree relative of someone with schizophrenia" is so fatuous it is difficult to believe its function is anything other than to insinuate in the mind of the reader the impression of failure. Yet no one remotely aware of the expectations behind GWAS would expect that the effect sizes of any common risk allele would bear any resemblance to that of family history, the latter reflecting the combined effects of many risk alleles.

Among the most important findings of the PGC schizophrenia group were those of strong evidence for association between a variant in the vicinity of a gene encoding regulatory RNA MIR137, and the subsequent finding that schizophrenia association signals were significantly enriched (P <0.01) among predicted targets of this regulatory RNA. Of course, like the other findings, there is room for the already very strong data to be further strengthened, but that finding alone opens up a whole new window in potential pathogenic mechanisms. Yet Porteous casually throws four handfuls of mud, dismissing the enrichment p <0.01 as a "relaxed significance cutoff," which "seems somewhat arbitrary," and that "warrants further examination," and commenting that "it is of passing note that for two of the eight replication cohorts, the direction of effect for MIR137 was in the opposite direction from the Stage 1 finding." If Porteous feels he has the expertise to pronounce on this analysis, it would behoove him well to choose his words more carefully. Since when is a P value of <0.01 "relaxed" when applied to a test of a single hypothesis? Can he really be unaware of the longstanding convention of regarding P <0.05 as significant in specific hypothesis testing? If he is not unaware of this, why is it generally applicable but "somewhat arbitrary" in the context of the PGC study? As for "further examination being warranted," this is true of any scientific finding, but what does he specifically mean in the context of his commentary? And why is it of "passing note" that not all samples show trends in the same direction? In the context of the well-known issues in GWAS concerning individual small samples and power, what is surprising about that? There may be simple answers to these questions, but we find it difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the choice of language is anything other than another attempt to sow seeds of doubt through innuendo rather than analysis.

The remark that "ZNF804A, a past favourite, was noticeably absent" falls well short of the standard one might expect of serious discourse. The choice of language suggests a desire to denigrate rather than analyse, and to insinuate without specific evidence that any interest in this gene should now be over. In fact, the largest study of this gene to date is that of Williams et al. (2010), which actually includes at least two-thirds of the PGC discovery dataset and is based on over 57,000 subjects, a sample almost three times as large as the mega-analysis sample of the PGC.

Porteous’ overall conclusion from the two studies is "whichever way you look at it, though, just two new loci for schizophrenia and one for bipolar looks like a modest return for such a gargantuan investment." This appraisal is misleading. The PGC studies were actually relatively small investments, being based on a synthesis of pre-existing data. Since the studies use existing data, there is naturally an expectation that some of the loci identified will have been previously reported as either significant or have otherwise been flagged up as of interest, while some will be new. Overall, the return on the GWAS investment is not just the six novel loci (rather than three); it is the totality of the findings, which, as noted above, currently number about 20 loci. The schizophrenia research community should also be made aware, if they are not already, that the return on these investments is not "one off"; it is cumulative. In the coming years, the component datasets will continue to generate a return in new gene discoveries (including CNVs yet to be reported by the PGC) as they are added (at essentially no cost) to other emerging GWAS datasets being generated largely through charitable support. With the returns in the bank already, one could (and we do) argue that the investment is negligible, particularly given the cost in human and economic terms of continued ignorance about these illnesses that blight so many lives.

It is true that with so little being known compared with what is yet to be known, the biological insights that can be made from the existing data are limited. This is equally true of the common and rare variants identified so far, and we are not aware of any of the "incisive findings" that Porteous claims have already come from alternative approaches, although the emergence of strong evidence for deletions at NRXN1 as a susceptibility variant for schizophrenia through meta-analysis of case-control GWAS data (one of the extra returns on the GWAS data we referred to above) deserves that description (Kirov et al., 2009). But this is not a cause for despair; in contrast to the future promises made on behalf of other as yet unproven designs, for eyes and minds that are open enough to see, the recent papers provide unambiguous evidence for a straightforward route to identifying more genes and pathways involved in the disorder. Even Porteous has partial sight of this, since he notes that "there is clearly a wealth of potentially valuable information lying below the surface of the most statistically significant findings." What he appears unable to see is "how to sort the true from the false associations?" The answer for a large number of loci is simple. Better-powered studies based upon larger sample sizes.

We would like to add a note of caution for those who too readily denigrate case-control approaches in favor of hyping other approaches, none of which are yet so well proven routes to success. We are not against those approaches; indeed, we are actively involved in them. But we are concerned that the hype surrounding sequencing, and the generation of what we think are unrealistic expectations, will make those designs vulnerable to attack from those who seem only too keen to make premature and inaccurate pronouncements of failure, who seem desperate to derive straw from nuggets of gold. If, as we believe is likely, it turns out to be quite a few years more before sequencing studies become sufficiently powered to provide large numbers of robust findings, as for GWAS, the consequence could be withdrawal of substantial government funding before those designs have had a chance to live up to their potential. That such an outcome has already largely been achieved for GWAS in some countries might be a source of rejoicing in some quarters, but it should also send out a warning to all who broadly hold the view that understanding the genetics of these disorders is central to understanding their origins, and to improving their future management.

The recent PGC papers represent an impressive, international collaboration based upon methodologies that have a proven track record in delivering important biological insights into other complex disorders, and now in psychiatry. Given the complexity of psychiatric phenotypes, we believe it is likely that a variety of approaches, paradigms, and ideas will be essential for success, including the approaches espoused by those who believe the evidence is compatible with essentially Mendelian inheritance. Inevitably, there will be sincerely held differences of opinion concerning the best way forward, and, of course, in any area of science, reasoned arguments based upon a fair assessment of the evidence are essential. Nevertheless, given there are sufficient uncertainties about what can be realistically delivered in the short term by the newer technologies, we suggest that the cause of bringing benefit to patients will most likely be better served by humility, realism, and a constructive discussion in which there is no place for belittling real achievements, for arrogance, or for dogmatic posturing.

References

Blackwood DH, Fordyce A, Walker MT, St Clair DM, Porteous DJ, Muir WJ. Schizophrenia and affective disorders--cosegregation with a translocation at chromosome 1q42 that directly disrupts brain-expressed genes: clinical and P300 findings in a family. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Aug;69(2):428-33. Abstract

International Schizophrenia Consortium Common polygenic variation contributes to risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Nature. 2009 Aug 6;460(7256):748-52. Abstract

Jones L, Holmans PA, Hamshere ML, Harold D, Moskvina V, Ivanov D, et al. Genetic evidence implicates the immune system and cholesterol metabolism in the etiology of Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 15;5(11):e13950. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2011;6(2). Abstract

Kirov G, Rujescu D, Ingason A, Collier DA, O'Donovan MC, Owen MJ. Neurexin 1 (NRXN1) deletions in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2009 Sep;35(5):851-4. Epub 2009 Aug 12. Review. Abstract

Lango Allen H, Estrada K, Lettre G, Berndt SI, Weedon MN, Rivadeneira F, et al. Hundreds of variants clustered in genomic loci and biological pathways affect human height. Nature. 2010 Oct 14;467(7317):832-8. Abstract

Levinson DF, Duan J, Oh S, Wang K, Sanders AR, Shi J, et al. Copy number variants in schizophrenia: confirmation of five previous findings and new evidence for 3q29 microdeletions and VIPR2 duplications. Am J Psychiatry. 2011 Mar;168(3):302-16. Abstract

McGuffin P, Farmer AE, Rajah SM. Histocompatability antigens and schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 1978 Feb;132:149-51. Abstract

Millar JK, Wilson-Annan JC, Anderson S, Christie S, Taylor MS, Semple CA, et al. Disruption of two novel genes by a translocation co-segregating with schizophrenia. Hum Mol Genet. 2000 May 22;9(9):1415-23. Abstract

Shi J, Levinson DF, Duan J, Sanders AR, Zheng Y, Pe'er I, et al. Common variants on chromosome 6p22.1 are associated with schizophrenia. Nature. 2009 Aug 6;460(7256):753-7. Abstract

St Clair D, Blackwood D, Muir W, Carothers A, Walker M, Spowart G, et al. Association within a family of a balanced autosomal translocation with major mental illness. Lancet. 1990 Jul 7;336(8706):13-6. Abstract

Stefansson H, Ophoff RA, Steinberg S, Andreassen OA, Cichon S, Rujescu D, et al Common variants conferring risk of schizophrenia. Nature. 2009 Aug 6;460(7256):744-7. Abstract

The Schizophrenia Psychiatric Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) Consortium. Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci. Nat Genet. 2011 Sep 18;43(10):969-976. Abstract

Williams HJ, Norton N, Dwyer S, Moskvina V, Nikolov I, Carroll L, et al. Fine mapping of ZNF804A and genome-wide significant evidence for its involvement in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;16(4):429-41. Abstract

View all comments by Nick Craddock
View all comments by Michael O'Donovan

Related News: GWAS Goes Bigger: Large Sample Sizes Uncover New Risk Loci, Additional Overlap in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

Comment by:  Todd LenczAnil Malhotra (SRF Advisor)
Submitted 11 October 2011
Posted 11 October 2011

It is worth re-emphasizing that efforts such as the Psychiatric GWAS Consortium do not rule out potentially important discoveries from alternative strategies such as endophenotypic approaches or examination of rare variants. Indeed, such strategies will be necessary to understand the functional mechanisms implicated by GWAS hits.

Moreover, we note that the two recently published PGC papers were not designed to exclude a role for previously identified candidate loci such as DISC1 (Hodgkinson et al., 2004), or prior GWAS findings such as rs1344706 at ZNF804A (Williams et al., 2011). For both these loci, and many others that have been proposed, meta-analysis of available samples suggest very small effect sizes (OR ~1.1), as might be expected for common variants. As noted in Supplementary Table S12 of the schizophrenia PGC paper (Ripke et al., 2011), the currently available sample size (~9,000 cases/~12,000 controls) of the discovery cohort was still underpowered to detect variants with odds ratios of 1.1, especially if they have a minor allele frequency of 20 percent or below.

An instructive example arises from the field of diabetes genetics. An association of a missense variant (rs1801282, Pro12Ala) in PPARG to type 2 diabetes was first reported in a sample of n = 91 Japanese-American patients (Deeb et al., 1998). Many subsequent studies failed to replicate the effect, and the initial large GWAS meta-analysis (involving >14,000 cases and ~18,000 controls; Zeggini et al., 2007) only detected the association at a p-value that would be considered non-significant by today’s standard (p =1.7*10-6). Interestingly, the authors deemed the association to be “confirmed,” and the result was widely accepted within that field. Subsequent meta-analysis, involving twice as many subjects (total n = 67,000), finally obtained conventional genomewide levels of significance (p <5*10-8; Gouda et al., 2010).

References:

Deeb SS, Fajas L, Nemoto M, Pihlajamäki J, Mykkänen L, Kuusisto J, Laakso M, Fujimoto W, Auwerx J. A Pro12Ala substitution in PPARgamma2 associated with decreased receptor activity, lower body mass index and improved insulin sensitivity. Nat Genet. 1998 Nov;20(3):284-7. Abstract

Gouda HN, Sagoo GS, Harding AH, Yates J, Sandhu MS, Higgins JP. The association between the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma2 (PPARG2) Pro12Ala gene variant and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a HuGE review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Mar 15;171(6):645-55. Abstract

Hodgkinson CA, Goldman D, Jaeger J, Persaud S, Kane JM, Lipsky RH, Malhotra AK. Disrupted in schizophrenia 1 (DISC1): association with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder. Am J Hum Genet. 2004 Nov;75(5):862-72. Abstract

Williams HJ, Norton N, Dwyer S, Moskvina V, Nikolov I, Carroll L, Georgieva L, Williams NM, Morris DW, Quinn EM, Giegling I, Ikeda M, Wood J, Lencz T, Hultman C, Lichtenstein P, Thiselton D, Maher BS; Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia Collaboration (MGS) International Schizophrenia Consortium (ISC), SGENE-plus, GROUP, Malhotra AK, Riley B, Kendler KS, Gill M, Sullivan P, Sklar P, Purcell S, Nimgaonkar VL, Kirov G, Holmans P, Corvin A, Rujescu D, Craddock N, Owen MJ, O'Donovan MC. Fine mapping of ZNF804A and genome-wide significant evidence for its involvement in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;16(4):429-41. Abstract

Zeggini E, Weedon MN, Lindgren CM, Frayling TM, Elliott KS, Lango H, Timpson NJ, Perry JR, Rayner NW, Freathy RM, Barrett JC, Shields B, Morris AP, Ellard S, Groves CJ, Harries LW, Marchini JL, Owen KR, Knight B, Cardon LR, Walker M, Hitman GA, Morris AD, Doney AS; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), McCarthy MI, Hattersley AT. Replication of genome-wide association signals in UK samples reveals risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Science. 2007 Jun 1;316(5829):1336-41. Abstract

View all comments by Todd Lencz
View all comments by Anil Malhotra

Related News: New Exome Evidence Points to Old Suspect in Schizophrenia

Comment by:  Francis McMahon, SRF Advisor
Submitted 23 January 2014
Posted 28 January 2014

I think these studies do represent real progress. Finding genetic support for particular pathways provides unique evidence for a causative role of these pathways in disease. Why didn't the case-control study point to individual genes? Disorders such as schizophrenia may be more like a plane crash than a typical inherited disease: Since many things can go wrong, each crash is different, but damage to key systems is very likely to lead to a bad outcome. The finding in Fromer et al. that there are 18 genes with recurrent deleterious de novo events should allow scientists to focus on these genes as especially important. The overlaps with autism and intellectual disability are interesting, though not entirely unexpected. Will we also see gene overlaps with illnesses such as bipolar disorder? It wouldn't surprise me if some of the same genes are involved, but with fewer, less deleterious hits.

View all comments by Francis McMahon

Related News: Channels of Working Memory

Comment by:  David C. Glahn
Submitted 11 March 2014
Posted 11 March 2014

The article by Heck and colleagues provides additional support for the notion that common genetic factors influence risk for schizophrenia and working memory performance. While evidence that working memory performance is sensitive to genetic liability for schizophrenia was well established by twin and family studies (e.g., Cannon et al., 2000; Glahn et al., 2007), the current article extends these findings by suggesting that at least a portion of this joint effect is conferred by common variants in the voltage-gated cation channel activity (see QuickGO page) gene network. The paper provides a potential biological mechanism through which a set of genes could influence both traits. Such testable biological hypotheses are critical both for unraveling the genetic architecture of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses and for helping to characterize how these genes aid in manifesting the behavioral disorders. Thus, although the paper does not provide a single pleiotropic gene as would be required in classical human genetics, I believe the findings represent a true advancement in our understanding of schizophrenia genetics.

A major strength of the paper is the large number of independent samples with similar, but not identical, working memory measures that provided data for the discovery or replication samples. Papassotiropoulos and his group have applied this powerful approach to provide insight into the genetic make-up of cognitive processes, particularly memory.

Recently, there has been a good deal of debate concerning the utility of endophenotypes in the search for mental illness genes. As described by Gottesman and Gould (Gottesman and Gould, 2003), endophenotypes are measurable components unseen by the unaided eye along the pathway between disease and distal genotype. John Blangero and I pointed out that joint genetic determination (pleiotropy) of endophenotype and disease risk is fundamental to the endophenotype concept (Glahn et al., 2012). The current paper clearly demonstrates pleiotropy between schizophrenia risk and working memory performance, reinforcing working memory as a schizophrenia endophenotype and demonstrating how such traits can be used to provide testable biological hypotheses.

Finally, I would like to point out that this work was primarily conducted in healthy individuals not selected for mental illness. The endophenotype and normal variation strategy (e.g., using unselected samples to learn about the genetic factors influencing an endophenotype and then confirming these results in a sample selected for the illness) has worked in other areas of medicine, and I believe it will work in psychiatric genetics as well. Indeed, I think this paper demonstrated exactly that.

References:

Cannon TD, Huttunen MO, Lonnqvist J, Tuulio-Henriksson A, Pirkola T, Glahn D, Finkelstein J, Hietanen M, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M. The inheritance of neuropsychological dysfunction in twins discordant for schizophrenia. Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Aug;67(2):369-82. Epub 2000 Jul 3. Abstract

Glahn DC, Almasy L, Blangero J, Burk GM, Estrada J, Peralta JM, Meyenberg N, Castro MP, Barrett J, Nicolini H, Raventós H, Escamilla MA. Adjudicating neurocognitive endophenotypes for schizophrenia. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007 Mar 5;144B(2):242-9. Abstract

Glahn DC, Curran JE, Winkler AM, Carless MA, Kent JW Jr, Charlesworth JC, Johnson MP, Göring HH, Cole SA, Dyer TD, Moses EK, Olvera RL, Kochunov P, Duggirala R, Fox PT, Almasy L, Blangero J. High dimensional endophenotype ranking in the search for major depression risk genes. Biol Psychiatry. 2012 Jan 1;71(1):6-14. Abstract

Gottesman II, Gould TD. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Apr;160(4):636-45. Review. Abstract

View all comments by David C. Glahn