Biology subjects

Forty, L.

Publications and source records attributed to Forty, L..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2019

Differences in Genetic Liability for Insomnia and Hypersomnia in Bipolar Disorder Subtypes

BackgroundInsomnia and hypersomnia are common in bipolar disorder (BD) but it is unclear whether genetic factors influence this association. Stratifying by bipolar subtypes could elucidate the nature of this association and inform research on sleep and BD. We therefore aimed to determine whether polygenic risk scores (PRS) for insomnia, daytime sleepiness and sleep duration differ according to bipolar subtypes (bipolar I disorder, BD-I or bipolar II disorder, BD-II).\n\nMethodsIn this case-control study, we used multinomial regression to determine whether PRS for insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and sleep duration were associated with risk of BD-I or BD-II when compared to each other and to controls. Cases (n=4672) were recruited within the United Kingdom from the Bipolar Disorder Research Network. Controls (n=5714) were recruited from the 1958 British Birth Cohort and UK Blood Service. All participants were of European ancestry. Clinical subtypes of BD were determined by semi-structured psychiatric interview (the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry) and case notes.\n\nResultsWithin cases, 3404 and 1268 met DSM-IV criteria for BD-I and BD-II, respectively. Insomnia PRS was associated with increased risk of BD-II (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.21, P = 8.26 x 10-5) but not BD-I (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.94-1.03, P = .409) relative to controls. In contrast, sleep duration PRS was associated with increased relative risk of BD-I (RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06-1.15, P = 1.13 x 10-5), but not BD-II (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.93-1.06, P = .818). Daytime sleepiness PRS was associated with an increased risk of BD-I (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.02-1.11, P = .005) and BD-II (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.22, P = 3.22 x 10-5) compared to controls, but did not distinguish subtypes from each other.\n\nConclusionsBipolar subtypes differ in genetic liability to insomnia and sleep duration. Our findings provide further evidence that the distinction between BD-I and BD-II has biological and genetic validity. This distinction will be critical in the selection of participants for future research on the role of sleep disturbance in BD.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2018

Contribution of rare copy number variants to bipolar disorder risk is limited to schizoaffective cases

BackgroundGenetic risk for bipolar disorder (BD) is conferred through many common alleles, while a role for rare copy number variants (CNVs) is less clear. BD subtypes schizoaffective disorder bipolar type (SAB), bipolar I disorder (BD I) and bipolar II disorder (BD II) differ according to the prominence and timing of psychosis, mania and depression. The factors contributing to the combination of symptoms within a given patient are poorly understood.\n\nMethodsRare, large CNVs were analyzed in 6353 BD cases (3833 BD I [2676 with psychosis, 850 without psychosis], 1436 BD II, 579 SAB) and 8656 controls. Measures of CNV burden were integrated with polygenic risk scores (PRS) for schizophrenia (SCZ) to evaluate the relative contributions of rare and common variants to psychosis risk.\n\nResultsCNV burden did not differ in BD relative to controls when treated as a single diagnostic entity. Burden in SAB was increased compared to controls (p-value = 0.001), BD I (p-value = 0.0003) and BD II (p-value = 0.0007). Burden and SCZ PRS were higher in SAB compared to BD I with psychosis (CNV p-value = 0.0007, PRS p-value = 0.004) and BD I without psychosis (CNV p-value = 0.0004, PRS p-value = 3.9 x 10-5). Within BD I, psychosis was associated with higher SCZ PRS (p-value = 0.005) but not with CNV burden.\n\nConclusionsCNV burden in BD is limited to SAB. Rare and common genetic variants may contribute differently to risk for psychosis and perhaps other classes of psychiatric symptoms.

genetics↗

bioRxiv2017

Psychosis and the level of mood incongruence in Bipolar Disorder are related to genetic liability for Schizophrenia

ImportanceBipolar disorder (BD) overlaps schizophrenia in its clinical presentation and genetic liability. Alternative approaches to patient stratification beyond current diagnostic categories are needed to understand the underlying disease processes/mechanisms.\n\nObjectivesTo investigate the relationship between common-variant liability for schizophrenia, indexed by polygenic risk scores (PRS) and psychotic presentations of BD, using clinical descriptions which consider both occurrence and level of mood-incongruent psychotic features.\n\nDesignCase-control design: using multinomial logistic regression, to estimate differential associations of PRS across categories of cases and controls.\n\nSettings & Participants4399 BDcases, mean [sd] age-at-interview 46[12] years, of which 2966 were woman (67%) from the BD Research Network (BDRN) were included in the final analyses, with data for 4976 schizophrenia cases and 9012 controls from the Type-1 diabetes genetics consortium and Generation Scotland included for comparison.\n\nExposureStandardised PRS, calculated using alleles with an association p-value threshold < 0.05 in the second Psychiatric Genomics Consortium genome-wide association study of schizophrenia, adjusted for the first 10 population principal components and genotyping-platform.\n\nMain outcome measureMultinomial logit models estimated PRS associations with BD stratified by (1) Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) BD subtypes (2) Lifetime occurrence of psychosis.(3) Lifetime mood-incongruent psychotic features and (4) ordinal logistic regression examined PRS associations across levels of mood-incongruence. Ratings were derived from the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry interview (SCAN) and the Bipolar Affective Disorder Dimension Scale (BADDS).\n\nResultsAcross clinical phenotypes, there was an exposure-response gradient with the strongest PRS association for schizophrenia (RR=1.94, (95% C.1.1.86, 2.01)), then schizoaffective BD (RR=1.37, (95% C.I. 1.22, 1.54)), BD I (RR= 1.30, (95% C.I. 1.24, 1.36)) and BD II (RR=1.04, (95% C.1. 0.97, 1.11)). Within BD cases, there was an effect gradient, indexed by the nature of psychosis, with prominent mood-incongruent psychotic features having the strongest association (RR=1.46, (95% C.1.1.36, 1.57)), followed by mood-congruent psychosis (RR= 1.24, (95% C.1. 1.17, 1.33)) and lastly, BD cases with no history of psychosis (RR= 1.09, (95% C.1. 1.04, 1.15)).\n\nConclusionWe show for the first time a polygenic-risk gradient, across schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, indexed by the occurrence and level of mood-incongruent psychotic symptoms.

genetics↗