Hemmings Sîan M J, Stein Dan J
Department of Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg, South Africa.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006 Jun;29(2):411-44. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2006.02.011.
During the last 2 decades, a large number of association studies have been dedicated to disentangling the genetic components that may be involved in the etiology of OCD. The preliminary and frequently in consistent nature of the data represented in the majority of OCD psychiatric genetic-association studies may seem discouraging. Failure to replicate, and thus to confirm, previously identified susceptibility loci could result from a number of reasons, including the potential for population admixture, the clinical heterogeneity of OCD, small sample sizes (and subsequent lack of power),publication bias, epistasis, or failure to account for multiple testing. Various methods of accounting for these confounders do exist and should be implemented in any genetic-association study that is to be regarded as robust and replicable. Discrepancy between results, however, might be ascribed to the underlying genetic differences between the populations in the respective studies (ie, the investigated variant may be in linkage disequilibrium with the causal variant in one population but not in another). Such discrepancies are difficult to reconcile in single-locus association studies; haplotype analyses(in which a number of variants, usually single-nucleotide polymorphisms occurring on the same gene, are analyzed as a unit) may be able to resolve these uncertainties. Investigating epistatic interactions between variants in other genes that might be involved in the same physiologic pathways would be an alternative means of deciphering the reason for discrepant genetic association results.A valid means of increasing the power (by reducing background noise)would be to stratify the patient sample according to clinically defined sub-types, such as obsession and compulsion subtypes, age at onset of the disorder, and severity of the disorder. Although many of the OCD genetics studies have incorporated investigations of these subtypes [65,66,68,77,84-86,89,107,118,132,133,145,148,149], the number of subjects decreases after stratification, thereby limiting the power of the studies. It may therefore be useful to employ other quantitative approaches in the design of the investigation: the possibility should be considered that OCD symptoms can be broken down into multiple dimensions that are continuous with the normal population [150]. This division would represent an important route to disentangling the complex inheritance of OCD. The results obtained from genetic investigations should be incorporated with clinical and epidemiologic parameters to elucidate correctly the cause of OCD. Future studies should also be extended to incorporate the screening of more polymorphisms, because high-resolution mapping within specific chromosomes will improve knowledge regarding the impact of genetic diversity within the genes or linked chromosomal regions in OCD. The advantages ofa gene-based over a single-nucleotide polymorphism based approach are becoming ever more apparent [151]. Therefore, a more complete assessment of candidate genes, possibly using haplotype blocks that span larger regions,is proposed. In addition, increasing the amount of information on human genome sequences and polymorphisms will make it possible to characterize the amount of sequence variation expressed in the brain and to delineate the potential effects that these variations may have on the development of OCD. Knowledge of new functional variants will emerge as researchers gain an understanding of the potential for genetic variants in the coding and regulatory regions to impact gene expression.
在过去20年里,大量的关联研究致力于理清可能与强迫症病因有关的遗传成分。大多数强迫症精神遗传学关联研究中呈现的数据初步且常常不一致,这可能令人沮丧。无法重复并因此确认先前确定的易感基因座可能有多种原因,包括人群混杂的可能性、强迫症的临床异质性、样本量小(以及随之而来的检验效能不足)、发表偏倚、上位性,或未考虑多重检验。确实存在各种应对这些混杂因素的方法,在任何被认为可靠且可重复的遗传关联研究中都应采用。然而,结果之间的差异可能归因于各研究中人群之间潜在的遗传差异(即,所研究的变异体可能在一个人群中与致病变异体处于连锁不平衡状态,而在另一个人群中则不然)。在单基因座关联研究中,这种差异很难协调;单倍型分析(其中多个变异体,通常是同一基因上出现的单核苷酸多态性,作为一个单元进行分析)或许能够解决这些不确定性。研究可能参与相同生理途径的其他基因变异体之间的上位性相互作用,将是解读遗传关联结果存在差异原因的另一种方法。一种提高检验效能(通过减少背景噪声)的有效方法是根据临床定义的亚型对患者样本进行分层,如强迫观念和强迫行为亚型、疾病发病年龄以及疾病严重程度。尽管许多强迫症遗传学研究已纳入对这些亚型的研究[65,66,68,77,84 - 86,89,107,118,132,133,145,148,149],但分层后受试者数量会减少,从而限制了研究的检验效能。因此,在研究设计中采用其他定量方法可能会有所帮助:应考虑强迫症症状可分解为与正常人群连续的多个维度的可能性[150]。这种划分将是理清强迫症复杂遗传机制的一条重要途径。从基因研究中获得的结果应与临床和流行病学参数相结合,以正确阐明强迫症的病因。未来的研究还应扩展到纳入更多多态性的筛查,因为在特定染色体内进行高分辨率图谱绘制将增进对强迫症中基因或连锁染色体区域内遗传多样性影响的了解。基于基因的方法相对于基于单核苷酸多态性的方法的优势正变得越来越明显[151]。因此,建议对候选基因进行更全面的评估,可能使用跨越更大区域的单倍型块。此外,增加人类基因组序列和多态性的信息量将有可能表征大脑中表达的序列变异量,并描绘这些变异可能对强迫症发展产生的潜在影响。随着研究人员了解编码和调控区域内基因变异影响基因表达的可能性,新的功能变异体的知识将会出现。