Kendler Kenneth S, Ohlsson Henrik, Sundquist Jan, Sundquist Kristina
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Mol Psychiatry. 2025 Apr 20. doi: 10.1038/s41380-025-03015-y.
Researchers selecting probands for molecular genetic studies confront a range of sampling issues with modest empirical guidance. In this paper, using cases of major depression (MD), anxiety disorders (AD) alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ) from a large population cohort of all native Swedes born 1940-2003, we examine the implications of three proband selection decisions by exploring profiles of genetic risks assessed using the validated family genetic risk scores. The impact of censoring cases with comorbid diagnoses is quite variable, depending on the frequency of that disorder in the case sample and the genetic relationship of the censored to the primary disorder. In an MD cohort, censoring SZ cases produces only a focal small decrease in schizophrenia genetic risk while censoring AD cases produces a wide-spread reduction in genetic risk for MD and most other disorders. We examine the value of censoring cases of SZ, BD and MD whose onset was preceded by one to two years by first episodes of DUD or AUD. We do not see any increase in genetic risk for these "screened" cohorts. Secondary ascertainment, where disorder A is ascertained as a comorbid diagnosis in a sample collected for disorder B, can, in certain situations, produces large increases in the genetic risk for disorder B and associated disorders in cases of A. However, if disorder B is closely genetically related to disorder A (as seen with MD/AD and DUD/AUD pairings), the pattern differs dramatically and produces a general moderate elevation across the genetic risk profile. These findings provide guidelines for future investigators and suggest caution when screening out comorbid disorders and when utilizing secondary ascertainment.
选择先证者进行分子遗传学研究的研究人员在缺乏充分实证指导的情况下面临一系列抽样问题。在本文中,我们利用1940年至2003年出生的所有瑞典本土人的大型人群队列中的重度抑郁症(MD)、焦虑症(AD)、酒精使用障碍(AUD)、药物使用障碍(DUD)、双相情感障碍(BD)和精神分裂症(SZ)病例,通过探索使用经过验证的家族遗传风险评分评估的遗传风险概况,研究了三项先证者选择决策的影响。审查合并诊断病例的影响差异很大,这取决于该疾病在病例样本中的频率以及被审查病例与原发性疾病的遗传关系。在一个MD队列中,审查SZ病例只会使精神分裂症遗传风险出现局部小幅下降,而审查AD病例则会使MD和大多数其他疾病的遗传风险普遍降低。我们研究了审查发病前一到两年有DUD或AUD首发的SZ、BD和MD病例的价值。我们没有看到这些“筛选”队列的遗传风险有任何增加。二级确诊,即在为疾病B收集的样本中将疾病A确定为合并诊断,在某些情况下,会使疾病B以及疾病A病例中相关疾病的遗传风险大幅增加。然而,如果疾病B与疾病A在遗传上密切相关(如MD/AD和DUD/AUD配对所示),模式则会有很大不同,并会使整个遗传风险概况普遍适度升高。这些发现为未来的研究人员提供了指导方针,并建议在筛选出合并疾病以及利用二级确诊时要谨慎。