Abstract
Background Up to 80% of psychosis patients experience cognitive impairment. High heritability of both psychosis and cognition means cognitive performance could be an endophenotype for psychosis.
Methods Using samples of adults (N=4,506) and children (N=10,981), we investigated the effect of polygenic scores (PGSs) for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cognitive performance, and PGSs for intelligence and educational attainment on psychosis symptoms.
Results Schizophrenia PGS was negatively associated with visuospatial processing/problem-solving in the adult sample (beta: −0.0569; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.0926, −0.0212) and working memory (beta: −0.0432; 95% CI: −0.0697, −0.0168), processing speed (b: −0.0491; 95% CI: −0.0760, −0.0223), episodic memory (betas: −0.0581 to −0.0430; 95% CIs: −0.0847 to −0.0162), executive functioning (beta: −0.0423; 95% CI: −0.0692, −0.0155), fluid intelligence (beta: −0.0583; 95% CI: −0.0847, −0.0320), and total intelligence (beta: −0.0458; 95% CI: −0.0709, −0.0206) in the child sample. Bipolar disorder PGS was not associated with any cognitive endophenotypes studied. Lower values on the PGS for intelligence were associated with higher odds of psychosis in adults (odds ratio [OR]: 0.886; 95% CI: 0.811– 0.968) and psychotic-like experiences in children (OR: 0.829; 95% CI: 0.777–0.884). In children, a lower polygenic score for educational attainment was associated with greater odds of psychotic-like experiences (OR: 0.771; 95% CI: 0.724–0.821).
Conclusions The relationship between psychosis and cognitive impairment can be demonstrated bidirectionally at the neurobiological level. The effect of schizophrenia PGS on cognitive performance differs across the lifespan and cognitive domains. Specific cognitive domains may therefore be better endophenotypes than overall cognition.
1. Introduction
Heritability estimates for both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are high (79% and 75%, respectively) and there is a large overlap in the genetic variants associated with these disorders (1, 2). Often combined under the broader term “psychosis”, these disorders are characterised by a loss of contact with reality and present with symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions (3). Up to 80% of people with psychosis also experience clinically significant cognitive impairment (4), both in overall cognitive functioning (5) and within specific cognitive domains (6, 7). Deficits are also seen in their unaffected relatives (8–11) and individuals at clinical high-risk of psychosis (12, 13)
The heritability estimate of cognitive ability is around 50% (14), which is similar in both nonpsychiatric populations and populations of people with psychosis (15, 16). Cognitive function has therefore been suggested as an endophenotype for psychosis; a way to bridge the gap between genetics and symptom presentation, to help understand the disease mechanisms (17–20).
Polygenic scores (PGSs) sum up genetic risk for a phenotype based on common variants, and are one way to research endophenotypes (21). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that schizophrenia PGS is significantly associated with overall cognitive performance within the general population but not in those with psychosis (22), possibly because the effect is already captured by diagnosis or simply due to smaller sample sizes (23, 24). Also key is that this association between schizophrenia PGS and cognitive performance appears to be stable over time in those with psychosis, their healthy relatives, and healthy controls (25). However, evidence is mixed on the exact components of cognitive ability affected by schizophrenia PGS (26). The strongest evidence is for a negative effect on performance IQ, attention, and premorbid intelligence (22), while verbal memory, crystalised intelligence, category fluency, and educational attainment appear to be less influenced by genetic liability (27–30).
As for bipolar disorder PGS, the literature is more mixed. Mistry et al. (31) found a negative association between genetic risk for bipolar disorder and executive functioning in childhood. Performance IQ and processing speed were also negatively associated with common genetic components associated with both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. However, other research has produced little evidence of an association (23, 27, 32, 33), and associations in the opposite direction (34) between bipolar disorder PGS and cognitive performance.
Polygenic scores for cognitive functioning are positively associated with cognitive performance in population samples (23, 35, 36), samples of psychosis cases (23, 35–37), and ultra-high-risk individuals (38), suggesting cognition is influenced by similar genetic mechanisms irrespective of psychosis risk (23). PGSs for childhood intelligence (39), performance IQ (40), and general cognitive ability (41) have all been found to be significantly lower in individuals with psychosis.
The majority of research on psychosis and cognition has been conducted with adult samples. However, schizophrenia is a neurodevelopmental disorder (42, 43), cognitive impairments are already seen in the prodromal phase of psychosis (44–46), and the transition to psychosis is not associated with further cognitive decline (47). Extending this research beyond adult population adds depth to our understanding of the genetic mechanisms behind psychosis. Psychotic-like experiences in childhood have been associated with poorer cognitive functioning (48, 49) and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment have each been negatively associated with childhood psychotic-like experiences (50).
1.1. Present Study
The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of polygenic scores for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on performance within a range of cognitive domains in both adults and children. We also examined whether polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment were associated with psychosis presentation.
2. Method and Materials
2.1. Participants
2.1.1. Psychosis Endophenotypes International Consortium (PEIC)
The PEIC is a collaborative effort from multiple sites across Europe (UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany) and Australia, comprising data from individuals with a diagnosis of psychosis (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorder; hereafter patients), their unaffected relatives, and healthy control participants. All were of European ancestry (33, 51). Relatives and controls were not excluded if they had a personal history of non-psychotic disorder, as long as they were off psychotropic medication for at least 12 months before assessment. Exclusion criteria (for all clinical groups) included a history of neurological disease or previous loss of consciousness due to head injury (11).
2.1.2. Adolescent Brain Cognition Development (ABCD) Study
The ABCD Study® is a longitudinal study from the USA that aims to investigate the impact of various factors on brain development and health/social outcomes. A population-representative sample of children aged 9-10 years was recruited (52). Participants were excluded if they were not fluent in English, had a history of traumatic brain injury, or a current diagnosis of moderate/severe autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, intellectual disability, or substance use disorders (53). Data were taken from baseline assessments.
2.2. Genotyping, Quality Control, and Imputation
2.2.1. PEIC
DNA was extracted from blood samples of 6,935 participants and sent to the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (Cambridge, UK) for initial processing and quality control (QC). After imputation, 6,215,801 SNPs and 4,835 participants remained. Further details available in Bramon et al. (51) and Supplementary Material.
2.2.2. ABCD Study®
DNA was extracted from blood/saliva samples of 11,880 participants at the Rutgers University Cell and DNA Repository (RUCDR; New Jersey, USA). After post-imputation QC, 11,229,083 SNPs and 11,017 participants remained. Further detail available in Uban et al. (54), Wang et al. (53) and Supplementary Material, as well at https://nda.nih.gov/study.html?id=901.
2.3. Relationship Inference and Principal Component Analysis
2.3.1. PEIC and ABCD Study®
The GENESIS R/Bioconductor package (55, 56) was used to account for familial relatedness and population structure. An unadjusted kinship matrix was generated first using KING-robust 2.2.5 (57) to infer the relatedness of each pair of participants. The SNPRelate package in R 4.0.2 (58) was used to analyse the genotyped data alongside this kinship matrix to estimate ancestrally representative principal components (PCs). An adjusted kinship matrix was then generated to account for these PCs, allowing for an estimation of familial relatedness independent of ancestry. Further details available in Supplementary Material and Wang et al. (53).
2.4. Polygenic Score Generation
All polygenic scores were generated using PRS-CSx (59). Reference panels from the 1000 Genomes Project (60) that best matched the ancestries present in the original GWAS (see Supplementary Material). Scores were standardised against the sample mean (in the PEIC sample, the control group mean).
For schizophrenia and bipolar disorder PGSs, summary statistics from the latest Psychiatric Genomic Consortium (PGC) analyses were used (61, 62). As the PEIC data was used in the PGC discovery sample, summary statistics were obtained that excluded this sample to avoid overlap. For educational attainment PGS, summary statistics from the Lee et al. (63) paper were used. For the intelligence PGS, summary statistics from the Savage et al. (64) paper were used.
2.5. Cognitive Tests
2.5.1. PEIC
Three tests were administered: block design and digit span from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, revised version (WAIS-R; (65) or third edition (WAIS-III; (66)), and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT; (67)).
2.5.2. ABCD Study®
Participants completed 11 neurocognitive tests, seven from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox® (Picture Vocabulary; Oral Reading Recognition; Pattern Comparison; List Sorting; Picture Sequence; Flanker; Dimensional Change Card Sort) and four additional tests (RAVLT; Cash Choice Task; Little Man Task; Matrix Reasoning; (68)).
The NIH Toolbox® tests create three composite scores: Crystalised Intelligence, Fluid Intelligence, and Total Intelligence (68). The cognitive domains that each test measures are presented in Table 1 (68–70). Further detail is available in Supplementary Material.
2.6. Psychosis Outcome
2.6.1. PEIC
All participants underwent a structured clinical interview to confirm/rule out the presence of a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder (33, 51) and determine psychosis outcomes. This led to three clinical groups: patients (n = 1,231), relatives (n = 856), and controls (n = 2,740).
2.6.2. ABCD Study®
Responses on the Prodromal Questionnaire–Brief Child Version (PQ-BC), a 21-item self-report questionnaire of psychotic-like experiences in the past month, were used to measure psychotic-like presentations. Each item has three parts: whether they experienced the symptom; if yes, whether it was distressing; and, if yes, how distressing on a scale of 1 (“not very bothered”) to 5 (“extremely bothered”). Scores of 3 (“moderately bothered”) or more were classed as significantly distressing (49).
2.7. Statistical Analyses
Mixed model regression analyses (linear/logistic) were used to investigate the effect of PGSs on cognitive performance and psychosis presentation. Age, sex, and ancestry PCs were included as fixed effects (as well as research site for all PEIC analyses, and clinical group in the cognitive performance PEIC analyses); the adjusted kinship matrix was included as a random effect. Linear cognitive test scores were standardised against the group mean or control group mean in the ABCD Study® sample and PEIC samples, respectively. Interaction and subgroup analyses were also conducted within the PEIC sample to determine whether the effect of PGS differed between clinical groups.
A multiple testing correction of 0.05/4 (three cognitive tests and group status prediction) was applied to the analyses carried out with the PEIC sample, leaving an adjusted significance threshold of p < .0125. In the ABCD Study® dataset, cognitive tests were grouped by domain. This resulted in seven domains (Supplementary Table S1) which, combined with the psychotic-like experience prediction, lead to an adjusted significance threshold of p < .00625 (0.05/8). Uncorrected p-values are reported but interpreted using the respective adjusted threshold.
We used a Support Vector Machine (SVM) supervised machine learning algorithm to predict the clinical group status (patient, relative, or control) from cognition-related polygenic risk scores and demographic parameters (age, sex, ancestry PCs, research sites), following the method from Bracher Smith et al. (71). This was included as a robust and replicable baseline to validate and benchmark the regression. To assess the relative importance of PGS compared to demographic predictors on clinical group status, the SVM model was further inspected using permutation feature importance (72). Further details of these analyses can be found in the Supplementary Material.
2.8. Ethics Statement
2.8.1. PEIC
The Psychosis Endophenotypes International Consortium was approved by the local ethics committee at each participating research centre, and all participants provided written informed consent before assessment.
2.8.2. ABCD Study®
Informed assent/consent was obtained from participants and their parents at the research centre they were recruited at.
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
Demographic data for participants in the PEIC sample are presented in Table 2 and for the ABCD Study® sample in Table 3. In both samples, the split between males and females was relatively equal (though in the PEIC sample subgroups, there were more male patients and more female relatives). In the ABCD sample, just over half were of White ethnicity.
3.2. Cognitive Test Performance
Details of average cognitive performance for both the PEIC sample and ABCD sample are available in the Supplementary Material and Supplementary Tables S2-S4. When comparing PEIC subgroups, controls performed significantly better than patients on all tests;
3.3. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Cognitive Performance
3.3.1. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Cognitive Performance: PEIC (Adult) Sample
Schizophrenia PGS was negatively associated with block design performance (b: −0.0569; 95% CI: −0.0926, −0.0212; p = .00179), but no associations were identified with other cognitive tests (ps > .356). Bipolar disorder PGS showed no significant associations after multiple testing correction (ps > .0219). Intelligence and educational attainment polygenic scores were each significantly positively associated with performance on all tests (ps < .000897) (Figure 1; Supplementary Tables S5 and S6). Interaction analyses between PGS and clinical group were non-significant. Interaction and subgroup analyses are discussed in detail in Supplementary Tables S7 and S8 and the Supplementary Material.
Effect of psychosis-related and cognition-related polygenic scores on cognitive test performance in adults, while controlling for the effect of age, gender, clinical group (patient/relative/control), research site, ancestry (the first four ancestry principal components), and participant inter-relatedness (kinship matrix). Scores have been standardised using the mean and standard deviation from the control group. Standardised values are given in Supplementary Table S5; non-standardised values are given in Supplementary Table S6. Abbreviations: PEIC = Psychosis Endophenotype International Consortium; RAVLT = Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task
3.3.2. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Cognitive Performance: ABCD Study®(Child) Sample
Higher schizophrenia PGS was associated with poorer performance on: Card Sort (b: −0.0423; 95% CI: −0.0692, −0.0155, p = .00201), List Sorting (b: −0.0432; 95% CI: −0.0697, −0.0168; p = .00136), Pattern Comparison (b: −0.0491; 95% CI: −0.0760, −0.0223; p = .000342), and Picture Sequence (b: −0.0430; 95% CI: −0.0697, −0.0162; p = .00164) from the NIH Toolbox®, and immediate (b: −0.0437, 95% CI: −0.0699, −0.0174; p = .00111), short-delayed (b: −0.0581; 95% CI: −0.0847, −0.0315; p = 1.92×10-5), and long-delayed (b: −0.0483; 95% CI: −0.0750, −0.0216; p = .000397) recall on the RAVLT (Figure 2). Schizophrenia PGS was also negatively associated with Fluid Intelligence (b: −0.0583; 95% CI: −0.0847, −0.0320; p = 1.44×10-5) and Total Intelligence (b: −0.0458; 95% CI: −0.0709, −0.0206; p = .000362). The effect of schizophrenia PGS on Crystalised Intelligence was not significant (p = .162). There were no significant effect of bipolar disorder PGS (ps > .0185) on cognitive test performance. Intelligence and educational attainment polygenic scores were significantly associated with performance on all tests and composites (ps < .00381). Full results are presented in Supplementary Tables S9-S14.
Effect of Polygenic Scores on Performance on Individual Cognitive Tests and Composite Intelligence Scores in the ABCD Study® Sample Effect of psychosis-related and cognition-related polygenic scores on cognitive test performance in children, while controlling for the effect of age, gender, ancestry (the first eight ancestry principal components), and participant inter-relatedness (kinship matrix). Scores have been standardised using the mean and standard deviation from the whole sample. Standardised values are given in Supplementary Table S9 and S11; non-standardised values are given in Supplementary Table S10 and S12. Note: “Little Man Task (Correct)” refers to the percentage of participants’ responses were correct during the task. “Little Man Task (Incorrect)” refers to the percentage of participants’ responses were incorrect. Cash Choice Task effect is the log-transformed result from a logistic regression analysis. Effect > 0 indicates greater odds of choosing the delayed gratification option ($115 in three months); effect < 0 indicates greater odds of choosing the immediate gratification option ($75 in three days). Log-transformed values are given in Supplementary Table S13; logistic regression results are given in Supplementary Table S14. Abbreviations: ABCD = Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development; RAVLT = Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task
3.4. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Psychosis Presentation
3.4.1. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Psychosis Presentation: PEIC (Adult) Sample
The logistic regression models showed that intelligence PGS was able to distinguish between patients and controls (OR: 0.886; 95% CI: 0.811–0.968; p = .00719) and between relatives and controls (though this latter finding was only a statistical trend after correction for multiple comparisons; p = .0190; Figure 3). Educational attainment PGS was a poor predictor of clinical group in the logistic regression analyses (ps > .445; Supplementary Table S15). Machine learning analysis validated these findings, as the SVM model including intelligence PGS also distinguished well between the patients and controls (AUROCmedian: 0.847) and between patients and relatives (AUROCmedian: 0.781). The educational attainment PGS model also classified patients from controls (AUROCmedian: 0.856) and patients from relatives (AUROCmedian: 0.752) with high accuracy. However, the polygenic scores themselves did not show a considerable relative importance in any of these analyses. Further details available in the Supplementary Material. Both bipolar disorder PGS (ps < 2.38×10-5) and schizophrenia PGS (ps < 6.80×10-7) were able to significantly distinguish between all participant groups.
Effect of psychosis-related and cognition-related polygenic scores on the odds of being in the comparison group (i.e. patient, relative, patient, respectively from top to bottom) compared to the odds of being in the comparison group (i.e. control, control, relative, respectively). Values are given in Supplementary Table S15. Abbreviations: PEIC = Psychosis Endophenotypes International Consortium
3.4.2. Effect of Polygenic Scores on Psychosis Presentation: ABCD Study® (Child) Sample
The regression models showed that educational attainment PGS significantly distinguished between children who experienced psychotic-like experiences at baseline and those who did not (OR: 0.771; 95% CI: 0.724–0.821; p = 5.86×10-16), those who experienced distressing psychotic-like experiences and those who did not (OR: 0.813, 95% CI: 0.764–0.864, p = 5.48×10-11), and those who experienced significantly distressing psychotic-like experiences and those who did not (OR: 0.769; 95% CI: 0.717–0.826; p = 3.87×10-13) (Figure 4 and Supplementary Table S18). Educational attainment PGS was also significantly negatively associated with the number of each category of psychotic-like experiences reported (Table 4).
Prediction of Psychotic-Like Experiences at Baseline Using Polygenic Scores in the ABCD Study®Sample Effect of psychosis-related and cognition-related polygenic scores on the odds of experiencing at least one of the given types of psychotic-like experiences (i.e. odds of experiencing at least one psychotic-like experience, at least one distressing psychotic-like experience, at least one significantly distressing psychotic-like experience, respectively from top to bottom) compared to the odds of having such experiences. Psychotic-like experiences measured using the Prodromal Questionnaire–Brief Child Version (PQ-BC). Values given in Supplementary Table S14. Abbreviations: ABCD = Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development
Intelligence PGS was negatively associated with all psychotic-like experience outcomes in the regression models. A greater intelligence PGS was associated with decreased odds of psychotic-like experiences (OR: 0.829; 95% CI: 0.777–0.884; p = 1.35×10-8), distressing psychotic-like experiences (OR: 0.853; 95% CI: 0.800–0.909; p = 1.02×10-6), and significantly distressing psychotic-like experiences (OR: 0.795; 95% CI: 0.740–0.855; p = 6.32×10-10) (Figure 4), as well as the number of each type of psychotic-like experience reported (Table 4).
However, when the group classification analyses were carried out using the full SVM model, each performed at near the 0.5 level (AUROC: 0.550-0.613). Further detail available in the Supplementary Material. None of the group comparisons for either schizophrenia PGS or bipolar disorder PGS were significant after correction for multiple comparisons (ps > .00817).
4. Discussion
In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of polygenic scores for both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on performance on specific cognitive domains, examine the effect of polygenic scores for intelligence and educational attainment on psychosis presentation, and extend previous research in this area by exploring these associations in both adults and children. Our results suggest that schizophrenia PGS and bipolar disorder PGS have different effects on cognitive performance, and that these effects differ across cognitive domains. We also found that intelligence PGS showed a stronger association with psychosis outcomes than educational attainment PGS in both adults and children.
4.1. Polygenic Scores for Psychosis on Cognitive Performance
Our evidence supports the previously reported negative association between schizophrenia PGS and cognitive performance (22, 38, 39). However, we showed this effect appeared to differ between adults and children, and between cognitive domains. In the adult sample, higher schizophrenia PGS was associated with poorer visuospatial processing performance, but not working memory or episodic memory. In the sample of children, a higher schizophrenia PGS was associated with poorer language ability, working memory, processing speed, and episodic memory, while there was no evidence of association with visuospatial processing. Methodological factors may have contributed to this difference (e.g. differences in the tests used, different sample sizes, controlling for clinical groups status in the PEIC analyses), but there is a possibility these findings represent a difference in the effect of schizophrenia risk over time or distinct maturational paths of the individual cognitive domains. However, alongside visuospatial processing, the block design task can be seen as a test of problem solving (e.g. (40)), which is in line with the negative effect of schizophrenia PGS on fluid intelligence in the ABCD Study® sample. There is conflicting evidence in the literature on the effect of schizophrenia PGS on the other domains that differ between the two samples (28, 40, 73, 74). Further research is needed to pinpoint these associations. It is also worth noting that even the largest effect of the schizophrenia PGS on cognition was well below one standard deviation, the average deficits observed in up to 80% of people with psychosis (4). This suggests that while genetic factors may contribute to the deficit, the observed effect is modest and other factors must be involved.
In both samples, we found only weak evidence that polygenic scores for bipolar disorder negatively impact cognitive performance (27, 31–33, 75). There was only one test that showed a stronger association with bipolar disorder PGS than schizophrenia PGS: the Cash Choice task (though this did not pass the corrected significance threshold). Bipolar disorder PGS was associated with greater odds of choosing immediate gratification compared to delayed gratification, suggesting greater impulsivity. Impulsivity has been linked with bipolar disorder specifically (76, 77) so may serve as a mania/bipolar disorder-specific endophenotype, though other evidence suggests it is associated with psychosis more generally (78).
4.2. Polygenic Scores for Cognition on Psychosis Presentation
When looking at the effect of cognition-related polygenic scores on psychosis presentation, intelligence PGS showed a stronger association than educational attainment PGS. Intelligence PGS distinguished patients from controls in the adult sample (though with a much smaller effect size than that of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder PGS), and was negatively associated with all categories of psychotic-like experiences in the child sample. Educational attainment PGS showed a similar negative association with some categories of psychotic-like experiences, but did not distinguish between any clinical groups in the adult sample. These differences align with previous findings that polygenic scores for cognitive performance are more associated with schizophrenia case-status than educational attainment polygenic scores (35, 36, 49), possibly due to the non-genetic factors also involved in educational attainment (50, 79, 80).
One possible explanation for this relationship between cognition-related polygenic scores and psychosis presentation may be rooted in the degree of cognitive reserve that an individual has (81). It may be that individuals with lower cognition-related polygenic scores have a reduced cognitive reserve, which may in turn affect a range of factors should they develop symptoms of psychosis in adulthood. Cognition-related polygenic scores may therefore act as a moderator on the relationship between genetic risk for psychosis and symptom presentation/diagnosis in adulthood.
Although the Prodromal Questionnaire–Brief Child Version (PQ-BC) has been validated as a measure of early risk for psychosis (82), these symptoms are not necessarily indicative of psychosis in adulthood (83). In this sample, the proportion of participants that reported experiencing at least one psychotic-like experience was well over the proportion expected to develop psychosis (Table 3) (and it should also be noted that a formal, current diagnosis of schizophrenia was an exclusion criteria in the ABCD Study®). This may explain the reduced effect of cognition-related PGSs when distinguishing between adults meeting the diagnostic criteria for a psychotic disorder. Psychotic-like experiences may instead be indicative of an increased risk of later psychopathology more generally (84). In terms of psychosis risk specifically, it may be better to focus on those who experience multiple distressing psychotic-like experiences, or those who report such experiences at multiple timepoints (e.g. (85)).
4.3. Limitations
The method used to calculate the polygenic scores, PRS-CSx, provides improved accuracy in polygenic prediction compared to previous methods, by allowing summary statistics from multiple ancestries to be used together (86). However, the accuracy is still below what would be needed for clinical practice and the need for an ancestry reference panel limits the application of polygenic scores in admixed/underrepresented populations (59, 87).
While we made efforts to improve the ancestry diversity of the samples we included, the accuracy of the polygenic score calculations are still limited by the GWAS discovery samples, which remain mostly European (61–64). Efforts are in place to carry out GWASs in global populations beyond Europe (88). The Human Pangenome Reference Consortium (89) is working to create a reference panel that better represents diverse populations; and the Polygenic RIsk MEthods in Diverse populations (PRIMED) Consortium (90) seeks to improve applicability of PGSs to diverse populations.
Another limitation is that PGSs only account for common variants associated with an outcome. This is seen by the SNP heritability for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and intelligence, each reported as around 20% (61, 62, 64), despite overall heritability rates of 60-80% for schizophrenia (61), 60-85% for bipolar disorder (62), and 50% for intelligence (64). Other genetic factors, including copy number variants (CNVs), are known to be associated with psychosis and cognitive functioning (91, 92). However, there is evidence that, at the population level, common variants may play a larger role in health- and cognition-related outcomes than CNVs (93).
4.4. Implications
As cognitive impairment in psychosis is associated with poorer health outcomes (4, 94, 95), evidence that this association is seen at the neurobiological level may help to better identify those at risk. At present, polygenic scores are not accurate enough for clinical use (96). However, they remain a useful research tool. Despite limitations, introducing genomics into psychiatric care may provide another avenue for identifying those who would benefit from early intervention. The combination of high genetic risk for psychosis and polygenic scores for lower cognitive functioning may be useful for stratification and personalised treatments.
These results, if replicated, add to the growing evidence for a genetic component in the relationship between psychosis and cognitive impairment (22). The focus should be on replicating this research in different ancestry groups. As polygenic profiling becomes more widely available, without these efforts, such techniques may further exacerbate health disparities/inequity instead of improving healthcare (97, 98).
Using individual cognitive domains as the exposure, rather than broader measures of cognitive performance, may help to further pinpoint the cognitive domains most associated with psychosis. There is currently a lack of research into such genetic associations; the largest GWAS currently available is for reaction time, which found 2,022 associated variants over 42 loci (99). There are also a number of other ways to use the psychosis-related exposures, for example: looking at only variants associated with a specific disorder (e.g. those associated with schizophrenia only, as opposed to those that also overlap with bipolar disorder; (29, 31)).
Finally, longitudinal studies such as the ABCD Study® provide the opportunity for developmental research in this field (100). This allows patterns to be followed across the developmental period and to discover possible associations with sustained psychotic-like experiences (85), diagnosis, or cognitive deficits. This also covers the period previously used to examine the change in heritability of cognitive functioning (101), so this sample could be used to examine whether this change affects the impact of genetic factors on the relationship between psychosis and cognition.
4.5. Conclusion
We found evidence that genetic variants associated with both psychosis (specifically, schizophrenia) and cognition (educational attainment and intelligence) are implicated in the relationship between psychosis and cognitive impairment. This supports the use of cognitive function as an endophenotype for psychosis. The different effects of schizophrenia risk on performance within individual cognitive domains suggest that specific domains may serve as better endophenotypes than overall cognitive functioning.
1Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
2Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
3Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University Medical Center, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands
4Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5Arkin Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6 GGzE Institute for Mental Health Care, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive DevelopmentSM (ABCD) Study (https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). This is a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 10,000 children age 9-10 and follow them over 10 years into early adulthood. The ABCD Study® is supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners under award numbers U01DA041048, U01DA050989, U01DA051016, U01DA041022, U01DA051018, U01DA051037, U01DA050987, U01DA041174, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041028, U01DA041134, U01DA050988, U01DA051039, U01DA041156, U01DA041025, U01DA041120, U01DA051038, U01DA041148, U01DA041093, U01DA041089, U24DA041123, U24DA041147. A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners.html. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/consortium_members/. ABCD consortium investigators designed and implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily participate in the analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or ABCD consortium investigators.
The ABCD data repository grows and changes over time. The ABCD data used in this report came from doi:10.15154/kwr5-qf75. DOIs can be found at https://dx.doi.org/10.15154/kwr5-qf75. L.V. is supported by Medical Research Council (MR/W020238/1). E.B. is supported by Medical Research Council (G1100583, MR/W020238/1); National Institute of Health Research (NIHR200756); Mental Health Research UK - John Grace QC Scholarship 2018; Economic Social Research Council’s Co-funded doctoral award; The British Medical Association’s Margaret Temple Fellowship; Medical Research Council New Investigator and Centenary Awards (G0901310, G1100583); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London (NIHR BRC UCL). K.J.’s work was undertaken as part of the UCL-Birkbeck MRC-DTP PhD program, generously funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/W006774/1). A.R.B. is funded by the Wellcome Trust through a PhD Fellowship in Mental Health Science (218497/Z/19/Z). This research was funded in whole or in part by the Wellcome Trust. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission. N.S.K. is supported by a studentship co-funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Mental Health Research UK (ES/P000592/1). D.P. received the FCT 2022.00586.CEECIND felllowship (DOI: 10.54499/2022.00586.CEECIND/CP1722/CT0011). All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Disclosures
S.B. has received financial support for symposia from Medice, Takeda and is on the advisory board for AGB-Pharma. All other authors report no disclosures.
Acknowledgements
Collaborators of Psychosis Endophenotypes International Consortium (PEIC) include: Andrew M McIntosh; Cathryn Lewis; John Powell; Dan Rujescu; Matthias Weisbrod; Ina Giegling; Maria J. Arranz; Marta Di Forti; and Kuang Lin. The Santander cohort was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI020499, PI050427, PI060507), SENY Fundació (CI 2005-0308007), Fundacion Ramón Areces and Fundacion Marqués de Valdecilla (API07/011, API10/13). Grant ISCIII: ICI21_00089 and PI22_01379.
Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis (GROUP) Investigators includes the following people: Behrooz Z. Alizadeh1,2 Therese van Amelsvoort3 Lieuwe de Haan4,5 Marieke van der Pluijm4,5 Claudia J.P. Simons3,6 Wim Veling2
References
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.↵
- 8.↵
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.↵
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.↵
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos