Earlier today, we reported that NIMH-funded researchers at three different genetic research institutes from around the world collaborated and published three new studies yesterday in the journal, Nature, that suggested a true breakthrough in our understanding of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. And to think that just earlier this week, I was dismissing the largely inconclusive findings of genetics research in mental illness.
One of the researchers commented on the findings: “There was substantial overlap in the genetic risk for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that was specific to mental disorders. We saw no association between the suspect gene variants and half a dozen common non-psychiatric disorders.” This is an important discovery — that some of the roots of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may be very similar. This may also begin to partially explain why drugs — atypical antipsychotics — developed for schizophrenia also appear to work for bipolar disorder.
Furthermore, all three studies implicated an area of Chromosome 6, which is known to include genes involved in immunity. This area also has genes that seem to control how and when genes turn on and off. As the NIMH notes, this hotspot of association might help to explain how environmental factors affect risk for schizophrenia.
The other important finding from these studies was the huge impact of pooling data and resources in genetic research. Without large data sample sizes, genetics research often ends up at a dead-end. By being able to analyze over 30,000 genetic variants in over 3,000 people with schizophrenia and 3,000 people without, the researchers were able to draw conclusions based upon the data. A smaller sample size would’ve made such conclusions impossible.
Although the vast majority of the genetic causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder remain unknown (the current studies could account for only approximately 30 percent of the genetic risk), the current research is an important contribution to our real knowledge of how these disorders may be caused by gene variants. Also, these most recent findings won’t result in any new treatments for the disorders for many years to come. But scientists are truly excited about the findings, a somewhat rare thing when talking about genetics research.
With more genetics research like this underway, I suspect we’ll be seeing more breakthroughs similar to this one in the years to come. These studies inch us closer to understanding some of the potential contributing causes to these conditions, which could one day perhaps pave the way to new treatments for them.
Read the full article: Genetic Breakthrough for Schizophrenia and Bipolar
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
7 Comments to
“Breakthrough for Schizophrenia and Bipolar”
Watch how this gets spinned. Furious Seasons reported a few weeks ago there is a covert intent going on with DSM V to get Bipolar Disorder labeled as a subset of psychotic disorders, so, how conveniently it would provide a shield for pharma to say that atypical antipsychotics like Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Abilify, to name the biggest winners for such a change in determination, are legitimately prescribed for Bipolar. Poof! There goes the strength to arguments from plaintiffs suing with the premise these drugs are not being responsibly prescribed.
Hmmm, if one was to dig a bit and look into the relationships between the authors of this work and pharma, there wouldn’t be some conflict of interest? It is NOT just about genetics, folks. Just another quick fix answer to problems that are nature and nuture.
But, everyone wants a goddamn pill for their problems, eh?
Happy July 4th. Maybe the fireworks are just starting this summer with this date.
You’d have to indict the entire genetics industry, as these were three completely independent, different genetics research institutes located in three different countries. While I’m all for paranoia when it comes to understanding ulterior motives, I’d find it hard to believe the scope of this deception, including the journal Nature as well (one of the most respected scientific journals published). Not saying there might not be conflicts there, but it’s sort of sloppy to *imply* conflicts without bothering to actually do any research to see if your implication has merit.
Interesting. Nicolas Wade at the New York Times has a completely opposite take on the same studies. He considers them to be a disappointment and a setback. Here’s a link:
If that doesn’t work, try this one: http://bit.ly/w8Swb
Nicholas Wade makes an interesting argument in that blog entry (which is well worth the read, as well as the comments). But what he fails to appreciate are two points — he ignores the new finding that bipolar and schizophrenia appear to be linked at a genetic level, and doesn’t seem to understand all of the things the new research has ruled-out from a genetic perspective. But these two comments express a good summary:
The truth is that ‘heritable’ does not equal ‘genetic’. It turns out that mothers and fathers behaviors influence: 1) the integrity of the DNA carried by their eggs and sperm, 2) their gene transcription for life (epigenetics), especially in utero and early life, and 3) the eventual behavior of their children, who often mimic parental choices. Even studies of identical twins have the strong influence of epigenetics due to a very similar intrauterine exposures… — CR
Disproof (of a rudimentary Mendelian model for schizophrenia) scarcely represents a setback, and the hoopla does not reveal lack of frankness by the “masters” presumedly lurking in the shadows of the podium. The hoopla [...] is over eliminating a simplistic, but long held claim and clearing the path to more realistic models. Then we can test them too. That’s what science does, whether it’s the motion of the galaxies or the attachment of a virus, and that’s why these geneticists were legitimately excited. I only wish science writers could show equal interest in this real science, rather than labeling it a disappointment.
CR overstates an otherwise useful point. Yes, we now see epigenetic mechanisms as significant to disease risk. But there is no evidence that only a “tiny fraction” of the listed is attributable to genes themselves. Indeed, the more genes that contribute to a clinical disease, the more variation they can produce in its signs and symptoms. — SMB
I believe it is ultimately the expression of genes that leads to a greater risk of having the disease. It’s not enough just to have the gene variants.
And the fact the three research institutes collaborated on this kind and scope of genetics study is also noteworthy.
Vaughan has this excellent followup and description of gene heritability:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/07/80_genetic_20_pol.html
Also well worth the read.
Pretty crazy. Makes you wonder who will be next Breakthrough for Schizophrenia and Bipolar.. nice blog John.
Just to ilustrate it I am bipolar and my brother is schizophrenic…
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 2 Jul 2009
