Whole-genome association analysis of treatment response in obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Up to 30% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) exhibit an inadequate response to serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). To date, genetic predictors of OCD treatment response have not been systematically investigated using genome-wide association study (GWAS). To identify specific genetic variations potentially influencing SRI response, we conducted a GWAS study in 804 OCD patients with information on SRI response. SRI response was classified as 'response' (n=514) or 'non-response' (n=290), based on self-report. We used the more powerful Quasi-Likelihood Score Test (the MQLS test) to conduct a genome-wide association test correcting for relatedness, and then used an adjusted logistic model to evaluate the effect size of the variants in probands. The top single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) was rs17162912 (P=1.76 × 10(-8)), which is near the DISP1 gene on 1q41-q42, a microdeletion region implicated in neurological development. The other six SNPs showing suggestive evidence of association (P<10(-5)) were rs9303380, rs12437601, rs16988159, rs7676822, rs1911877 and rs723815. Among them, two SNPs in strong linkage disequilibrium, rs7676822 and rs1911877, located near the PCDH10 gene, gave P-values of 2.86 × 10(-6) and 8.41 × 10(-6), respectively. The other 35 variations with signals of potential significance (P<10(-4)) involve multiple genes expressed in the brain, including GRIN2B, PCDH10 and GPC6. Our enrichment analysis indicated suggestive roles of genes in the glutamatergic neurotransmission system (false discovery rate (FDR)=0.0097) and the serotonergic system (FDR=0.0213). Although the results presented may provide new insights into genetic mechanisms underlying treatment response in OCD, studies with larger sample sizes and detailed information on drug dosage and treatment duration are needed

Models of Consent to Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

Genomic research has the capacity to generate a wide array of findings that go beyond the goals of the study—usually referred to as “incidental findings.” The evolving consensus of researchers, participants, and expert panels is that at least some incidental results should be made available to participants. However, there are a number of challenges to discussing these issues with participants and ascertaining their preferences, including the complexity and magnitude of the relevant information. Believing that usual models of informed consent are not likely to be effective in this context, we identify four approaches that investigators and IRBs might consider: traditional consent, staged consent, mandatory return, and outsourcing. Each has advantages and disadvantages compared with the other options, and which one is selected for a given project will depend on a mix of practical and normative considerations that are described in this paper

Genome-wide association study in obsessive-compulsive disorder: results from the OCGAS.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric condition characterized by intrusive thoughts and urges and repetitive, intentional behaviors that cause significant distress and impair functioning. The OCD Collaborative Genetics Association Study (OCGAS) is comprised of comprehensively assessed OCD patients with an early age of OCD onset. After application of a stringent quality control protocol, a total of 1065 families (containing 1406 patients with OCD), combined with population-based samples (resulting in a total sample of 5061 individuals), were studied. An integrative analyses pipeline was utilized, involving association testing at single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and gene levels (via a hybrid approach that allowed for combined analyses of the family- and population-based data). The smallest P-value was observed for a marker on chromosome 9 (near PTPRD, P=4.13 × 10(-)(7)). Pre-synaptic PTPRD promotes the differentiation of glutamatergic synapses and interacts with SLITRK3. Together, both proteins selectively regulate the development of inhibitory GABAergic synapses. Although no SNPs were identified as associated with OCD at genome-wide significance level, follow-up analyses of genome-wide association study (GWAS) signals from a previously published OCD study identified significant enrichment (P=0.0176). Secondary analyses of high-confidence interaction partners of DLGAP1 and GRIK2 (both showing evidence for association in our follow-up and the original GWAS study) revealed a trend of association (P=0.075) for a set of genes such as NEUROD6, SV2A, GRIA4, SLC1A2 and PTPRD. Analyses at the gene level revealed association of IQCK and C16orf88 (both P<1 × 10(-)(6), experiment-wide significant), as well as OFCC1 (P=6.29 × 10(-)(5)). The suggestive findings in this study await replication in larger samples

Designing Case-control Studies: Decisions About The Controls

The authors quantified, first, the effect of misclassified controls (i.e., individuals who are affected with the disease under study but who are classified as controls) on the ability of a case-control study to detect an association between a disease and a genetic marker, and second, the effect of leaving misclassified controls in the study, as opposed to removing them (thus decreasing sample size). The authors developed an informativeness measure of a study's ability to identify real differences between cases and controls. They then examined this measure's behavior when there are no misclassified controls, when there are misclassified controls, and when there were misclassified controls but they have been removed from the study. The results show that if, for example, 10% of controls are misclassified, the study's informativeness is reduced to approximately 81% of what it would have been in a sample with no misclassified controls, whereas if these misclassified controls are removed from the study, the informativeness is only reduced to about 90%, despite the reduced sample size. If 25% are misclassified, those figures become approximately 56% and 75%, respectively. Thus, leaving the misclassified controls in the control sample is worse than removing them altogether. Finally, the authors illustrate how insufficient power is not necessarily circumvented by having an unlimited number of controls. The formulas provided by the authors enable investigators to make rational decisions about removing misclassified controls or leaving them in

The Genetic Basis of Panic Disorder

Panic disorder is one of the chronic and disabling anxiety disorders. There has been evidence for either genetic heterogeneity or complex inheritance, with environmental factor interactions and multiple single genes, in panic disorder's etiology. Linkage studies have implicated several chromosomal regions, but no research has replicated evidence for major genes involved in panic disorder. Researchers have suggested several neurotransmitter systems are related to panic disorder. However, to date no candidate gene association studies have established specific loci. Recently, researchers have emphasized genome-wide association studies. Results of two genome-wide association studies on panic disorder failed to show significant associations. Evidence exists for differences regarding gender and ethnicity in panic disorder. Increasing evidence suggests genes underlying panic disorder overlap, transcending current diagnostic boundaries. In addition, an anxious temperament and anxiety-related personality traits may represent intermediate phenotypes that predispose to panic disorder. Future research should focus on broad phenotypes, defined by comorbidity or intermediate phenotypes. Genome-wide association studies in large samples, studies of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and pharmacogenetic studies are needed

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research

Purpose: Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process. Methods: We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants. Results: Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves. Conclusion: There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process

Research Participants’ Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research

Secondary or incidental results can be identified in genomic research that increasingly uses whole exome/genome sequencing. Understanding research participants’ preferences for secondary results and what influences these decisions is important for patient education, counseling, and consent, and for the development of policies regarding return of secondary results. Two hundred nineteen research participants enrolled in genomic studies were surveyed regarding hypothetical preferences for specific types of secondary results, and these preferences were correlated with demographic information and psychosocial data. The majority of research participants (73%) indicated a preference to learn about all results offered, with no clear pattern regarding which results were not desired by the remaining participants. Participants who reported greater interest in genetic privacy were less likely to indicate a preference to learn all results, as were individuals who self‐identified as Jewish. Although most research participants preferred to receive all secondary results offered, a significant subset preferred to exclude some results, suggesting that an all‐or‐none policy would not be ideal for all participants. The correlations between preferences to receive secondary results, religious identification, and privacy concerns demonstrate the need for culturally sensitive counseling and educational materials accessible to all education levels to allow participants to make the best choices for themselves

Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings

Purpose: Comprehensive genomic analysis including exome and genome sequencing is increasingly being utilized in research studies, leading to the generation of incidental genetic findings. It is unclear how researchers plan to deal with incidental genetic findings. Methods: We conducted a survey of the practices and attitudes of 234 members of the US genetic research community and performed qualitative semistructured interviews with 28 genomic researchers to understand their views and experiences with incidental genetic research findings. Results: We found that 12% of the researchers had returned incidental genetic findings, and an additional 28% planned to do so. A large majority of researchers (95%) believe that incidental findings for highly penetrant disorders with immediate medical implications should be offered to research participants. However, there was no consensus on returning incidental results for other conditions varying in penetrance and medical actionability. Researchers raised concerns that the return of incidental findings would impose significant burdens on research and could potentially have deleterious effects on research participants if not performed well. Researchers identified assistance needed to enable effective, accurate return of incidental findings. Conclusion: The majority of the researchers believe that research participants should have the option to receive at least some incidental genetic research results

The Genetic Studies of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Its Future Directions

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by recurrent and persistent thoughts (obsessions), and repetitive behaviors or mental acts (compulsions). In Korea, an epidemiological study reported that the lifetime prevalence of OCD in the population was greater than two percent. The exact cause of OCD is still unknown. Evidence from familial, twin and segregation studies supports the role of a genetic component in the etiology of OCD. In addition, there is growing evidence that OCD has a specific neurochemical and neuroanatomical basis. According to this evidence, researchers have selected various candidate genes which have been implicated in the neurophysiology of OCD, and differences of allelic variants in OCD patients and controls have been analyzed. In this review we will introduce the results of previous genetic studies of OCD which have been performed in other populations, including twin studies, family studies, segregation analyses, linkage analyses, and association studies. In addition to these studies, we will present the results of our genetic studies of OCD performed in Korea