Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
JPN
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
JPN

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Issue in progress
    • Issues by date
  • Sections
    • Editorial
    • Review
    • Research
    • Commentary
    • Psychopharmacology for the Clinician
    • Letters to the Editor
  • Topic Collections
  • Instructions for Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission checklist
    • Editorial policies
    • Publication fees
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Dr. Francis Wayne Quan Memorial Prize
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow JPN on Twitter
Editorial
Open Access

Clinical opportunity awaits at the intersection of genomics and brain imaging

Carolina Makowski, Hao Wang and Chi-Hua Chen
J Psychiatry Neurosci August 10, 2022 47 (4) E293-E298; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.220075
Carolina Makowski
From the Center for Multimodal Imaging and Genetics, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, Cali., USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hao Wang
From the Center for Multimodal Imaging and Genetics, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, Cali., USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chi-Hua Chen
From the Center for Multimodal Imaging and Genetics, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, Cali., USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Lower costs of both genotyping and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition have provided an unprecedented opportunity to understand how genetic factors shape brain morphology. These findings, in turn, may help us better understand the pathophysiology of various neurologic and mental health disorders that pose a significant global disease burden.1

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) scan through millions of common genetic variants to find loci that are significantly linked to phenotypes of interest. These common variants, also known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), are found in a sizable fraction (i.e., 1 % or more) of the population. The GWAS approach has helped the field move beyond classic candidate gene studies (e.g., COMT) and associations with brain morphology and connectivity that permeated the field a decade ago but have since been shown to have poor reproducibility.2 Multiple GWASs have recently been published to better understand the genetic architecture of various brain features,3,4 such as MRI-derived cortical features,5–8 subcortical structures9 and white matter features.10,11 The cortex in particular has been of utmost interest to neuroscientists given that its unique expansion in humans has coincided with the emergence of complex behaviours.12

It is well known in neuroimaging studies that different brain atlases, or the way different regions of interest are defined, can have a significant impact on findings. This methodological choice is equally important for genomic studies integrating brain imaging data. Many previous cortical GWASs have been successful in identifying novel genetic variants underlying morphological features of the brain, but typically define brain regions based on anatomical (e.g., sulcal/gyral) patterns. A recent publication from our group harnessed genetic information to draw regional brain boundaries, potentially improving discovery of genetic loci linked to the cortex compared with previous studies.5

These genetically informed brain atlases,8,13,14 comprising 12 surface area and 12 thickness regions (Figure 1), conform to known patterns of genetically mediated cortical patterning during neurodevelopment and have been independently replicated.15,16 Genetic cortical patterning includes features such as the anterior–posterior axis, describing developmental effects of brain expansion or surface area, as well as identification of functional brain regions underlying complex traits in humans, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and its role in working memory. These atlases also show striking concordance between the genetic divisions of the brain and the boundaries of various functional regions that clinicians are already familiar with in their neuroanatomical assessment of patients (e.g., orbitofrontal cortex and its links to depression, anteromedial temporal cortex and epilepsy). Our aim in this editorial is to help clinicians sift through the wealth of data that GWAS provides, using the clinically meaningful anatomical patterns and genes described in our latest work as an example.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

(A) Coronal MRI slice and inset schematic outlining the relationship between surface area, cortical thickness, and volume. (B) Genetically informed brain atlases of surface area and cortical thickness. Note: these brain regions are displayed on a smooth version of the brain that does not delineate sulcal/gyral patterns. MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; SMA = supplementary motor area.

Neuroanatomy — genetic variability shapes regions of the brain differently

The genetically based atlas of the human cortex depicted in Figure 1B,8 initially derived from the MRI data of more than 400 twins using a data-driven fuzzy clustering algorithm,13,14 set the foundation for the discovery of 440 genetic loci (and nearly 800 significant loci in a meta-analysis combining total samples) underlying cortical surface area and thickness of the human brain, which we will hereafter refer to as cortical morphology for brevity. As mentioned, some of the boundaries in our genetically based atlas follow traditional gyral-based patterns (e.g., inferior and parietal area), whereas some diverge (e.g, no distinction between dorsomedial frontal and orbitofrontal regions for the area atlas).13 Given the nontrivial nature of mapping loci to genes owing to intergenic loci and the complex correlated structure between SNPs, multiple workflows have been recommended to improve accuracy of identifying plausible genes. One such gene-mapping strategy is based on positional information with the MAGMA tool;17 another method additionally incorporates gene expression and other epigenomic annotations (e.g., FUMA18). In our study, these 2 approaches yielded 575 and 915 genes, respectively, associated with cortical morphology.5 Single-cell data profiling accessible chromatin can also add to gene mapping efforts. These genes are then annotated for significant biological pathways to help with the functional interpretation of significant loci that have identified pathways related to development and morphogenesis in cortical GWASs.5,6,8 It is important to bear in mind that these mapped genes are putative causal genes only, given that GWAS associations do not directly yield a gene target or mechanistic insight.19,20 Mapping strategies to identify causal genes from GWAS has proven to be challenging, but is an active area of research, for instance by leveraging gene expression data to bring us a step closer to causal genetic mechanisms.19,21,22

Collectively, cortical phenotypes have moderate to high heritability (area 0.27; thickness 0.20 on average8), compared with other commonly studied phenotypes in humans (mean heritability of 0.22 across 28 complex phenotypes23). Heritability is an estimate of the amount of variation in a phenotype that can be explained by genetic differences. Specifically, GWAS typically uses measures of SNP-based heritability to quantify the overall contribution of the additive effects of all SNPs (capturing a fraction of twin heritability). Given that subtle alterations in structural brain measures may reflect endophenotypes of neuropsychiatric disorders,24,25 uncovering the genetic underpinnings of brain structure can, in turn, provide important clues into neuropsychiatric conditions.

Pathophysiological implications — genes related to brain structure/development are also related to disease

There is notable overlap between disease-related genes reported previously and genes associated with cortical phenotypes. Our recent work8 nonexhaustively included these links based on their genetic discovery in a supplementary table based on the Genetics Home Reference database. This is a data source similar to Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) in which many gene–phenotype associations are from monogenic disorders or conditions attributable to genes with large effects. Cortical GWAS are often conducted on nonclinical data; thus, discovered loci reflect genetic effects on normative variation of the brain. However, these loci could be pleiotropic between brain structure and diseases or point toward a continuous spectrum of genetic effects from normal neurodevelopment to aberrant phenotypes. We highlight some key findings for disorders commonly encountered by clinicians, and add some examples from recent psychiatric GWASs in Table 1. Although experimental validation of the causal impact of many of these genes is still needed, several have been tied to biological processes involving brain development, for instance through the role of PTCH1 in SHH-mediated signalling and regulation of neurodevelopment.26

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Examples of genes mapped from significant loci associated with cortical phenotypes8*

Spontaneous mutations with congenital neuroanatomical anomalies also offer a natural opportunity to glean insights into the genetic control of cortical development. Focal polymicrogyria is an example of a genetically determined cortical malformation that develops only in specific regions of the cortex, strongly supporting the notion of regional genetic influences on cortical area development.27 Among the identified genes in our recent work,8 TUBB was linked to posterolateral temporal surface area. Tubulin gene subclasses are widely expressed in the developing brain,28 and have also been linked to cortical morphology and asymmetry in previous GWASs.6,29 There was also genetic overlap with holoprosencephaly, a common developmental defect where the cerebral hemispheres fail to separate properly.30 Holoprosencephaly has been attributed to a gain-of-function mutation or duplication of PTCH1, a gene found to be associated with occipital, posterolateral temporal, dorsomedial and orbitofrontal cortical morphology5,8,31 as well as microstructure of the uncinate fasciculus.10 Additionally, ZIC1 and ZIC4 have been mapped to the surface area of frontoparietal cortices.5,8 Both of these genes in the zinc finger protein family have been previously associated with holoprosencephaly and forebrain and pontocerebellar anomalies,32 notably in Dandy–Walker malformation.33

Beyond structural malformations, the complex genetic signal uncovered in cortical GWASs vary by brain region and may help bridge the knowledge gap between regional cortical morphology and diseases. This is particularly relevant for neurodevelopmental disorders with subtle neuroimaging features, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We highlight an example in Table 1 linking ASD to 2 genes, ASH1L and SYNGAP1. These genes were mapped to the surface area of 3 different regions, suggesting they may affect some cortical regions more strongly than others. Intriguingly, SYNGAP1 has been causally linked to various neurodevelopmental disorders, including ASD.34 We also found reduced anteromedial temporal surface area to be putatively causally linked to ASD,8 comprising regions that have also been shown to have reduced brain volume in SYNGAP1 heterozygous mutant mouse models.34 It should be acknowledged that the nonsignificant cortical–ASD pairs in our work may not be true negatives given that, with increasing sample sizes, it is possible other regions may become significant. However, the 3 regions we do find associated with ASD likely have quite large effects and warrant further exploration to help inform the structural basis of functional impairments in ASD and related disorders.

We and others5,8 have observed only some significant genetic correlations between cortical morphology and neurologic, as well as psychiatric, disorders. This may be in part owing to low statistical power, the cumulative gene–environment interactions underlying their complex etiology,35 as well as methodological limitations given that the genetic correlation calculation averages over numerous SNPs. Other statistical methods focusing on specific genomic compartments (e.g., regulatory regions) could be beneficial. These genetic correlations also excluded the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), a genomic region contributing to psychiatric disorders and cortical measures. Apart from methodological choices, some psychiatric disorders, such as major depressive disorder, may have subtle neuroanatomical phenotypes or are linked more strongly to functional changes in neural circuitry, which might explain the challenge in observing their genetic overlap with gross neuroanatomical phenotypes.36 More evidence has emerged recently, however, for structural abnormalities in psychiatric disorders.3 Discovering the biological basis of these disorders is a problem psychiatry faces at large, given the blurred boundaries and heterogeneous subgroups within current diagnostic definitions alongside the polygenic nature (i.e., contribution of many genetic variants each with tiny effects) of these disorders.37 GWAS approaches integrating brain imaging data may have important implications for understanding their pathogenesis, as well as moving toward clinical subtyping efforts, particularly for disorders with neurodevelopmental origins. Methodological advances and larger sample sizes could also help further elucidate the genetic overlap between cortical morphology and psychiatric disorders. For instance, in our latest work we apply Mendelian randomization21 and find a putative causal association between anteromedial temporal area and ASD.8 Multivariate techniques or polygenic scoring hold promise in deciphering the shared genetic architecture between neuroimaging and psychiatric phenotypes.38–40

Future directions

Altogether there is a clear connection among genes, brain morphology and brain-related disorders in a biologically meaningful way. Recent brain imaging GWASs have provided new evidence to associate regional brain morphology with neuropsychiatric diseases. Genetic testing has already been successfully integrated into clinical care in several cases for severe neurodevelopmental disorders,42 such as FMR1 for Fragile X.43 However there is a need to merge our understanding of such disorders with the genetic architecture of the brain — a gap that recent work begins to address.5,8,10,31 Similarly, for common polygenic diseases, it may be fruitful to consider polygenic scores, where individual small SNP effects are aggregated into a single score for an individual based on their genotype. Combining polygenic scores derived from GWAS results of brain phenotypes with polygenic risk scores for psychiatric/neurologic disorders may offer more information to predict an individual’s risk for a given clinical variable.

Careful consideration of brain atlases integrated into genomic work is warranted. We have highlighted one set of genetically informed atlases of cortical morphology.13,14 Such genetically informed atlases require further replication and improvement, which would be a worthwhile endeavour for the field of imaging genetics. Following the successful efforts of the Human Connectome Project (HCP)44 to incorporate multimodal imaging into atlas generation, as well as evidence for common genetic variants contributing to white matter and functional imaging phenotypes,45,46 we encourage researchers working with different imaging modalities (e.g., diffusion/functional MRI and positron emission tomography) to explore genetically based parcellations and how they could inform associations with psychiatric disorders.

Beyond the brain imaging measures themselves, it will be important for the field to also replicate atlases in different populations. For instance, the gross cortical patterning captured by the genetic atlases we define largely remain the same with age,47,48 but the extent to which fine-scale regional boundaries differ by factors such as age, sex or ancestry still remain unknown. Further, probabilistic methods (e.g., “fuzzy” atlases) can be employed in capturing inter-subject variations or likelihood of regional boundaries.14,49–51 One of the common denominators of these proposed methods is the availability of large sample sizes.52 Initiatives such as those led by the UK Biobank53 and ENIGMA52,54 are moving in that direction to increase imaging genetic samples, and ongoing harmonization work remains crucial to address the heterogeneity present in multisite studies and meta-analytic approaches.

Recently discovered genomic loci and mapped genes provide a valuable resource for necessary future experiments and clinical studies, with the overarching goal of assisting clinically in evidence-based, personalized anticipatory surveillance and management strategies for patients. It would be beneficial for clinicians to be equipped with adequate resources and educational training to remain up to date with the latest research advances, including results coming from neuroimaging, GWAS and rare variant studies.55 This in turn would set the foundation for continued and necessary discourse and collaboration between clinicians and researchers working in imaging genetics to enhance translational work. The intersection of genes associated with both disorders of interest and their brain endophenotypes, such as the cortical phenotypes we describe, may have important implications for understanding the pathophysiology of these disorders and ultimately, for advancing precision medicine.

Acknowledgments

The work and authors are supported by the National Institutes of Health under R01MH118281, R56AG061163 (PI: C.-H. Chen). C. Makowski is also supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind (KIBM).

Footnotes

  • The views expressed in this editorial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries, the journal’s editorial board or the Canadian College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Whiteford HA,
    2. Ferrari AJ,
    3. Degenhardt L,
    4. et al
    . The global burden of mental, neurological and substance use disorders: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0116820.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Shen L,
    2. Thompson PM
    . Brain imaging genomics: integrated analysis and machine learning. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng 2020; 108:125–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Thompson PM,
    2. Jahanshad N,
    3. Ching CRK,
    4. et al
    . ENIGMA and global neuroscience: a decade of large-scale studies of the brain in health and disease across more than 40 countries. Transl Psychiatry 2020;10:100.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Douaud G,
    3. Chen W,
    4. et al
    . An expanded set of genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank. Nat Neurosci 2021;24:737–45.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Grasby KL,
    2. Jahanshad N,
    3. Painter JN,
    4. et al
    . The genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex. Science 2020;367:eaay6690.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Shadrin AA,
    2. Kaufmann T,
    3. van der Meer D,
    4. et al
    . Multivariate genome-wide association study identifies 1735 unique genetic loci associated with cortical morphology. Neuroimage 2021;244:118603.
    OpenUrl
    1. Shin J,
    2. Ma S,
    3. Hofer E,
    4. et al
    . Global and regional development of the human cerebral cortex: molecular architecture and occupational aptitudes. Cereb Cortex 2020;30:4121–39.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Makowski C,
    2. van der Meer D,
    3. Dong W,
    4. et al
    . Discovery of genomic loci of the human cerebral cortex using genetically informed brain atlases. Science 2022;375:522–8.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Satizabal CL,
    2. Adams HHH,
    3. Hibar DP,
    4. et al
    . Genetic architecture of subcortical brain structures in 38,851 individuals. Nat Genet 2019;51: 1624–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Zhao B,
    2. Zhang J,
    3. Ibrahim JG,
    4. et al
    . Large-scale GWAS reveals genetic architecture of brain white matter microstructure and genetic overlap with cognitive and mental health traits (n = 17,706). Mol Psychiatry 2021;26:3943–55.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Fan CC,
    2. Loughnan R,
    3. Makowski C,
    4. et al
    . Multivariate genome-wide association study on tissue-sensitive diffusion metrics highlights pathways that shape the human brain. Nat Commun 2022; 13:2423.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Rakic P
    . Evolution of the neocortex: a perspective from developmental biology. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10:724–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Chen C-H,
    2. Gutierrez ED,
    3. Thompson W,
    4. et al
    . Hierarchical genetic organization of human cortical surface area. Science 2012;335:1634–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Chen C-H,
    2. Fiecas M,
    3. Gutierrez ED,
    4. et al
    . Genetic topography of brain morphology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:17089–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Fan CC,
    2. Smeland OB,
    3. Schork AJ,
    4. et al
    . Beyond heritability: improving discoverability in imaging genetics. Hum Mol Genet 2018;27: R22–8.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Couvy-Duchesne B,
    2. Strike LT,
    3. de Zubicaray GI,
    4. et al
    . Lingual gyrus surface area is associated with anxiety-depression severity in young adults: a genetic clustering approach. eNeuro 2018;5: ENEURO.0153–17.2017.
  16. ↵
    1. de Leeuw CA,
    2. Mooij JM,
    3. Heskes T,
    4. et al
    . MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data. PLOS Comput Biol 2015; 11: e1004219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Watanabe K,
    2. Taskesen E,
    3. van Bochoven A,
    4. et al
    . Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nat Commun 2017;8:1826.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Schaid DJ,
    2. Chen W,
    3. Larson NB
    . From genome-wide associations to candidate causal variants by statistical fine-mapping. Nat Rev Genet 2018;19:491–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. MacArthur DG,
    2. Manolio TA,
    3. Dimmock DP,
    4. et al
    . Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 2014;508:469–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Zhu Z,
    2. Zhang F,
    3. Hu H,
    4. et al
    . Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nat Genet 2016;48:481–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Nasser J,
    2. Bergman DT,
    3. Fulco CP,
    4. et al
    . Genome-wide enhancer maps link risk variants to disease genes. Nature 2021;593:238–43.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Zeng J,
    2. de Vlaming R,
    3. Wu Y,
    4. et al
    . Signatures of negative selection in the genetic architecture of human complex traits. Nat Genet 2018;50:746–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Matoba N,
    2. Love MI,
    3. Stein JL
    . Evaluating brain structure traits as endophenotypes using polygenicity and discoverability. Hum Brain Mapp 2022;43:329–40.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Almasy L,
    2. Blangero J
    . Endophenotypes as quantitative risk factors for psychiatric disease: rationale and study design. Am J Med Genet 2001;105:42–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Garcia ADR
    . New tricks for an old (hedge)hog: sonic hedgehog regulation of astrocyte function. Cells 2021;10:1353.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Rakic P
    . Neuroscience. Genetic control of cortical convolutions. Science 2004;303:1983–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Romaniello R,
    2. Arrigoni F,
    3. Fry AE,
    4. et al
    . Tubulin genes and malformations of cortical development. Eur J Med Genet 2018;61:744–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Sha Z,
    2. Schijven D,
    3. Carrion-Castillo A,
    4. et al
    . The genetic architecture of structural left-right asymmetry of the human brain. Nat Hum Behav 2021;5:1226–39.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Richieri-Costa A,
    2. Vendramini-Pittoli S,
    3. Kokitsu-Nakata NM,
    4. et al
    . Multisystem involvement in a patient with a PTCH1 mutation: clinical and imaging findings. J Pediatr Genet 2017;6:103–6.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Hofer E,
    2. Roshchuupkin GV,
    3. Adams HHH,
    4. et al
    . Genetic correlations and genome-wide associations of cortical structure in general population samples of 22,824 adults. Nat Commun 2020;11:4796.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Aruga J
    . The role of Zic genes in neural development. Mol Cell Neurosci 2004;26:205–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Grinberg I,
    2. Northrup H,
    3. Ardinger H,
    4. et al
    . Heterozygous deletion of the linked genes ZIC1 and ZIC4 is involved in Dandy-Walker malformation. Nat Genet 2004;36:1053–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kilinc M,
    2. Creson T,
    3. Rojas C,
    4. et al
    . Species-conserved SYNGAP1 phenotypes associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Mol Cell Neurosci 2018;91:140–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Polderman TJC,
    2. Benyamin B,
    3. de Leeuw CA,
    4. et al
    . Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet 2015;47:702–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Marín O
    . Developmental timing and critical windows for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Nat Med 2016;22:1229–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Anttila V,
    2. Bulik-Sullivan B,
    3. Finucane HK,
    4. et al
    . Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain. Science 2018;360: eaap8757.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Grotzinger AD,
    2. Rhemtulla M,
    3. de Vlaming R,
    4. et al
    . Genomic structural equation modelling provides insights into the multivariate genetic architecture of complex traits. Nat Hum Behav 2019;3:513–25.
    OpenUrl
    1. Frei O,
    2. Holland D,
    3. Smeland OB,
    4. et al
    . Bivariate causal mixture model quantifies polygenic overlap between complex traits beyond genetic correlation. Nat Commun 2019;10:2417.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Dima D,
    2. Breen G
    . Polygenic risk scores in imaging genetics: usefulness and applications. J Psychopharmacol 2015;29:867–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mullins N,
    2. Forstner AJ,
    3. O’Connell KS,
    4. et al
    . Genome-wide association study of more than 40,000 bipolar disorder cases provides new insights into the underlying biology. Nat Genet 2021;53:817–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Wright CF,
    2. Fitzgerald TW,
    3. Jones WD,
    4. et al
    . Genetic diagnosis of developmental disorders in the DDD study: a scalable analysis of genome-wide research data. Lancet 2015;385:1305–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Monaghan KG,
    2. Lyon E,
    3. Spector EB
    . ACMG standards and guidelines for fragile X testing: a revision to the disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:575–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Glasser MF,
    2. Coalson TS,
    3. Robinson EC,
    4. et al
    . A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature 2016;536:171–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Zhao B,
    2. Li T,
    3. Yang Y,
    4. et al
    . Common genetic variation influencing human white matter microstructure. Science 2021;372:eabf3736.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Zhao B,
    2. Li T,
    3. Smith SM,
    4. et al
    . Common variants contribute to intrinsic human brain functional networks. Nat Genet 2022;54:508–17.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Fjell AM,
    2. Grydeland H,
    3. Krogsrud SK,
    4. et al
    . Development and aging of cortical thickness correspond to genetic organization patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:15462–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Peng Q,
    2. Schork A,
    3. Bartsch H,
    4. et al
    . Conservation of distinct genetically-mediated human cortical pattern. PLoS Genet 2016;12: e1006143.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Mazziotta JC,
    2. Toga AW,
    3. Evans A,
    4. et al
    . A probabilistic atlas of the human brain: theory and rationale for its development. The International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM). Neuroimage 1995;2: 89–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Doucet GE,
    2. Lee WH,
    3. Frangou S
    . Evaluation of the spatial variability in the major resting-state networks across human brain functional atlases. Hum Brain Mapp 2019;40:4577–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Eickhoff SB,
    2. Stephan KE,
    3. Mohlberg H,
    4. et al
    . A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. Neuroimage 2005;25:1325–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Medland SE,
    2. Grasby KL,
    3. Jahanshad N,
    4. et al
    . Ten years of enhancing neuro-imaging genetics through meta-analysis: an overview from the ENIGMA Genetics Working Group. Hum Brain Mapp 2022;43: 292–9.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Bycroft C,
    2. Freeman C,
    3. Petkova D,
    4. et al
    . The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 2018;562:203–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. McMahon MAB,
    2. Thompson PM
    . Enhancing neuro imaging genetics through meta analysis: global collaborations in psychiatry by the ENIGMA consortium. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2017;27:S715.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Nurnberger JI Jr.,
    2. Austin J,
    3. Berrettini WH,
    4. et al
    . What should a psychiatrist know about genetics? Review and recommendations from the residency education committee of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics. J Clin Psychiatry 2018;80:22411.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience: 47 (4)
J Psychiatry Neurosci
Vol. 47, Issue 4
10 Aug 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JPN.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical opportunity awaits at the intersection of genomics and brain imaging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JPN
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JPN web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinical opportunity awaits at the intersection of genomics and brain imaging
Carolina Makowski, Hao Wang, Chi-Hua Chen
J Psychiatry Neurosci Aug 2022, 47 (4) E293-E298; DOI: 10.1503/jpn.220075

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Clinical opportunity awaits at the intersection of genomics and brain imaging
Carolina Makowski, Hao Wang, Chi-Hua Chen
J Psychiatry Neurosci Aug 2022, 47 (4) E293-E298; DOI: 10.1503/jpn.220075
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Manuscript Submission Checklist

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1180-4882.

All editorial matter in JPN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.
To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].
View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire