Cited by 98Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyCognitive Abilities and TestingSchizophrenia research and treatment

Common genetic variation and performance on standardized cognitive tests

Open access
Cirulli, Elizabeth T, Kasperavičiūtė, Dalia, Attix, Deborah K, Need, Anna C, Ge, Dongliang, Gibson, Greg, Goldstein, David B·2010·European Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

One surprising feature of the recently completed waves of genome-wide association studies is the limited impact of common genetic variation in individually detectable polymorphisms on many human traits. This has been particularly pronounced for studies on psychiatric conditions, which have failed to produce clear, replicable associations for common variants. One popular explanation for these negative findings is that many of these traits may be genetically heterogeneous, leading to the idea that relevant endophenotypes may be more genetically tractable. Aspects of cognition may be the most important endophenotypes for psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, leading many researchers to pursue large-scale studies on the genetic contributors of cognitive performance in the normal population as a surrogate for aspects of liability to disease. Here, we perform a genome-wide association study with two tests of executive function, Digit Symbol and Stroop Color-Word, in 1086 healthy volunteers and with an expanded cognitive battery in 514 of these volunteers. We show that, consistent with published studies of the psychiatric conditions themselves, no single common variant has a large effect (explaining >4-8% of the population variation) on the performance of healthy individuals on standardized cognitive tests. Given that these are important endophenotypes, our work is consistent with the idea that identifying rare genetic causes of psychiatric conditions may be more important for future research than identifying genetically homogenous endophenotypes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ejhg.2010.2

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many genetic and epigenetic factors, including multiple rare single nucleotide variants, copy number variations, and other structural variation, likely contribute to common complex diseases.

    “It is now widely believed that many genetic and epigenetic factors are likely to contribute to common complex diseases, including multiple rare SNVs (defined by convention as those that have frequencies < 1%), copy number variations (CNVs), and other forms of structural variation. 3–12”
  • Rare variant effects can manifest as compound heterozygosity, the unmasking of deleterious variants through deletions on a homologous chromosome, and other haplotype context-dependent phenomena.

    “Rare variant effects can manifest as compound heterozygosity,90 the ‘unmasking’ of deleterious variants via deletions on a homologous chromosome12, and other haplotype context-dependent phenomena.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cirulli, E. T., Kasperavičiūtė, D., Attix, D. K., Need, A. C., Ge, D., Gibson, G., & Goldstein, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Goldstein, David B
Venue
European Journal of Human Genetics
Published
2010-02-03
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
815-820
ISSN
  • 1018-4813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5438
OpenAlex
W2031188085
Cited by
98
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2010-06-17)
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
common genetic variants, cognitive performance, executive function, endophenotypes, schizophrenia, digit symbol test, Stroop task, genome-wide association study, psychiatric genetics, genetic heterogeneity, rare variants
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Reference Standards, Genetic Variation, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review