Genome-wide pharmacogenomic study of neurocognition as an indicator of antipsychotic treatment response in schizophrenia
Open accessAbstract
Neurocognitive deficits are a core feature of schizophrenia and, therefore, represent potentially critical outcome variables for assessing antipsychotic treatment response. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with 492K single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a sample of 738 patients with schizophrenia from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness study. Outcome variables consisted of a neurocognitive battery administered at multiple time points over an 18-month period, measuring processing speed, verbal memory, vigilance, reasoning, and working memory domains. Genetic mediation of improvements in each of these five domains plus a composite neurocognitive measure was assessed for each of five antipsychotics (olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone). Six SNPs achieved genome-wide significance using a pre-specified threshold that ensures, on average, only 1 in 10 findings is a false discovery. These six SNPs were located within, or in close proximity to, genes EHF, SLC26A9, DRD2, GPR137B, CHST8, and IL1A. The more robust findings, that is those significant across multiple neurocognitive domains and having adjacent SNPs showing evidence for association, were rs286913 at the EHF gene (p-value 6.99 × 10(-8), q-value 0.034, mediating the effects of ziprasidone on vigilance), rs11240594 at SLC26A9 (p-value 1.4 × 10(-7), q-value 0.068, mediating the effects of olanzapine on processing speed), and rs11677416 at IL1A (p-value 6.67 × 10(-7), q-value 0.081, mediating the effects of olanzapine on working memory). This study has generated several novel candidate genes for antipsychotic response. However, our findings will require replication and functional validation. To facilitate replication efforts, we provide all GWAS p-values for download.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The initial findings on genetic mediation of improvements in neurocognitive deficits will require replication and functional validation.
“Although the possibility of genetic mediation of improvements in neurocognitive deficits is intriguing, the initial findings to date will require replication and functional validation.70”
From Clinical trials of potential cognitive-enhancing drugs in schizophrenia: what have we learned so far? (2013) · cites this paper as [70]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 88 · Cited by 124
- Authors
- McClay, J. L., Adkins, D. E., Åberg, K., Bukszár, J., Khachane, A. N., Keefe, R. S. E., Perkins, D. O., McEvoy, J. P., Stroup, T. S., Vann, R. E., Beardsley, P. M., Lieberman, J. A., Sullivan, P. F., & van den Oord, E. J. C. G.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McClay, Joseph L
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neuropsychopharmacology
- Published
- 2010-11-24
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 616-626
- ISSN
- 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
- 1740-634X
- PMC
- PMC3055694
- OpenAlex
- W1993085390
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Eli Lilly and Company
- Pfizer
- AstraZeneca
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Sunovion
- H. Lundbeck A/S
- National Institutes of Health (n01mh90001-21-0-0)
- Medical Research Council
- National Medical Research Council
- National Institute of Mental Health (N01 MH90001, R01MH077139, K01MH093731, MH074027, N01 MH090001, R01MH074027, MH077139, MH90001)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- schizophrenia, antipsychotic treatment response, neurocognitive function, pharmacogenomics, single nucleotide polymorphisms, EHF, SLC26A9, interleukin-1 alpha, DRD2, olanzapine, ziprasidone, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, processing speed, sustained attention, working memory, verbal memory, genetic mediation
- MeSH terms
- Sulfate Transporters, Adult, Attention, Cognition Disorders, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Pharmacogenetics, Schizophrenia, Time Factors, Antipsychotic Agents, Transcription Factors, Antiporters, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Interleukin-1alpha, 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