Cited by 450Genetic Associations and EpidemiologySchizophrenia research and treatmentGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Genomewide Association Studies: History, Rationale, and Prospects for Psychiatric Disorders

Open access
Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Coordinating Committee·2009·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a review of the history and empirical basis of genomewide association studies (GWAS), the rationale for GWAS of psychiatric disorders, results to date, limitations, and plans for GWAS meta-analyses. METHOD: A literature review was carried out, power and other issues discussed, and planned studies assessed. RESULTS: Most of the genomic DNA sequence differences between any two people are common (frequency >5%) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Because of localized patterns of correlation (linkage disequilibrium), 500,000 to 1,000,000 of these SNPs can test the hypothesis that one or more common variants explain part of the genetic risk for a disease. GWAS technologies can also detect some of the copy number variants (deletions and duplications) in the genome. Systematic study of rare variants will require large-scale resequencing analyses. GWAS methods have detected a remarkable number of robust genetic associations for dozens of common diseases and traits, leading to new pathophysiological hypotheses, although only small proportions of genetic variance have been explained thus far and therapeutic applications will require substantial further effort. Study design issues, power, and limitations are discussed. For psychiatric disorders, there are initial significant findings for common SNPs and for rare copy number variants, and many other studies are in progress. CONCLUSIONS: GWAS of large samples have detected associations of common SNPs and of rare copy number variants with psychiatric disorders. More findings are likely, since larger GWAS samples detect larger numbers of common susceptibility variants, with smaller effects. The Psychiatric GWAS Consortium is conducting GWAS meta-analyses for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Based on results for other diseases, larger samples will be required. The contribution of GWAS will depend on the true genetic architecture of each disorder.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08091354

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • For most GWAS variants associated with neuropsychiatric disease, the molecular mechanisms affecting the brain are poorly understood.

    “for most of these variants, we have little understanding of the molecular mechanisms affecting the brain (7).”
  • There have been multiple meta-analysis consortia in psychiatric genetics, of which the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium is the largest and most encompassing.

    “there have been multiple meta-analysis 146,147 consortia in psychiatric genetics, of which the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (http://pgc.unc.edu) is the largest and most encompassing. 123,148,149”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [78]Faraone SV Sergeant J Gillberg C Biederman J The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: is it an American condition? World Psychiatry 2003 2 2 104 113 16946911 PMC1525089

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Coordinating Committee
Corresponding author
Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Coordinating Committee
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2009-05
Volume
166
Issue
5
Pages
540-556
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2154246724
Cited by
450
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 58
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • STM:n Hallinnonalan avoin julkaisuarkisto (Julkari) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Northwestern University
  • Harvard University
  • State University of New York
  • North Carolina State University
  • Helsingin Yliopisto
  • University of Washington
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • McMaster University
  • Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute
  • NorthShore University HealthSystem
  • Broad Institute
  • University College London
  • Cardiff University
  • Trinity College Dublin
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO 480‐05‐003, 480- 05-003)
  • University of Toronto
  • Universitetet i Oslo
  • Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • University of California, San Diego
  • Feinberg School of Medicine
  • State University of New York Upstate Medical University
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH062276, U01MH094411, U01MH085520, MH085520, R01MH083094, U01MH079470, R01MH061686)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
genome-wide association study, mental illness, single nucleotide polymorphisms, copy number variation, genetic risk, linkage disequilibrium, rare variants, genetic architecture, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, statistical power
MeSH terms
Alleles, Mental Disorders, Humans, Genetic Linkage, Phenotype, Linkage Disequilibrium, Genome, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

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