Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology logoLink to International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology
. 2016 Jul 22;19(12):pyw064. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyw064

Identification of Susceptible Loci and Enriched Pathways for Bipolar II Disorder Using Genome-Wide Association Studies

Chung-Feng Kao 1, Hui-Wen Chen 1, Hsi-Chung Chen 1, Jenn-Hwai Yang 1, Ming-Chyi Huang 1, Yi-Hang Chiu 1, Shih-Ku Lin 1, Ya-Chin Lee 1, Chih-Min Liu 1, Li-Chung Chuang 1, Chien-Hsiun Chen 1, Jer-Yuarn Wu 1, Ru-Band Lu 1,✉, Po-Hsiu Kuo 1,✉
PMCID: PMC5203756  PMID: 27450446

Abstract

Background:

This study aimed to identify susceptible loci and enriched pathways for bipolar disorder subtype II.

Methods:

We conducted a genome-wide association scan in discovery samples with 189 bipolar disorder subtype II patients and 1773 controls, and replication samples with 283 bipolar disorder subtype II patients and 500 controls in a Taiwanese Han population using Affymetrix Axiom Genome-Wide CHB1 Array. We performed single-marker and gene-based association analyses, as well as calculated polygeneic risk scores for bipolar disorder subtype II. Pathway enrichment analyses were employed to reveal significant biological pathways.

Results:

Seven markers were found to be associated with bipolar disorder subtype II in meta-analysis combining both discovery and replication samples (P<5.0×10–6), including markers in or close to MYO16, HSP90AB3P, noncoding gene LOC100507632, and markers in chromosomes 4 and 10. A novel locus, ETF1, was associated with bipolar disorder subtype II (P<6.0×10–3) in gene-based association tests. Results of risk evaluation demonstrated that higher genetic risk scores were able to distinguish bipolar disorder subtype II patients from healthy controls in both discovery (P=3.9×10–4~1.0×10–3) and replication samples (2.8×10–4~1.7×10–3). Genetic variance explained by chip markers for bipolar disorder subtype II was substantial in the discovery (55.1%) and replication (60.5%) samples. Moreover, pathways related to neurodevelopmental function, signal transduction, neuronal system, and cell adhesion molecules were significantly associated with bipolar disorder subtype II.

Conclusion:

We reported novel susceptible loci for pure bipolar subtype II disorder that is less addressed in the literature. Future studies are needed to confirm the roles of these loci for bipolar disorder subtype II.

Keywords: genome-wide association, bipolar II disorder, enriched pathways, polygenic score, heritability estimate

Introduction

Bipolar disorder (BP) is a severe mental illness characterized by mood swings between mania and depression. The lifetime prevalence of BP was reported with a range from 0.8% to 4% in the general population (Kessler et al., 2005; Kato, 2007), with great disease burden worldwide (Whiteford et al., 2013). There are 2 main distinct subtypes of BP, bipolar I (BP-I) and bipolar II (BP-II) disorders, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) diagnostic system (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The 2 subtypes demonstrated quite different clinical features, such as episode frequency, comorbidity, family history, etc. (Kukopulos et al., 1980; Coryell et al., 1984; Savino et al., 1993; Pini et al., 1997). For example, BP-II patients tend to experience more evening tiredness and shorter inter-episode well intervals than BP-I patients (Judd et al., 2003; Chung et al., 2012). Moreover, patients with BP-I or BP-II can be distinguished by abnormally functional differences in ventral striatal activity during reward anticipation (Caseras et al., 2013), suggesting distinct neural mechanisms predisposing to mood dysregulation between the BP-I and BP-II groups. Other differences are also reported, such as cerebral glucose metabolism (Ketter et al., 2001), and neurobiological functioning (e.g., the fronto-limbic metabolism and executive function) in brain regions (Li et al., 2012). These observations altogether imply that there might be distinct etiology and genetic mechanisms underlying different subtypes of BP.

With a high heritability estimated around 80% for BP (McGuffin et al., 2003), a strong genetic component is consistently reported by family, twin, and adoption studies, as well as molecular genetic studies (please refer to a review article by Barnett and Smoller, 2009). In particular, large scale genome-wide association (GWA) studies are commonly employed in the last decade to search susceptibility loci for complex human traits (McCarthy et al., 2008). Several GWA studies have identified many loci for the risk of developing BP (The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, 2007; Baum et al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2008; Sklar et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011; Kuo et al., 2014; Muhleisen et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014); however, conclusive and replicated findings are relatively scattered. Some examples are the ANK3 and CACNA1C genes (Ferreira et al., 2008; Muhleisen et al., 2014). To identify disease-associated genetic variants, one of the crucial steps is to define phenotypically homogeneous patient groups. However, patients in previous GWA studies of BP are usually a mixture of the BP-I and BP-II subgroups, with a few focused on only the BP-I subtype (Baum et al., 2008; Sklar et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011; Kuo et al., 2014) but none solely on the BP-II subtype. The BP-II subtype is relatively understudied in many regards.

One important feature of BP is its high comorbidity with other mental disorders. According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication study, 90% of BP patients cooccurred with other psychiatric disorders, especially commonly seen anxiety and substance use disorders (Merikangas et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2012), such as alcohol dependence (Mitchell et al., 2007). Comorbid conditions bring in phenotypic heterogeneity and further complicated the search of genetic risk factors for BP. Due to the nature of phenotypic and etiological complexity in BP, the underlying pathogenesis is not yet fully understood. There is a strong need to minimize phenotypic noises in study samples to better decipher the genetic basis of the less studied BP-II subtype. In our Taiwanese Han BP-II samples, relatively low comorbidities were observed for anxiety and substance use disorders compared with those in Caucasian samples (McElroy et al., 2001; Merikangas et al., 2007), suggesting less concern about the confounding effects of comorbidities in searching for genetic factors.

The present study aimed to identify susceptibility loci for BP-II by conducting a GWA study in the Taiwanese Han population. A replication study using an independent sample was employed to confirm the associated genetic variants identified for BP-II in the discovery stage. Using polygenic genetic risk prediction score (GRS), we demonstrated that the selected markers are capable of separating BP-II patients from healthy controls. Moreover, we estimated the variance explained by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the whole genome level for BP-II in the current study, the so-called chip heritability. We also conducted functional pathway analysis to describe the biological profiles underlying etiological mechanisms of BP-II using the GWA dataset.

Methods

Discovery and Replication Samples

A total of 189 unrelated BP-II patients, including 84 males (44.4%) and 105 females (55.6%), was consecutively recruited from several psychiatric clinics in Taiwan during 2008 and 2012. These index probands, aged between 18 and 70 years old, were clinically diagnosed by psychiatrists according to the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or substance-induced mood disorders were excluded from this study. Demographic and clinical features were obtained by well-trained interviewers using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (Kessler and Ustün, 2004) and the Chinese version of the modified Schedule of Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia-Lifetime (Endicott and Spitzer, 1978). The concordance for BP diagnosis between the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and DSM-IV was excellent, with a kappa coefficient of 0.94 (Merikangas et al., 2007). More detailed information of patients’ ascertainment and interview procedures were described elsewhere (Lai et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2012). In our BP-II patients, 24 subjects and 16 subjects had comorbidity with anxiety and substance use disorders, respectively, indicating a lower degree of phenotypic heterogeneity than patients in most of the previous GWA studies in Caucasian samples (Merikangas et al., 2007; Sublette et al., 2009). This study was approved by the institutional review board of all the participating hospitals. All participants provided written informed consent.

Healthy controls were randomly selected from a pool of 3380 healthy controls recruited from the community subjects of the Han Chinese Cell and Genome Bank (HCCGB) in Taiwan. The recruitment details were documented elsewhere (Pan et al., 2011). In brief, controls were recruited from 329 nonaboriginal township or city districts in Taiwan using a stratified, 3-stage clustering sampling design. Of the 3380 controls, 1773 controls (nearly equal proportions of males and females) with a Taiwanese Han ancestry, who were found to have no definite diagnosis of any major medical or mental illnesses, underwent genotyping at the genome-wide level and were treated as controls in this sample. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. In total, the discovery samples consisted of 189 unrelated BP-II patients and 1773 healthy controls.

To conduct a replication study for the initial findings, we recruited 283 additional unrelated BP-II patients from psychiatric clinics in Taiwan. All participants were evaluated with an interview by an attending psychiatrist and followed by a more detailed interview with a clinical psychologist using the Chinese version of modified Schedule of Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia-Lifetime to determine DSM-IV diagnoses, which has good inter-rater reliability as aforementioned. For more detailed information regarding ascertainment and measurement, please refer to Huang et al. (2004). Patients with major mental illnesses other than BP (e.g., borderline personality disorder, drug dependence, and cognitive disorders) were excluded. We used the 2-day minimum for hypomania in the diagnosis of BP-II. In the replication samples, there were no subjects with comorbidity of either anxiety or substance use disorders. Similarly, healthy controls were from the HCCGB. We randomly selected 500 healthy controls without overlapping with the 1773 controls in the discovery samples. All participants provided written informed consent. The replication samples were used to confirm initial findings, which included association analysis (i.e., single-marker and gene-based association tests), risk evaluation, and heritability estimate.

Genotyping Data and Quality Controls

Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood using the Puregene DNA isolation kit (Gentra Systems, Minneapolis, MN). We used the Affymetrix (San Francisco, CA) Axiom Genome-Wide CHB1 Array Plate for both the discovery and replication samples, and genotyping was conducted at the National Center for Genome Medicine, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. Genotype calling was performed using the standard procedure with the default parameters suggested by the platform manufacturer. Genotyping validation was performed using the Sequenom iPLEX assay (Sequenom MassARRAY system; Sequenom, San Diego, CA) at National Center for Genome Medicine. For the discovery samples, a total of 1962 subjects was genotyped with 628132 SNPs. Similarly, 783 subjects were genotyped in the replication samples. The genotyping call rate was 98.8% for all subjects.

Quality control procedures were done firstly with each individual, including sample quality, kinship, and population stratification. We used Dish sample quality control (DQC) to monitor nonpolymorphic locations to specify signal and background channels. DQC is the recommended quality control metric for Axiom genome-wide arrays in genotyping console software (http://www.mscience.com.au/upload/pages/axiom/axiom_bos1_faq.pdf) where the genomic sequence/allele is known. We discarded 3 subjects whose DQC values were not satisfactory. Additionally, 15 subjects were excluded due to the overall call rate <97%. We also computed plate pass rate (samples passing DQC and 97% call rate divided by total samples on the plate) to check plate-wise genotyping biases. Samples with plate pass rate >95% and average call rate of passing sample >99% were retained in the analysis. No sample was removed during this step. Second, we checked inbreeding coefficient and identity by state, so that samples with strong kinship were eliminated. In total, 56 individuals (8 BP-II patients and 48 healthy controls) were removed from the discovery samples due to having similarity measures far away from the clustering (supplementary Figure 1). Third, we used multidimensional scaling analysis on the genome-wide identity by state pairwise distance to eliminate 8 samples, which were outliers away from the clustering on the scatter plot (supplementary Figure 2). As a result, 1880 subjects, including 181 BP-II patients and 1699 healthy controls were retained (details please refer to supplementary Table 1). For the replication samples, following the same quality control procedures for individuals, 12 BP-II subjects were removed from the replication samples, resulting in a total of 771 subjects, including 271 BP-II patients and 500 healthy controls in the following analyses.

We also performed quality control procedures for markers. We removed markers if they failed Hardy-Weinberg tests with P < .0001, genotype missing rate >5%, minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.05, or had bad calling in clustering. We also compared B allele frequency of 2 groups (i.e., cases vs the whole sample, controls vs the whole sample) to remove markers whose difference in B allele frequency was >2%. As a result, a total of 557169 SNPs in the discovery samples, and 559196 SNPs in the replication samples were retained for imputation.

Imputation and Gene Mapping

Imputation was carried out using IMPUTE2 v3 (Howie et al., 2009), with haplotype reference panels released in March/April 2012 from the 1000 Genomes Project on the basis of HapMap build 37 (https://mathgen.stats.ox.ac.uk/impute/data_download_1000G_phase1_integrated_SHAPEIT2.html). Only imputed SNPs with high genotype information content (i.e., IMPUTE info score >0.5) were used in association analyses. In total, 29495 018 SNPs and 29488 193 SNPs were imputed with high confidence for each individual in the discovery and replication samples, respectively. Following the same quality control procedures for markers, 4222038 SNPs and 4209 610 SNPs were retained in the discovery and replication samples for analyses, respectively. Using 20kb upstream and downstream of the gene boundaries, each of the 4222 038 SNPs (discovery samples) and 4209 610 SNPs (replication samples) were all mapped into 17619 protein-coding genes. The genomic inflation factor was 0.98 in the discovery samples (supplementary Figure 3) and 1.01 in the replication samples under additive genetic model, indicating less concern about population structure and genotyping error.

Genetic Association Analyses

We performed single-marker association and gene-based association tests for BP-II. Logistic regression analysis was performed with an additive genetic model. All models were adjusted for gender and age to correct for different distributions in gender and age across BP-II patients and healthy controls. SNPs with P < 5×10–6, combined from the discovery and the replication samples, were considered to be suggestive and reported in single-marker association analysis.

We conducted gene-based association analysis using PLINK. To reduce computational load arises from gene-level analysis in the scale of whole genome with 50000 permutations, we conducted a multi-stage analysis to obtain a gene-level empirical significance estimation (Liu et al., 2010). Information from a set of SNPs (association P < .1) within a gene was aggregated. To account for linkage disequilibrium (LD) among markers, only SNPs having r 2<0.5 with each other were retained for each gene. We also fitted logistic regression models to perform multi-stage gene-based association tests. Empirical P values were calculated with at most 50000 permutations. We first conducted standard gene-based analysis using PLINK with 100 permutations for the whole genome. If a gene with resulting P ≤ .1, then 500 permutations were performed for the selected genes. If a gene with resulting P ≤ .02, then 2000 permutations were performed for the selected genes. If a gene with resulting P ≤ .005, then 50000 permutations were performed for the selected genes. We reported genes with P ≤ 5×10–4 in the discovery samples.

Finally, to combine results from the discovery and replication samples, meta-analysis was applied. We used the inverse Gamma model with a shape parameter (α) of 0.1 (Zaykin et al., 2007) to summarize association information across the 2 samples.

Risk Evaluation

Recently, we proposed a GRS method (Kao et al., 2014) and successfully applied it to evaluate the risk information in a prioritized candidate-gene set of BP. Markers in weak LD (r 2<0.2) with each other were selected to calculate GRS. We further utilized 3 thresholds (association P < .001, .005, and .01) to prune the SNPs for risk evaluation. Markers were selected from the discovery samples, and the distributions of GRS between BP-II patients and healthy controls were then compared in both the discovery and replication samples in the present study. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to examine the distributions of GRS between BP-II patients and healthy controls.

Heritability Estimate

We conducted the genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA) via the restricted maximum likelihood to estimate the variance explained by all the SNPs on the whole genome scale for BP-II (Yang et al., 2011). In brief, we first calculated the genetic relationship matrix (GRM) between any of 2 individuals from genome-wide SNPs. For each pair of individuals, we discarded one individual whose relationship in GRM is greater than a cutoff value of 0.025. As a result, a total of 1880 and 771 unrelated individuals from the discovery and the replication samples were retained to estimate genetic variance explained by SNPs in the chip. We fitted a mixed model using the GRM on a binary disease trait to estimate the variance explained by genome-wide SNPs. All models were corrected for the prediction error derived from the MAF of causal variants to obtain an unbiased estimate of heritability. We specified a range of disease prevalence (i.e., 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.05) to transform the estimated heritability from the observed scale to liability scale. The settings of prevalence were based on prior prevalence estimation for BP in the general population (Kessler et al., 2005; Kato, 2007).

Pathway-Based Enrichment Analysis

We conducted pathway analyses to examine the common processes and biological mechanisms for BP-II using the identified susceptible genes. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), BioCarta, Reactome, and Gene Ontology (GO) terms were used for functional annotation and enrichment analyses. In total, 2784 pathways were analyzed. A total of 452 genes having P < .01 in gene-based association analysis or the genes with at least one SNP having P < .001 in single-marker association analysis were selected for pathway analysis. Hypergeometric test was performed using the web-based Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (http://www.broadinstitute.org/gsea/index.jsp) and a pathway with a P < 5×10–3 after Bonferroni correction was considered significant.

Results

In single-marker association analyses, 25 SNPs with odds ratios ranging from 1.70 to 2.57 were reported to have suggestive signals, which are listed in Table 1. Of these, 8 markers were mapped to 4 known genes, including KCNAB2 (supplementary Figure 4), MYO16 (supplementary Figure 5), NTRK3 (supplementary Figure 6), and LOC100507632 (supplementary Figure 7). The former 3 are coding genes. LOC100507632, located in chromosome 8, is a gene coding for a long intergenic RNA. In addition, there were 4 SNPs located nearby 2 gene regions, HSP90AB3P (rs77034375, rs3828554, and rs62318301) and FLRT2 (rs61212586). The remaining 13 SNPs were not mapped to any gene regions. Among the 25 SNPs listed in Table 1, 7 of them were replicated (highlighted in gray in Table 1) with a combined P ≤ 5.0×10–6, including 2 SNPs in MYO16 (rs9583266, P = 2.3×10–6; rs2182501, P = 3.3×10–6), 3 SNPs close to HSP90AB3P(rs77034375, P = 2.5×10–7; rs3828554, P = 2.2×10–7; rs62318301, P = 5.4×10–7), 1 SNP in chromosome 4 (rs114640425, P = 9.6×10–7), and another SNP in chromosome 10 (rs10887909, P = 7.8×10–7). Detailed information of the 7 replicated markers is shown in supplementary Table 2. Results of gene-based association analyses are listed in Table 2. Ten genes showed suggestive signals (P < 5.0×10–4), while only one gene, ETF1, was replicated with a gene-based P value of 0.006.

Table 1.

Results of Single Marker Associations for Bipolar II Disorder

SNP CHR: Position Mapped Gene Minor/Major Allele Chip / Impute Discovery Samples Replication Samples Meta-Analysis P Value
MAF (case/control) P Value OR MAF (case/control) P Value OR
rs3789559 1:6105109 KCNAB2 T/C Chip 0.425/0.314 2.1×10–6 1.76 0.320/0.318 0.92 1.01 5.5×10–6
rs3789560 1:6104715 KCNAB2 G/A Impute 0.427/0.317 2.4×10–6 1.77 0.322/0.322 0.98 1.00 6.2×10–6
rs3789556 1:6108863 KCNAB2 G/A Impute 0.415/0.300 2.5×10–6 1.78 0.306/0.308 0.97 0.99 6.5×10–6
rs77034375 4:88815986 Nearby HSP90AB3P T/C Impute 0.124/0.062 1.9×10–6 2.53 0.096/0.057 7.0×10–3 1.76 6.8×10 –7
rs3828554 4:88813875 Nearby HSP90AB3P C/T Impute 0.121/0.060 2.9×10–6 2.53 0.096/0.055 4.0×10–3 1.84 6.6×10 –7
rs62318301 4:88811182 Nearby HSP90AB3P G/A Impute 0.119/0.059 4.9×10–6 2.49 0.093/0.055 6.0×10–3 1.79 1.5×10 –6
rs114640425 4:37761675 G/C Impute 0.143/0.075 3.2×10–6 2.49 0.103/0.066 1.7×10–2 1.60 2.2×10 –6
rs6991165 8:57435745 LOC100507632
(LINC00968)		 A/G Chip 0.481/0.353 4.8×10–6 1.70 0.373/0.374 0.96 0.99 1.2×10–5
rs10887909 10:90857775 A/G Impute 0.438/0.326 2.9×10–6 1.73 0.384/0.320 1.5×10–2 1.32 1.8×10 –6
rs9583266 13:109250314 MYO16 A/G Impute 0.195/0.105 1.7×10–6 2.06 0.140/0.109 8.0×10–2 1.35 3.0×10 –6
rs2182501 13:109255438 MYO16 C/T Impute 0.196/0.108 3.3×10–6 2.01 0.143/0.109 6.0×10–2 1.38 5.0×10 –6
rs66581286 13:109259587 MYO16 A/G Impute 0.193/0.106 3.6×10–6 2.01 0.137/0.106 0.09 1.34 6.7×10–6
rs11619281 13:109225931 G/A Impute 0.231/0.138 3.6×10–6 2.27 0.179/0.150 0.14 1.25 7.9×10–6
rs34497953 13:109226359 C/T Impute 0.231/0.138 3.6×10–6 2.27 0.179/0.150 0.14 1.25 7.9×10–6
rs35218525 13:109179086 G/A Impute 0.243/0.148 4.0×10–6 1.89 0.187/0.161 0.19 1.22 9.5×10–6
rs11616644 13:109169847 C/T Impute 0.232/0.139 4.0×10–6 1.90 0.187/0.155 0.11 1.27 8.0×10–6
rs11616603 13:109171415 G/A Impute 0.236/0.142 4.0×10–6 1.89 0.188/0.158 0.13 1.25 8.5×10–6
rs11616630 13:109171673 C/A Impute 0.236/0.143 4.1×10–6 1.89 0.188/0.158 0.13 1.25 8.7×10–6
rs4771589 13:109182384 T/G Impute 0.243/0.149 4.2×10–6 1.89 0.187/0.161 0.19 1.22 9.9×10–6
rs71439369 13:109196377 T/C Impute 0.237/0.143 4.6×10–6 1.88 0.183/0.160 0.25 1.19 1.1×10–5
rs1924345 13:109189032 C/T Impute 0.243/0.149 4.6×10–6 1.88 0.191/0.162 0.14 1.24 1.0×10–5
rs1924348 13:109191801 G/A Impute 0.236/0.143 4.8×10–6 1.88 0.188/0.159 0.14 1.25 1.0×10–5
rs2147148 13:109190538 G/A Impute 0.236/0.143 4.8×10–6 1.88 0.188/0.159 0.14 1.25 1.0×10–5
rs61212586 14:86123937 Nearby FLRT2 A/G Impute 0.275/0.163 4.6×10–6 1.94 0.150/0.153 0.84 0.97 1.2×10–5
rs16941261 15: 88655520 NTRK3 C/G Impute 0.129/0.069 3.9×10–6 2.57 0.068/0.070 0.87 0.96 1.0×10–5
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CHR, chromosome; MAF, minor allele frequency; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

Association analyses using logistic regression with an additive model while adjusted for gender and age.

P values in meta-analysis were calculated based on the inverse gamma method and we reported SNPs (highlighted in gray) with combined P value <5×10–6.

Table 2.

Results of Gene-Based Association Analyses for Bipolar II Disorder

Gene Number of SNPs within a Gene Number of SNPs Having P < .1 Number of SNPs Having P < .1 and r2<0.5 Empirical P Value
Discovery Samples Replication Samples Discovery Samples Replication Samples Discovery Samples Replication Samples Discovery Samples Replication Samples
AL355490.1 59 58 1 1 1 1 2.0×10–5 .25
RRP12 190 182 4 3 1 1 2.0×10–5 .28
KCNAB2 40 40 7 0 2 0 1.0×10–4 1
TLL2 377 375 2 6 1 2 1.2×10–4 .89
PJA2 42 37 1 2 1 1 3.6×10–4 .33
VSIG10 126 111 12 6 1 2 3.8×10–4 .41
CDKL4 78 75 66 8 1 1 4.2×10–4 .15
IWS1 204 198 111 17 3 2 4.4×10–4 .36
MAP4K3 203 194 160 6 1 1 4.8×10–4 .46
ETF1 52 51 38 50 1 1 4.9×10–4 6.0×10–3
Open in a new tab

We reported genes with empirical P < 5×10–4 based on 50,000 permutations in the discovery samples. All models were adjusted for gender and age. Gene highlighted in gray was successfully replicated in the replication samples.

Comparisons of GRS distributions between BP-II and healthy controls are displayed in Table 3. For the discovery/replication samples, a total of 1144/1097, 6046/5876 and 13023/11416 independent markers were retained for GRS analyses, which corresponded to different association thresholds at P<.001, .005, and .01, respectively. Our results showed that BP-II patients had significantly higher GRS than controls at the 3 thresholds, and P values ranged from 3.9×10–4 to 1.0×10–3 for the discovery samples and 2.8×10–4 to 1.7×10–3 for the replication samples. Therefore, the selected marker sets from the discovery samples had the capability to distinguish BP-II patients from healthy controls not only in the discovery samples but also in the replication samples using the GRS method.

Table 3.

Results of the Genetic Risk Score (GRS) in the Discovery and Replication Samples

Difference Test
Discovery Samples Replication Samples
Threshold at P Value (P*) No. of SNPs
Having P< P*		 No. of SNPs Having
P< P*& Low LD
(r2<0.2)		 P Value No. of SNPs Having
P< P* & Low LD
(r2<0.2)		 P Value
.001 1302 1144 1.0×10–3 1097 1.7×10–3
.005 6706 6046 3.9×10–4 5876 2.8×10–4
.01 13023 11735 1.5×10–3 11416 2.0×10–3
Open in a new tab

P Value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test to examine different distributions of GRS between BP-II patients and healthy controls.

Table 4 showed heritability estimated from all SNPs for BP-II in the discovery and replication samples. Only SNPs with MAF≥0.05 were retained for heritability estimates. The phenotypic variances explained by these SNPs for BP-II ranged from 35.85% to 55.11% in the discovery samples (P=9.2×10–5), and 39.33% to 60.47% in the replication samples (P=1.8×10–2), given the prevalence of BP-II equals 1~5%.

Table 4.

Estimation of Variance Explained by Genome-Wide SNPs

Sample Genetic Variance, Vg (s.e.) Residual Variance, Ve (s.e.) Phenotypic Variance, Vp (s.e.) Heritability Estimate, h2 (s.e.)
Not Adjusted by Disease Prevalence Adjusted by Disease Prevalence
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Discovery 0.0684 (0.019) 0.0938 (0.019) 0.1622 (0.005) 0.4217 (0.119) 0.3585 (0.101) 0.4258 (0.120) 0.4753 (0.134) 0.5160 (0.146) 0.5511 (0.156)
Replication 0.1481 (0.074) 0.0798 (0.073) 0.2279 (0.012) 0.6498 (0.320) 0.3933 (0.193) 0.4671 (0.230) 0.5214 (0.256) 0.5660 (0.279) 0.6047 (0.297)
Open in a new tab

h 2 =Vg/ Vp represents the estimate of variance explained by the genome-wide SNPs on the observed scale. Adjusted h 2 represents the estimate of variance explained by genome-wide SNPs, taking into account the prevalence of bipolar II disorder from the general population.

Results of the pathway analyses for BP-II are displayed in Table 5. Twenty-four biological pathways were associated with BP-II. The top 7 pathways are neurological system process, transmembrane transporter activity, apoptosis, programmed cell death, developmental biology, neuronal system, and gastrin CREB signaling pathway via PKC and MAPK. These pathways are involved with neurodevelopmental function, signal transduction, and immune and inflammation response, suggesting their roles in the pathological mechanisms underlying BP-II.

Table 5.

Results of the Pathway Enrichment Analysis for Bipolar II Disorder

Pathway No. Genes in Gene-Set # Genes Overlapping with Our Gene List P Value Adjusted P Value
Neurological system process (GO) 379 18 3.4×10–8 1.2×10–5
Transmembrane transporter activity (GO) 375 17 1.6×10–7 3.1×10–5
Apoptosis (GO) 431 17 1.1×10–6 1.6×10–4
Programmed cell death (GO) 432 17 1.1×10–6 1.6×10–4
Developmental biology (Reactome) 396 16 1.6×10–6 1.9×10–4
Neuronal system (Reactome) 279 13 3.3×10–6 3.3×10–4
Gastrin CREB signaling pathway via PKC and MAPK (Reactome) 205 11 5.0×10–6 4.6×10–4
Regulation of apoptosis (GO) 341 14 6.1×10–6 5.1×10–4
Axon guidance (Reactome) 251 12 6.1×10–6 5.1×10–4
Regulation of development process (GO) 440 16 6.2×10–6 5.1×10–4
Regulation of programmed cell death (GO) 342 14 6.3×10–6 5.1×10–4
Substrate specific transporter activity (GO) 392 15 6.6×10–6 5.2×10–4
Substrate specific transmembrane transporter activity (GO) 344 14 6.7×10–6 5.2×10–4
G alpha Q signaling events (Reactome) 184 10 1.2×10–5 8.8×10–4
Transmission across chemical synapses (Reactome) 186 10 1.3×10–5 9.4×10–4
Sensory perception (GO) 190 10 1.6×10–5 1.1×10–3
Ion transmembrane transporter activity (GO) 278 12 1.7×10–5 1.2×10–3
Ligase activity (GO) 97 7 4.1×10–5 2.4×10–3
Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) (KEGG) 134 8 4.6×10–5 2.6×10–3
MAPK signaling pathway (KEGG) 267 11 5.8×10–5 3.2×10–3
Neuroactive ligand receptor interaction (KEGG) 272 11 6.8×10–5 3.7×10–3
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) (KEGG) 76 6 8.9×10–5 4.5×10–3
Nervous system development (GO) 385 13 9.6×10–5 4.7×10–3
Ion channel activity (GO) 149 8 9.7×10–5 4.7×10–3
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: GO, Gene Ontology terms; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.

P values were calculated using hypergeometric test; adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni correction. We reported pathways with P < 5×10–3 after Bonferroni correction. Our gene list consists of 452 genes that selected from gene-based association analysis (only genes with P < .01) and single-marker association analysis (only genes with at least one SNP having P < .001) for pathway analysis.

Discussion

This study reported results of the first GWA study focusing on BP-II in the Taiwanese Han population. In addition to a pure patient group with BP-II diagnosis, one specific feature in our samples is low comorbidity rate with other psychiatric disorders. Patients with BP are reported to have high comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders, especially anxiety and subsutance use disorders (Grabski et al., 2008). Such high comorbidities may confound the results and further complicate our interpretation to the genetic findings. The BP-II patients in our discovery samples had a low comorbidity rate in either anxiety or subsutance use disorders, and patients with either comorbid condition were excluded from the replication samples. Therefore, our patients are phenotypically more homogeneous, and the genetic findings are less likely to be confounded by comorbidity status. On the other hand, the sample size in this study is relatively moderate compared with previous large-scale consortium-based GWA studies in psychiatric disorders. We estimated power using oberved effect sizes and MAFs from reported loci (Table 1) assuming disease prevalence of 1%~5%, and the power varies widely in different marker settings, ranging from 0.24 to 0.81. Consequently, results reported in the present study are all within the suggestive range but did not reach genome-wide statistical significance level (Duggal et al., 2008). Despite limited power, some replication attempts were successful using an independent sample of BP-II.

We reported 7 replicated susceptible loci of BP-II (i.e., rs77034375, rs3828554, rs62318301, rs114640425, rs10887909, rs9583266, and rs2182501). These markers are mapped to MYO16 gene or close to HSP90AB3P gene. In addition, a few loci are located in regions of noncoding transcripts. MYO16 is expressed predominantly in hippocampal neurons to regulate synaptic cytoskeleton in neurocognitive developmental disorders (Liu et al., 2015). Previous evidence suggested that common variants within the MYO16 gene contribute to the genetic liability of schizophrenia (Rodriguez-Murillo et al., 2014). It is known that schizophrenia and BP might share some common pathophysiology (Konopaske et al., 2014). Thus, genetic findings within this gene may not be specific to BP-II but a more common genetic liability to severe psychiatric disorders. On the other hand, we could not find any hint between HSP90AB3P and BP in the literature. Further studies are needed to explore its role in BP-II.

Moreover, to explore the potential roles of the seven markers as expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL), we used HaploReg (http://compbio.mit.edu/HaploReg) (Ward and Kellis, 2012) to search gene regulation databases, and results are shown in supplementary Table 4. We found that only rs10887909 exhibited direct eQTL effects (in total 3 hits) in regulating expressions of FAS and STAMBPL1|AL157394.15|ACTA2 in blood and subcutaneous tissues. The other 6 markers do not act as eQTLs, but markers in high LD (r 2≥0.8) with them are predicted to be eQTLs, which regulated several gene expressions, including PKD2 (blood tissue), RELL1 (lung tissue), PGM2 (dendritic cells), FAS (blood tissue), STAMBPL1|AL157394.15|ACTA2 (subcutaneous tissue), and HOXA5 (peripheral blood monocytes tissue). Some of these genes were previously reported as susceptible loci for brain or neuro-related traits. For instance, FAS gene was reported to be associated with neurotic degeneration in brain volume of Alzheimer’s patients (Erten-Lyons et al., 2009). STAMBPL1 gene regulates Tax trafficking and NF-κB activation in neuroinflammation process (Lavorgna and Harhaj, 2012). PKD2 gene was reported as a risk locus for handedness and brain asymmetry that have been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders such as dyslexia (Brandler and Paracchini, 2013).

Many psychiatric disorders demonstrate strong connection with immune dysregulation (Wang et al., 2015). Previous studies showed that epithelial cells in foreskin, breast and lung play roles in upregulating potent immunogenic cytokines or chemokines to induce an immune response (Gunther et al., 2009; Slight et al., 2013). Interestingly, we found that rs6991165 (P=1.2×10–5) in LOC100507632 gene was associated with BP-I. This SNP is mapped to a long intergenic noncoding RNA (lincRNA: LINC00968) with 7 known transcripts. The biological functions of LOC100507632 gene in human are not yet clear. We checked the noncoding RNA database of GR.h37.75 (hg19) version from ENSEMBL (http://www.ensembl.org/index.html) and found that this lincRNA tends to express more in epithelial cells, including foreskin (3.981 fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads [FPKM]), breast (1.323 FPKM), and lung (0.865 FPKM) tissues. The LOC100507632 gene may play roles in BP-II through immune-related system.

In gene-based association analyses, we reported 10 susceptible loci to be associated with BP-II in the discovery samples. Among them, only one gene, ETF1 (eukaryotic translation termination factor 1) was replicated (P=.006). Replication of this finding in an independent sample increased its credibility. We also found that all overlapping markers in ETF1 gene in the discovery and replication samples are in the same association directions. The ETF1 gene, located in the 5q31, plays important roles in regulating the activity in translational termination process and transcriptional regulation (Guenet et al., 1999). We considered that the associations of ETF1 gene are more specific to BP-II but not with other psychiatric disorders, which benefit from more homogeneous phenotypic presentations in our samples. Using the publically available Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) GWA data of BP, major depressive disorder (MDD), and schizophrenia (SCZ), we found no association for markers in the ETF1 gene with all of these traits. In particular, the PGC-BP GWA data consist of mainly BP-I (84%) and fewer BP-II (11%) patients in their discovery samples (Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group, 2011). Their genetic findings are thus mainly attributed to BP-I but not BP-II subtype. Hence, we tend to consider that the ETF1 gene is a novel and specific susceptible locus for the risk of developing BP-II in the Taiwanese population. Other than the ETF1 gene, several other genes maybe also interesting targets for BP-II, in particular the KCNAB2 gene. Although the association is not replicated in an independent sample, markers in this gene also exhibited associations with BP-II in single-marker analyses. The KCNAB2 gene encodes for β-subunit of the voltage-gated K+ channel. Lack of the β-subunit reduces K+ channel-mediated membrane repolarization and increases neuronal excitability, which are related to the development of seizures (Heilstedt et al., 2001). Seizure-related disorders and their subsequent behavioral symptoms caused by dyfunctions of the central nervous system are often linked with psychiatric disorders (Tucker, 1998; Tellez-Zenteno et al., 2007), providing clues for the roles of KCNAB2 in neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Compared with genetic findings in previous GWA studies of BP or BP-I (The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, 2007; Baum et al., 2008; Ferreira et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011; Kuo et al., 2014; Muhleisen et al., 2014), there are no overlapping genes reported in this GWA study of BP-II. Previous susceptibility loci included ANK3, ODZ4, DGKH, SP8, ST8SIA2, KCTD12, CACNB2, KCNH7, MYST4, NRXN3, SEMA3D, PALB2, ITIH3, CACNA1C, among others. However, none of these genes showed P < 5.0×10–4 in the current study. This may suggest that many of the previously reported loci are BP-I specific or the common causes for BP in general. On the other hand, among the 10 associated genes reported in Table 2 in the discovery samples, 3 genes are ever reported to be associated with BP or BP-I in candidate gene association studies, including RRP12 (Byrne et al., 2014), TLL2 (de Mooij-van Malsen et al., 2013), and PJA2 (Ryan et al., 2006) genes.

Polygenic risk scores are commonly adopted in prior GWA studies for the discovery samples (Middeldorp et al., 2011; Whalley et al., 2012). One previous study calculated GRS in subtypes of BP using a sample of 669 subjects (255 BP patients and 414 controls). Aminoff et al. (2015) reported significantly higher scores for the BP patients than controls but no differences between the two BP subtypes (BP-I versus BP-II) based on the polygenic architecture. In the current study, our GRS analysis demonstrated clear seperation between BP-II patients and healthy controls in the discovery samples, and these results further validated in the replication samples. Therefore, the GRS derived from our discovery samples are able to predict BP-II in the replication samples. Due to a certain degree of the genetic overlapping across psychiatric disorders (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015a), it is of interest to know whether loci identified from previous GWA studies of other psychiatric disorders could be used to predict BP-II. Similarly, we used PGC GWA data of BP, MDD, and SCZ for the analyses, and results are displayed in supplementary Table 5. In brief, associated loci identified from these GWA datasets could not predict the risk of BP-II in either the discovery or replication samples, except for PGC-SCZ, which showed some predictability for the risk of BP-II in the discovery samples (P=.008~.03). However, we need to explain these results with caution. The PGC GWA datasets consisted of mainly Caucasian populations, which are different from our Taiwanese samples. Additionally, PGC-BP data consisted of mainly BP-I subtype rather than BP-II patients, which may limit the predictability of PGC-BP data on BP-II subtype. Alternatively, we could calculate cross-trait LD score (Bulik-Sullivan et al., 2015a, 2015b) to estimate genetic correlations between BP-II and PGC BP/MDD/SCZ datasets. We found that the genetic correlation is the highest for PGC-SCZ (0.50), followed by PGC-BP (0.39), and PGC-MDD (0.37) (results are in supplementary Figure 8), which is consistent with the GRS analyses results. In the future, in addition to genetic data, to include more clinical variables, such as family history or symptom characteristics may further enhance our ability to make good prediciton for complex disorders like BP-II.

We calculated the variance explained by SNPs using the GCTA method. With common genome-wide SNPs, the estimated heritability was up to 55.1% in the discovery samples and 60.5 % in the replication samples in the present study. One previous study reported that the heritability of BP-II is 0.58 in a Norwegian sample (Edvardsen et al., 2008), which is quite close to the heritability estimation using GCTA in the current study. However, if we used a selected marker set, such as SNPs with P values less than a preset threshold, the variance explained was down to 17~39% (3~12%) in the discovery samples (replication samples) using 1144~3023 (1097~11416) independent markers (supplementary Table 3), which echoes prior observations that most of the heritability may not be detected due to a lack of power and small effect size of individual SNPs.

We reported 24 enriched pathways for BP-II, including 4 pathways from KEGG, 6 pathways from Reactome, and 14 pathways from GO terms. In addition to commonly studied pathways such as developmental biology and neurological system process, the cell adhesion molecule pathway is the most significant one in the KEGG database. The process of binding with other cells or extracellular matrix is important in neuronal activity and immune system and inflammation response, and may contribute to psychiatric phenotypes (Rosen, 2004; Ohtsubo and Marth, 2006). For instance, it is reported that neuronal cell adhesions are relevant to synaptic formation and neurotransmission at glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses in schizophrenia and BP (O’Dushlaine et al., 2011), which suggest the roles of cell adhesion molecules in BP (Muhleisen et al., 2014). The identified pathway of the neurological system process is also an important one. Previously, we reported 233 prioritized candidate-genes for BP (namely BPDgenes) from multi-dimensional data sources (Kao et al., 2014). There are 17 overlapping genes (CLRN1, DRD4, GCH1, GRIA1, GRIK1, GRIN2B, GRM1, HTR3B, HTR6, KCNMA1, KCNQ3, KLK8, NOVA1, SLC6A4, SYN3, and TGFB2) between the BPDgenes and genes in this pathway. Modulation of dopamine (DRD4), serotonergic (SLC6A4, HTR3B), glutamate signaling and regulation (GRIN2B), and ion channel (KCNQ3) are all important candidates in previous genetic studies of BP and subtypes of BP (Hammer et al., 2012). For instance, SLC6A4 is reported to be associated with BP-II in a Taiwanese sample (Wang et al., 2014). In addition, a recent gene expression study reported that epigenetic variation in KCNQ3 may result in dysregulated ion channel function, leading to neuronal hyperexcitability and thus potentially contributing to the pathophysiology of BP (Kaminsky et al., 2015).

There are some limitations in the current study. First, our limited sample size due to the difficulty in diagnosis and recruitment of BP-II patients might result in low power to detect loci with less effect. In general, BP-II is considered to be more difficult to diagnose reliably than BP-I (Andreasen et al., 1981). We estimated that the power to detect loci in our meta-analysis with the observed effect sizes is modest, ranging from 0.24 to 0.81 given the disease prevalence of 1%~5%. Further replication studies in a larger sample are needed to confirm our findings. Second, our pathway analyses relied on the accuracy and completeness of pathway annotation databases. We used 5 commonly adopted annotations, including KEGG, BioCarta, Reactome, canonical pathways, and GO terms. Among our selected 452 genes, only 437 genes were entered for pathway analyses. Some genes that may have potential impacts on BP-II but are not annotated in pathway databases were excluded from our analyses, and thus may sligtly bias the pathway results. For example, the KAT6B gene (also known as MYST4, located at 10q22.2) was reported as a candidate gene for BP-I (Kuo et al., 2014) but not in any of the pathway databases. Other datasets, such as curated gene sets and positional gene sets, can be considered in future analysis. Lastly, we estimated the variance explained by selected SNPs on the whole genome level for BP-II; however, some BP-II related loci might not be included, such as rare variants. Large-scale GWA studies of BP-II or deep sequencing studies can assist to enhance our understanding about the pathogenesis of BP-II.

In summary, we reported a few risk loci for BP-II in the current study. To our best knowledge, this is the first GWA study soley focused on BP-II. We suggest that ETF1 is a novel candidate gene for BP-II, and markers that mapped to MYO16 and KCNAB2 or close to HSP90AB3P, and non-coding gene LOC100507632 are also potential targets for BP-II. Many previously reported loci of bipolar disorder in the literature might be BP-I specific. We also showed that neurodevelopmental function, signal transduction, neuronal system, and cell adhesion molecules pathways are invovled in the development of BP-II. Further studies and experiments are needed to confirm our findings.

Statement of Interest

None.

Supplementary Material

supplementary Figure 1
ijnp_pyw064_index.html (711B, html)

Acknowledgments

We thank Translational Resource Center for Genomic Medicine of National Research Program for Biopharmaceuticals for their data service. We also thank Taiwan HCCGB of Academic Sinica that provided controls data and computational support. We thank the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), which makes genotyping data publically available. GWA datasets of bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia were downloaded from https://www.med.unc.edu/pgc/results-and-downloads. We also thank Po-Chang Hsiao for his IT support.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST 102-2314-B-002-117-MY3 to Dr. Po-Hsiu Kuo).

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aminoff SR, Tesli M, Bettella F, Aas M, Lagerberg TV, Djurovic S, Andreassen OA, Melle I. (2015) Polygenic risk scores in bipolar disorder subgroups. J Affect Disord 183:310–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreasen N, Grove W, Shapiro R, Keller M, Hirschfeld R, McDonald-Scott P. (1981) Reliability of lifetime diagnosis: a multicenter collaborative perspective. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:400–405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnett JH, Smoller JW. (2009) The genetics of bipolar disorder. Neuroscience 164:331–343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baum A, et al. (2008) A genome-wide association study implicates diacylglycerol kinase eta (DGKH) and several other genes in the etiology of bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry 13:197–207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brandler W, Paracchini S. (2013) The genetic relationship between handedness and neurodevelopmental disorders. Trends Mol Med 20:83–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bulik-Sullivan B, Finucane HK, Anttila V, Gusev A, Day FR, Loh P-R, Consortium R, Consortium PG, Genetic Consortium for Anorexia Nervosa of the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium , Duncan L, Perry JRB, Patterson N, Robinson EB, Daly MJ, Price AL, Neale BM. (2015. a) An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat Genetics 47:1236–1241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulik-Sullivan BK, Loh P-R, Finucane HK, Ripke S, Yang J, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium , Patterson N, Daly MJ, Price AL, Neale BM. (2015. b) LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genetics 47:291–295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Byrne EM, Heath AC, Madden PAF, Pergadia ML, Hickie IB, Montgomery GW, Martin NG, Wray NR. (2014) Testing the role of circadian genes in conferring risk for psychiatric disorders. Am J Med Genet Part B 165B:254–260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Caseras X, Lawrence NS, Murphy K, Wise RG, Phillips ML. (2013) Ventral striatum activity in response to reward: differences between bipolar I and II disorders. Am J Psychiatry 17D:533–541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chung JK, Lee KY, Kim SH, Kim E-J, Jeong SH, Jung HY, Choi J-E, Ahn YM, Kim YS, Joo E-J. (2012) Circadian rhythm characteristics in mood disorders: comparison among bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 10:110–116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Coryell W, Endicott J, Reich T. (1984) A family study of bipolar II disorder. Br J Psychiatry 145:49–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. de Mooij-van Malsen JG, van Lith HA, Laarakker MC, Brandys MK, Oppelaar H, Collier DA, Olivier B, Breen G, Kas MJ. (2013) Cross-species genetics converge to TLL2 for mouse avoidance behavior and human bipolar disorder. Genes Brain Behav 12:653–657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Duggal P, Gillanders EM, Holmes TN, Bailey-Wilson JE. (2008) Establishing an adjusted p-value threshold to control the family-wide type 1 error in genome wide association studies. BMC Genomics 9:516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Edvardsen J, Torgersen S, Røysamb E, Lygren S, Skre I, Onstad S, Øien PA. (2008) Heritability of bipolar spectrum disorders. Unity or heterogeneity? J Affect Disord 106:229–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Endicott J, Spitzer RL. (1978) A diagnostic interview: the schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 35:837–844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Erten-Lyons D, Jacobson A, Kramer P, Grupe A, Kaye J. (2009) The FAS gene, brain volume and disease progression in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 6:118–124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferreira MAR, et al. (2008) Collaborative genome-wide association analysis supports a role for ANK3 and CACNA1C in bipolar disorder. Nat Genetics 40:1056–1058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grabski B, Dudek D, Datka W, Mączka G, Zięba A. (2008) Lifetime anxiety and substance use disorder comorbidity in bipolar disorder and its relationship to selected variables. Gender and bipolar subtype differences in comorbidity. Arch Psychiatr Psychother 3:5–15. [Google Scholar]
  20. Guenet L, Toutain B, Guilleret I, Chauvel B, Deaven LL, Longmire JL, Le Gall J-Y, David V, Le Treut A. (1999) Human release factor eRF1: structural organisation of the unique functional gene on chromosome 5 and of the three processed pseudogenes. FEBS Letters 454:131–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gunther J, Koczan D, Yang W, Nurnberg G, Repsilber D, Schuberth H-J, Park Z, Maqbool N, Molenaar A, Seyfert H-M. (2009) Assessment of the immune capacity of mammary epithelial cells: comparison with mammary tissue after challenge with Escherichia coli. Vet Res 40:31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammer C, Cichon S, Muhleisen T, Haenisch B, Degenhardt F, Mattheisen M, Breuer R, Witt S, Strohmaier J, Oruc L, Rivas F, Babadjanova G, Grigoroiu-Serbanescu M, Hauser J, Roth R, Rappold G, Rietschel M, Nothen M, Niesler B. (2012) Replication of functional serotonin receptor type 3A and B variants in bipolar affective disorder: a European multicenter study. Transl Psychiatry 2:e103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Heilstedt H, Burgess D, Anderson A, Chedrawi A, Tharp B, Lee O, Kashork C, Starkey D, Wu Y, Noebels J, Shaffer L, Shapira S. (2001) Loss of the potassium channel beta-subunit gene, KCNAB2, is associated with epilepsy in patients with 1p36 deletion syndrome. Epilepsia 42:1103–1111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Howie BN, Donnelly P, Marchini J. (2009) A flexible and accurate genotype imputation method for the next generation of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 5:e1000529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang S-Y, Lin W-W, Ko H-C, Lee J-F, Wang T-J, Chou Y-H, Yin S-J, Lu R-B. (2004) Possible interaction of alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase genes with the dopamine D2 receptor gene in anxiety-depressive alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 28:374–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Judd LL, Akiskal HS, Schettler PJ, Coryell W, Maser J, Rice JA, Solomon DA, Keller MB. (2003) The comparative clinical phenotype and long term longitudinal episode course of bipolar I and II: a clinical spectrum or distinct disorders? J Affect Disord 73:19–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaminsky Z, Jones I, Verma R, Saleh L, Trivedi H, Guintivano J, Akman R, Zandi P, Lee RS, Potash JB. (2015) DNA methylation and expression of KCNQ3 in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 17:150–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kao C-F, Chuang L-C, Kuo P-H. (2014) Risk and information evaluation of prioritized genes for complex traits: application to bipolar disorder. Am J Med Genet Part B 165B:596–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kato T. (2007) Molecular genetics of bipolar disorder and depression. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 61:3–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kessler RC, Ustün TB. (2004) The World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 13:93–121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. (2005) Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:593–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ketter TA, Kimbrell TA, George MS, Dunn RT, Speer AM, Benson BE, Willis MW, Danielson A, Frye MA, Herscovitch P, Post RM. (2001) Effects of mood and subtype on cerebral glucose metabolism in treatment-resistant bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry 49:97–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Konopaske GT, Lange N, Coyle JT, Benes FM. (2014) Prefrontal cortical dendritic spine pathology in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. JAMA Psychiatry 71:1323–1331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kukopulos A, Reginaldi D, Laddomada P, Floris G, Serra G, Tondo L. (1980) Course of the manic-depressive cycle and changes caused by treatment. Pharmacopsychiatry 13:156–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuo P, Chuang L, Liu J, Liu C, Huang M, Lin S, Sun H, Hsieh M, Hung H, Lu R. (2014) Identification of novel loci for bipolar I disorder in a multi-stage genome-wide association study. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 51:58–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lai YC, Lu MK, Young YK, Lin JJ, Tan HP, Chen WJ, Lu RB, Kuo PH. (2010) Clinical features and familial aggregation of social relationships in major depressive and bipolar disorders in southern Taiwan. Taiwan J Pub Health 29:169–182. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lavorgna A, Harhaj E. (2012) An RNA interference screen identifies the Deubiquitinase STAMBPL1 as a critical regulator of human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 tax nuclear export and NF-κB activation. J Virol 86:3357–3369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee M, et al. (2011) Genome-wide association study of bipolar I disorder in the Han Chinese population. Mol Psychiatry 16:548–556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Li C-T, Hsieh J-C, Wang S-J, Yang B-H, Bai Y-M, Lin W-C, Lan C-C, Su T-P. (2012) Differential relations between fronto-limbic metabolism and executive function in patients with remitted bipolar I and bipolar II disorder. Bipolar Disord 14:831–842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu JZ, Mcrae AF, Nyholt DR, Medland SE, Wray NR, Brown KM, AMFS Investigators , Hayward NK, Montgomery GW, Visscher PM, Martin NG, Macgregor S. (2010) A versatile gene-based test for genome-wide association studies. Am J Hum Genet 87:139–145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu YF, Sowell SM, Luo Y, Chaubey A, Cameron RS, Kim H-G, Srivastava AK. (2015) Autism and intellectual disability-associated KIRREL3 interacts with neuronal proteins MAP1B and MYO16 with potential roles in neurodevelopment. PLos ONE 10:e0123106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McCarthy MI, Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, Goldstein DB, Little J, Ioannidis JPA, Hirschhorn JN. (2008) Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet 9:356–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. McElroy SL, Altshuler LL, Suppes T, Keck PE, Frye MA, Denicoff KD, Nolen WA, Kupka RW, Leverich GS, Rochussen JR, Rush AJ, Post RM. (2001) Axis I psychiatric comorbidity and its relationship to historical illness variables in 288 patients with bipolar disorder. Am J Psychiatry 158:420–426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. McGuffin P, Rijsdijk F, Andrew M, Sham P, Katz R, Cardno A. (2003) The heritability of bipolar affective disorder and the genetic relationship to unipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:497–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Merikangas KR, Akiskal HS, Angst J, Greenberg PE, Hirschfeld RMA, Petukhova M, Kessler RC. (2007) Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the national comorbidity survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64:543–552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Middeldorp C, et al. (2011) The genetic association between personality and major depression or bipolar disorder. A polygenic score analysis using genome-wide association data. Transl Psychiatry 1:e50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mitchell J, Brown E, Rush A. (2007) Comorbid disorders in patients with bipolar disorder and concomitant substance dependence. J Affect Disord 102:281–287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Muhleisen TW, et al. (2014) Genome-wide association study reveals two new risk loci for bipolar disorder. Nat Commun 5:3339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. O’Dushlaine C, Kenny E, Heron E, Donohoe G, Gill M, Morris D, The International Schizophrenia Consortium , Corvin A. (2011) Molecular pathways involved in neuronal cell adhesion and membrane scaffolding contribute to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder susceptibility. Mol Psychiatry 16:286–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ohtsubo K, Marth JD. (2006) Glycosylation in cellular mechanisms of health and disease. Cell 126:855–867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pan WH, Fann CS, Wu JY, Hung YT, Ho MS, Tai TH, Chen YJ, Liao CJ, Yang ML, Cheng AT, Chen YT. (2011) Han Chinese cell and genome bank in Taiwan: purpose, design and ethical considerations. Hum Hered 61:27–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pini S, Cassano GB, Simonini E, Savino M, Russo A, Montgomery SA. (1997) Prevalence of anxiety disorders comorbidity in bipolar depression, unipolar depression and dysthymia. J Affect Disord 42:145–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group (2011) Large-scale genome-wide association analysis of bipolar disorder identifies a new susceptibility locus near ODZ4. Nat Genetics 43:977–983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rodriguez-Murillo L, Xu B, Roos JL, Abecasis GR, Gogos JA, Karayiorgou M. (2014) Fine mapping on chromosome 13q32-34 and brain expression analysis implicates MYO16 in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 39:934–943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosen S. (2004) Ligands for L-selectin: homing, inflammation, and beyond. Annu Rev Immunol 22:129–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ryan M, Lockstone H, Huffaker S, Wayland M, Webster M, Bahn S. (2006) Gene expression analysis of bipolar disorder reveals downregulation of the ubiquitin cycle and alterations in synaptic genes. Biol Psychiatry 11:965–978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Savino M, Perugi G, Simonini E, Soriani A, Cassano GB, Akiskal HS. (1993) Affective comorbidity in panic disorder: Is there a bipolar connection? J Affect Disord 28:155–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Sklar P, et al. (2008) Whole-genome association study of bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry 13:558–569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Slight SR, Rangel-Moreno J, Gopal R, Lin Y, Junecko BAF, Mehra S, Selman M, Becerril-Villanueva E, Baquera-Heredia J, Pavon L, Kaushal D, Reinhart TA, Randall TD, Khader SA. (2013) CXCR5+ T helper cells mediate protective immunity against tuberculosis. J Clin Invest 123:712–726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sublette ME, Carballo JJ, Moreno C, Galfalvy HC, Brent DA, Birmaher B, Mann JJ, Oquendo MA. (2009) Substance use disorders and suicide attempts in bipolar subtypes. J Psychiatr Res 43:230–238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Tellez-Zenteno JF, Patten SB, Jette N, Williams J, SamuelWiebe (2007) Psychiatric comorbidity in epilepsy: A population-based analysis. Epilepsia 48:2336–2344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (2007) Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447:661–678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsai H-C, Lu M-K, Yang Y-K, Huang M-C, Yeh T-L, Chen W-J, Lu R-B, Kuo P-H. (2012) Empirically derived subgroups of bipolar I patients with different comorbidity patterns of anxiety and substance use disorders in Han Chinese population. J Affect Disord 136:81–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tucker G. (1998) Seizure disorders presenting with psychiatric symptomatology. Psychiatr Clin North Am 21:625–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang Q, Yang C, Gelernter J, Zhao H. (2015) Pervasive pleiotropy between psychiatric disorders and immune disorders revealed by integrative analysis of multiple GWAS. Hum Genet:1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang T-Y, Lee S-Y, Chen S-L, Chang Y-H, Chen S-H, Huang S-Y, Tzeng N-S, Wang C-L, Yeh P-H, Chen KC, Lee IH, Yeh TL, Yang YK, Lu R-B. (2014) Gender-specific association of the SLC6A4 and DRD2 gene variants in bipolar disorder. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 17:211–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Ward LD, Kellis M. (2012) HaploReg: a resource for exploring chromatin states, conservation, and regulatory motif alterations within sets of genetically linked variants. Nucleic Acids Res 40:D930–D934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Whalley H, MPapmeyer, Sprooten E, Romaniuk L, Blackwood D, Glahn D, Hall J, Lawrie S, Sussmann J, McIntosh A. (2012) The influence of polygenic risk for bipolar disorder on neural activation assessed using fMRI. Transl Psychiatry 2:e130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, Charlson FJ, Norman RE, Flaxman AD, Johns N, Burstein R, Murray CJL, Vos T. (2013) Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. LANCET 382:1575–1586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Xu W, Cohen-Woods S, Chen Q, Noor A, Knight J, Hosang G, Parikh SV, De Luca V, Tozzi F, Muglia P, Forte J, McQuillin A, Hu P, Gurling HM, Kennedy JL, McGuffin P, Farmer A, Strauss J, Vincent JB. (2014) Genome-wide association study of bipolar disorder in Canadian and UK populations corroborates disease loci including SYNE1 and CSMD1. BMC Med Genet 15:2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. (2011) GCTA: A tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet 88:76–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zaykin DV, Zhivotovsky LA, Czika W, Shao S, Wolfinger RD. (2007) Combining p-values in large scale genomics experiments. Pharm Stat 6:217–226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supplementary Figure 1
ijnp_pyw064_index.html (711B, html)
Supporting_information_IntJNP_16_0021.doc (1.3MB, doc)

Articles from International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES