Table 3.
Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder polygenic risk scores (PRS) in the three diagnostic subgroups and in unaffected relatives versus controls.
| Clinical sub-groups | Schizophrenia PRS |
Bipolar disorder PRS |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| PT = 0.05 | PT = 0.05 | ||
| P-value | 6.1×10-39 | 9.2×10-08 | |
| Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective (n=792) versus controls (n=1,472) |
Variance explained | 10.3% | 1.6% |
| P-value | 6.2×10-06 | 6.5×10-03 | |
| Bipolar disorder (n=109) versus controls (n=1,058) |
Variance explained | 3.4% | 1.2% |
| P-value | 1.2×10-08 | 1.2×10-03 | |
| Other psychotic disorders (n=267) versus Controls (n=1,429) |
Variance explained | 3.3% | 1% |
| Relatives (n=552) versus Controls (n=1,221) |
P-value | 1.2×10-04 | 2.1×10-02 |
Significance of the case-control PRS difference was analysed by standard logistic regression using different P value thresholds (PT 5×10-08, 1×10-04, 0.05 and 1). Here, P values and Nagelkerke’s R2 obtained at PT = 0.05 are reported. Results at each one of the four different PT are available in Table S7. Logistic regression included the first three ancestry based principal components and a cohort indicator as covariates. We report the proportion of the phenotypic variance explained by the risk polygenic score as measured by Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2