Heritability and molecular-genetic basis of the P3 event-related brain potential: a genome-wide association study.
- Authors
- Malone, Stephen M; Vaidyanathan, Uma; Basu, Saonli; Miller, Michael B; McGue, Matt; Iacono, William G
- Year
- 2014
- Journal
- Psychophysiology
- PMID
- 25387705
- DOI
- 10.1111/psyp.12345
- PMCID
- PMC4234198
P3 amplitude is a candidate endophenotype for disinhibitory psychopathology, psychosis, and other disorders. The present study is a comprehensive analysis of the behavioral- and molecular-genetic basis of P3 amplitude and a P3 genetic factor score in a large community sample (N = 4,211) of adolescent twins and their parents, genotyped for 527,829 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Biometric models indicated that as much as 65% of the variance in each measure was due to additive genes. All SNPs in aggregate accounted for approximately 40% to 50% of the heritable variance. However, analyses of individual SNPs did not yield any significant associations. Analyses of individual genes did not confirm previous associations between P3 amplitude and candidate genes but did yield a novel association with myelin expression factor 2 (MYEF2). Main effects of individual variants may be too small to be detected by GWAS without larger samples.
Illustration of the common pathway model for deriving genetic and environmental factor scores. P3 amplitude at three sites (P3, Pz, and P4) is due to the influence of a common factor, F, as well as site-specific or unique influences (U1–U3). The factor loadings, λ1 to λ3, are estimates of the magnitude of the influence of F on the three measurements. To identify the model, the variance of F is fixed at 1 and the factor mean is fixed at 0. Under the model, amplitude at a given electrode site, j, equals P3j = αj + λj F + uj, where αj are the intercepts for the amplitude measures (equivalent to the intercept in linear regression) and uj is the unique (residual) influence on each amplitude measure. The common factor, F, is itself influenced (caused) by additional latent factors: A, representing additive genetic influence; C, representing common environmental influence; and E, representing specific environmental influence. Using family data, in which genetic and environmental correlations among family members are known, the magnitude of each latent variable’s influence on F can be estimated, given standard assumptions. Factor variances are fixed at one (not shown), so the total variance in F can be represented as a2 + c2 + e2, using standard tracing rules for path analysis. Because our interest is in the common genetic influence on F, we did not decompose the unique factors into A and C in addition to E.
Q-Q plot for SNP associations with P3 amplitude. The 45° line gives the expected value under the null distribution. The area shaded in gray corresponds to the 95% acceptance region. Median and mean genomic control values are given in the inset in the upper left. N refers to the number of SNPs, which is 10 fewer than the number of SNPs on the array because there was no variation for 10 SNPs in this sample. Q-Q plots in GWAS give the observed p values against the expected p values under the null distribution of no association, although the additive inverse of the common log of p values (−log10[p value]) is used in order to emphasize small p values. Because the vast majority of SNPs are not expected to be associated with a given phenotype, observed p values should conform closely to their expected values, falling on or very close to the 45° line depicted.
Q-Q plot for SNP associations with the genetic factor score. The 45° line gives the expected value under the null distribution of no association. The area shaded in gray corresponds to the 95% acceptance region. Median and mean genomic control values are given in the inset in the upper left. N refers to the number of SNPs that were actually polymorphic in this sample, which is smaller than the P3 sample because subjects without amplitude values for all three parietal electrodes were dropped. Q-Q plots in GWAS give the observed p values against the expected p values under the null distribution, although the additive inverse of the common log of p values (−log10[p value]) is used in order to emphasize small p values. Because the vast majority of SNPs are not expected to be associated with a given phenotype, observed p values should conform closely to their expected values, falling on or very close to the 45° line depicted.
Manhattan plot of individual SNP associations with P3 amplitude. Manhattan plots also depict the distribution of −log10(p values) but are ordered by SNP location on a chromosome, which provides information about the location of any SNPs associated with small p values. The horizontal line at 7.3 indicates the genome-wide significance level (5E-08). The horizontal line at 5 indicates E-05, which is sometimes used to indicate “suggestive” significance.
Manhattan plot of individual SNP associations with the genetic factor score. Manhattan plots also depict the distribution of −log10(p values) but are ordered by SNP location on a chromosome, which provides information about the location of any SNPs associated with small p values. The horizontal line at 7.3 indicates the genome-wide significance level (5E-08). The horizontal line at 5 indicates E-05, which is sometimes used to indicate “suggestive” significance.
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| 204 candidate genes local | gene |
| acetylcholine | drug |
| ActiveTwo local | drug |
| ADHD | phenotype |
| adolescents | cohort |
| adults | cohort |
| age | phenotype |
| alcohol | phenotype |
| alcohol dependence | phenotype |
| alcoholism risk | phenotype |
| BioSemi local | drug |
| bipolar disorder | phenotype |
| candidate genes | cohort |
| cannabinoids | drug |
| Caucasian | cohort |
| chronological age | phenotype |
| cocaine | phenotype |
| COGS | cohort |
| COGS candidate genes local | gene |
| Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) | cohort |
| Common factor mean local | phenotype |
| Common factor variance local | phenotype |
| common variants | cohort |
| complex traits | phenotype |
| disinhibitory behavior | phenotype |
| dopamine | drug |
| drug dependence | phenotype |
| EEG | phenotype |
| EIGENSTRAT | drug |
| endophenotype | phenotype |
| endophenotype-general candidate genes local | gene |
| endophenotype-general candidate gene set local | cohort |
| endophenotype-general candidate SNPs | variant |
| endophenotype-general candidate SNP set local | cohort |
| E-Prime local | drug |
| event-related theta activity local | phenotype |
| event-related theta power | phenotype |
| excessive alcohol consumption | phenotype |
| excitement seeking | phenotype |
| families | cohort |
| family-based sample | cohort |
| frontal cortex | anatomy |
| full sample | cohort |
| GABA | phenotype |
| GCTA | drug |
| gene | gene |
| general population sample | cohort |
| generation local | cohort |
| Generation local | cohort |
| genetically unrelated individuals local | cohort |
| genetic factor score local | phenotype |
| genetic factor scores local | phenotype |
| glutamate | drug |
| Grass local | drug |
| Head injury | phenotype |
| heavy drinking | phenotype |
| illicit drug use | phenotype |
| Late Adolescence Cohort local | cohort |
| left parietal cortex | anatomy |
| major depressive disorder | phenotype |
| MBP | gene |
| MCTFR | cohort |
| Mean amplitude local | phenotype |
| methylphenidate | drug |
| midline parietal location | anatomy |
| midline parietal scalp local | anatomy |
| MTFS | cohort |
| MTFS enrichment sample participants local | cohort |
| MTFS participants | cohort |
| MTFS twins | cohort |
| MYEF2 local | gene |
| myelin | phenotype |
| Neurocognitive characteristic local | phenotype |
| neurological disorders | phenotype |
| neurotransmitters | drug |
| nicotine | drug |
| nicotine dependence | phenotype |
| non-Caucasian subjects local | cohort |
| noradrenaline | drug |
| opioid | drug |
| ORP | phenotype |
| P3 amplitude | phenotype |
| P3 common factor local | phenotype |
| P3 genetic factor score local | phenotype |
| P3-specific candidate genes local | gene |
| P3-specific candidate gene set local | cohort |
| P3-specific candidate SNPs local | cohort |
| P3-specific candidate SNPs local | variant |
| parietal cortex | anatomy |
| Parietal locations local | anatomy |
| problematic alcohol use | phenotype |
| psychiatric disorders | phenotype |
| Psychiatric Genomics Consortium | cohort |
| psychopathology | phenotype |
| Psychophysiological measure local | phenotype |
| Psychophysiological responses local | phenotype |
| Pz | anatomy |
| rare variant | cohort |
| Recording system local | phenotype |
| right parietal cortex | anatomy |
| schizophrenia | phenotype |
| schizophrenia-associated endophenotype candidate gene set local | cohort |
| schizophrenia endophenotype candidate genes local | gene |
| serotonin | drug |
| sex | phenotype |
| smoking | phenotype |
| SNP | cohort |
| stepparents local | cohort |
| subsample local | cohort |
| substance abuse | phenotype |
| trait | phenotype |
| Twin cohort | cohort |
| Unique factor variance local | phenotype |
No uploaded files.
In this knowledge base
External
| Title | Authors | Journal | Year | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetics in the ADHD Clinic: How Can Genetic Testing Support the Current Clinical Practice? | Balogh L et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Neurophysiology in psychosis: The quest for disease biomarkers. | Wang B et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Using multivariate endophenotypes to identify psychophysiological mechanisms associated with polygenic scores for substance use, schizophrenia, and education attainment. | Harper J et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| A genome-wide association study of the longitudinal course of executive functions. | Wendel B et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| EEG measures for clinical research in major vascular cognitive impairment: recommendations by an expert panel. | Babiloni C et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Genetic underpinnings of schizophrenia-related electroencephalographical intermediate phenotypes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | Hederih J et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Precision Psychiatry: Biomarker-Guided Tailored Therapy for Effective Treatment and Prevention in Major Depression. | Jones C et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| What External Variables Affect Sensorimotor Rhythm Brain-Computer Interface (SMR-BCI) Performance? | Horowitz AJ et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Association Between P300 Responses to Auditory Oddball Stimuli and Clinical Outcomes in the Psychosis Risk Syndrome. | Hamilton HK et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Auditory and Visual Oddball Stimulus Processing Deficits in Schizophrenia and the Psychosis Risk Syndrome: Forecasting Psychosis Risk With P300. | Hamilton HK et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| A polygenic risk score analysis of psychosis endophenotypes across brain functional, structural, and cognitive domains. | Ranlund S et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| A systematic review of the heritability of specific psychopathic traits using Hare's two-factor model of psychopathy. | Dhanani S et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Decomposing P300 into correlates of genetic risk and current symptoms in schizophrenia: An inter-trial variability analysis. | Kim M et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Negative self-referential processing is associated with genetic variation in the serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR): Evidence from two independent studies. | Dainer-Best J et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| The utility of twins in developmental cognitive neuroscience research: How twins strengthen the ABCD research design. | Iacono WG et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Endophenotype best practices. | Iacono WG et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Psychophysiological endophenotypes to characterize mechanisms of known schizophrenia genetic loci. | Liu M et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| What can time-frequency and phase coherence measures tell us about the genetic basis of P3 amplitude? | Malone SM et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Achieving success with the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Going beyond the matrix. | Iacono WG | — | 2016 | → |
| Electrophysiological Endophenotypes for Schizophrenia. | Owens EM et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| One-year developmental stability and covariance among oddball, novelty, go/no-go, and flanker event-related potentials in adolescence: A monozygotic twin study. | Burwell SJ et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Endophenotypes for Alcohol Use Disorder: An Update on the Field. | Salvatore JE et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Longitudinal stability and predictive utility of the visual P3 response in adults with externalizing psychopathology. | Yoon HH et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Psychological and Neurobiological Precursors of Alcohol Use Disorders in High Risk Youth. | Hill SY et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| The Power of Theory, Research Design, and Transdisciplinary Integration in Moving Psychopathology Forward. | Vaidyanathan U et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Decomposing P300 to identify its genetic basis. | Ford JM | — | 2014 | → |
| Genetic associations of nonsynonymous exonic variants with psychophysiological endophenotypes. | Vrieze SI et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Genome-wide scans of genetic variants for psychophysiological endophenotypes: a methodological overview. | Iacono WG et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Heritability and molecular genetic basis of antisaccade eye tracking error rate: a genome-wide association study. | Vaidyanathan U et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| In search of rare variants: preliminary results from whole genome sequencing of 1,325 individuals with psychophysiological endophenotypes. | Vrieze SI et al. | — | 2014 | → |