Figures
Abstract
Patients with schizophrenia and their siblings typically show subtle changes of brain structures, such as a reduction of hippocampal volume. Hippocampal volume is heritable, may explain a variety of cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia and is thus considered an intermediate phenotype for this mental illness. The aim of our analyses was to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) related to hippocampal volume without making prior assumptions about possible candidate genes. In this study, we combined genetics, imaging and neuropsychological data obtained from the Mind Clinical Imaging Consortium study of schizophrenia (n = 328). A total of 743,591 SNPs were tested for association with hippocampal volume in a genome-wide association study. Gene expression profiles of human hippocampal tissue were investigated for gene regions of significantly associated SNPs. None of the genetic markers reached genome-wide significance. However, six highly correlated SNPs (rs4808611, rs35686037, rs12982178, rs1042178, rs10406920, rs8170) on chromosome 19p13.11, located within or in close proximity to the genes NR2F6, USHBP1, and BABAM1, as well as four SNPs in three other genomic regions (chromosome 1, 2 and 10) had p-values between 6.75×10−6 and 8.3×10−7. Using existing data of a very recently published GWAS of hippocampal volume and additional data of a multicentre study in a large cohort of adolescents of European ancestry, we found supporting evidence for our results. Furthermore, allelic differences in rs4808611 and rs8170 were highly associated with differential mRNA expression in the cis-acting region. Associations with memory functioning indicate a possible functional importance of the identified risk variants. Our findings provide new insights into the genetic architecture of a brain structure closely linked to schizophrenia. In silico replication, mRNA expression and cognitive data provide additional support for the relevance of our findings. Identification of causal variants and their functional effects may unveil yet unknown players in the neurodevelopment and the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders.
Citation: Hass J, Walton E, Kirsten H, Liu J, Priebe L, Wolf C, et al. (2013) A Genome-Wide Association Study Suggests Novel Loci Associated with a Schizophrenia-Related Brain-Based Phenotype. PLoS ONE 8(6): e64872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872
Editor: Huiping Zhang, Yale University, United States of America
Received: October 29, 2012; Accepted: April 12, 2013; Published: June 21, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Hass et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NCRR P41RR14075), Department of Energy (DE-FG02-99ER62764), MIND Research Network, Morphometry Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN) (1U24, RR021382A), Function BIRN (U24RR021992-01, NIH.NCRR MO1 RR025758-01), NARSAD Young Investigator Grant (SE), and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Research Fellowship to SE). Further funding came from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant PtJ-Bio 0313909 to HK), within the context of the National Genome Research Network plus (NGFNplus), and the Integrated Genome Research Network (IG) MooDS (grant 01GS08144 to SC). HK and MS are supported by the Leipzig Interdisciplinary Research Cluster of Genetic Factors, Clinical Phenotypes and Environment (LIFE Center, Universität Leipzig). LIFE is funded by the European Union, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Free State of Saxony within the framework of the excellence initiative. IMAGEN is funded by the European Commission Framework Programme 6 (FP-6) Integrated Project IMAGEN (PL037286), the European Commission Framework Programme 7 (FP-7) Project Alzheimer's Disease, Alcoholism, Memory, Schizophrenia (ADAMS), the FP-7 Innovative Medicine Initiative Project European Autism Interventions (AIMS), the UK Department of Health National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)—Biomedical Research Centre Mental Health program and the MRC programme grant Developmental Pathways into Adolescent Substance Abuse (93558). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: Veit Roessner has received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Medice, and Novartis and was a member of advisory boards of Eli Lilly, Novartis. All other authors declare no biomedical financial interests or other potential conflict of interests. This does not alter the authors’ adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Despite a number of twin studies indicating high heritability in complex neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia [1]–[4], the underlying molecular pathways and mechanisms of susceptibility for these disorders remain elusive. A major issue in psychiatric genetics is the lack of replication of putative risk variants [5]–[7]. Possible reasons for this problem might include the previously widely used candidate gene approach, polygenic inheritance, the genetic and the phenotypic heterogeneity of the disorders, and the low reliability and long-term stability of psychiatric diagnoses.
To address the latter, it has been suggested to use intermediate phenotypes instead of diagnosis, because intermediate phenotypes are thought to be more proximal to the underlying substrate of the illness than the varying clinical constructs. Suitable intermediate phenotypes are traits that are reliably measurable, stable, continuously distributed (so called “quantitative traits”), heritable, and disease-associated [8], [9].
In patients with schizophrenia, a reduction of hippocampal volume has been repeatedly demonstrated [10]–[13]. Abnormalities of the structure and function of the hippocampus in schizophrenia have been associated with deficits in memory and executive function [14], suggesting that these structural changes could reflect a central pathophysiological process associated with the disease [11]. Furthermore, sibling and family studies provide evidence for the heritability (40–70%) of this brain structure [15], [16]. Therefore, it is widely acknowledged that hippocampal volume represents a reliable intermediate phenotype for schizophrenia.
With the rapid development of genotyping technology, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) offer the opportunity to identify biological markers and risk genes that are associated with specific phenotypes by scanning the entire genome. Whereas candidate gene approaches rely on prior and possibly ill-defined assumptions about the underlying biological pathways and neurodevelopmental models of disorders or intermediate phenotypes, a GWAS approach is hypothesis-free.
After the identification of new risk genes, it is crucial to elucidate the function of the genetic variants and their potential contribution to the phenotype or illness. The analysis of gene expression profiles may provide insights into the underlying genetic mechanisms influencing a phenotype. This can be achieved by examining the differential allelic expression of gene products in the same region, which provides additional evidence for the functional relevance of the findings [17], [18]. A complementary strategy is to study the relationship of risk variants to cognitive or behavioural measures which are closely linked to the brain-based phenotype [19].
By combining the power of a GWAS with the use of a well-established brain-based intermediate phenotype we aimed to identify relations between genetic polymorphisms and the hippocampal volume of patients with schizophrenia and demographically similar healthy control subjects. We sought replication of our findings using the very recently published data of the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium [20] and data of the IMAGEN study, a large European multicentre genetic-neuroimaging study of reinforcement behavior in adolescence [21]. An additional aim was to determine possible functional mechanisms of the identified genetic associations by analyzing (a) differential allelic expression using gene expression data from human hippocampus tissue and (b) the relation of risk variants to hippocampus-dependent cognitive functioning.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The Mind Clinical Imaging Consortium (MCIC) study of schizophrenia [13], [22] obtained baseline structural MRI scans on a total of 328 subjects from four participating sites: Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (MGH) and the Universities of Iowa (UI), Minnesota (UMN) and New Mexico (UNM). All subjects gave written informed consent prior to study enrolment. The human subjects research committees at each of the four sites (Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the Universities of Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico) approved the study protocol. We confirm that all potential participants who declined to participate or otherwise did not participate were eligible for treatment (if applicable) and were not disadvantaged in any other way by not participating in the study. During the consent process the subjects were asked a series of questions to assure that they understood the nature of the study, that if they chose to participate it was voluntary and that they could stop at any time without affecting their care, and that they understood the risks and benefits of the study. If they stated that they wanted to participate, they were also asked the reason why they chose to participate. If there was any question as to the ability to provide informed consent (i.e., they don't understand the risks or benefits, or they suffer from acute delusions that could significantly impair a patient's judgment) then they were not recruited for the study. In addition, if during the clinical interview it was determined that they lacked the ability to provide informed consent, then they were dropped from the study at that time. The patient group (SZ) consists of subjects with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia, established using structured clinical interviews and review of case files by trained clinicians. Healthy controls (HC) were included if they had no history of a medical or Axis I psychiatric diagnosis. All participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and no older than 60 and to be fluent in English. Participants were excluded if they had a history of neurologic disease, or psychiatric disease other than schizophrenia, history of a head injury with loss of consciousness, history of substance abuse or dependence within the past month, severe or disabling medical conditions, contraindication to MR scanning or IQ less than 70 (based on the reading subtest from the WRAT3). The final sample with complete and high-quality structural MRI and genetic data comprised of 126 HC and 115 SZ. For quality assurance procedures see below.
For replication purpose we obtained additional genetic and sMRI data from participants of (I) the ENIGMA network [20] with a discovery sample of N = 7,795 (including 5,775 healthy individuals and 2,020 patients with depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia), and (II) the IMAGEN study [21] containing N = 1,663 healthy 14-year old adolescents (for detailed information see Supporting Information (SI) 1.1. in File S1).
Clinical Measures
Prior to subject enrolment, clinicians from all four MCIC sites participated in a two-day training session, during which cross-site inter-rater reliability for the primary diagnostic and symptom-rating scales was established (>85% concordance with videotaped training materials). All study participants underwent an extensive clinical diagnostic assessment that included either the SCID-I/P or NP [23] or the Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History (CASH) [24]. Premorbid cognitive achievement was estimated by the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT3-RT) [25]; parental socioeconomic status (SES) was determined using the Hollingshead index [26] and handedness was determined using the Annett Scale of Hand Preference [27]. Severity of positive and negative symptoms were rated using the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS) and the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) [28], [29]. Antipsychotic history was collected as part of the psychiatric assessment using the PSYCH instrument [30] and cumulative and current antipsychotic exposure was calculated using the chlorpromazine (CPZ) conversion factors [31]. See Table 1 and Table S1 in File S1 for detailed information.
Structural Image Acquisition
MCIC structural MRI data were acquired with either a 1.5T Siemens Sonata (MGH, UI, UNM) or a 3T Siemens Trio (UMN). The T1-weighted structural brain scans at each of the four sites were acquired with a coronal gradient echo sequence: TR = 2530 ms for 3T, TR = 12 ms for 1.5T; TE = 3.79 for 3T, TE = 4.76 ms for 1.5T; TI = 1100 for 3T; Bandwidth = 181 for 3T, Bandwidth = 110 for 1.5T; 0.625×0.625 voxel size; slice thickness 1.5 mm; FOV, 256×256×128 cm matrix; FOV = 16 cm; NEX = 1 for the 3T, NEX = 3 for the 1.5T. Cross site MRI acquisition calibration and reliability were established in a preceding study using human phantoms, following guidelines developed by the biomedical informatics research network (BIRN) test bed for morphometry [32], [33].
Structural Image Data Processing
MCIC structural MRI data from three consecutive volumes were registered, motion corrected, averaged and analyzed in an automated manner with atlas-based FreeSurfer software suite (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu, Version 4.0.1). This process included volumetric segmentation, cortical surface reconstruction [34]–[37] and the estimation of total intracranial volume (ICV) [38]. Hippocampal volume is a standard output of the FreeSurfer volumetric segmentation [35]. Previous imaging genetics studies have shown the same genetic effects for the left and right hippocampus [39], [40]. Therefore we used mean hippocampal volume (averaged across the right and left hemisphere) as the primary parameter for analysis. Segmentation and surface reconstruction quality were assured by manual inspection of all raw MRI volumes, segmented volumes in three planes and pial as well as inflated volumes. Five participants' MRI data failed the aforementioned quality assurance. The data of these subjects were then recovered with minor manual intervention following the FreeSurfer user guidelines.
Genotyping
Blood samples were obtained of each MCIC participant and sent to the Harvard Partners Center for Genetics and Genomics. DNA extraction and genotyping was performed according to the manufacturer's protocol and blinded for group assignment (SI 1.2. in File S1). Genotyping was performed at the Mind Research Network (MRN) Neurogenetics Core Lab using the Illumina HumanOmni-Quad BeadChip interrogating 1,140,419 SNPs. Normalized bead intensity data obtained for each sample were loaded into GenomeStudio2010 software, which generated SNP genotypes from fluorescent intensities using the manufacturer's default cluster settings. The raw genotypic data were imported into a genome-wide data management system (Laboratory Information Management System) to allow the tracking of individual samples, quality control and the export of user defined formats compatible with the genetic programs used for statistical analysis.
Quality control steps included a per-individual quality control, i.e. identification and exclusion of individuals with a) discordant sex information, b) missing genotype information of more than 5%, c) unusual heterozygosity rate (details see below), d) divergent ancestry (see paragraph about population stratification below) and e) duplicated or related individuals, and a per-marker quality control (identification and exclusion of SNPs with f) an excessive missing genotype rate of more than 10%, g) significantly different missing genotype rates between cases and controls, and h) a minor allele frequency below 5%) [41], [42]. All steps were carried out in PLINK [43]. For the initial 255 samples, the total genotyping rate was 99.8%. Sex was estimated based on SNP data and was in line with self-disclosure. Due to excess heterozygosity we excluded two control samples (outliers defined as mean heterozygosity +/−4SD). Testing for random (call rate <90%) and non-random missing genotype data (haplotypic case/control test with p<1×10−10) led to the exclusion of 657 SNPs. Another 194,543 SNPs were excluded because of a minor allele frequency less than 0.05, resulting in a final dataset of 743,591 autosomal SNPs.
Statistics
For each of the 743,591 SNPs tested for association in the MCIC sample, we used PLINK [43] to fit a linear regression model with minor allele count, sex, age, diagnosis, ICV and scanner field strength as predictors of total hippocampal volume. We modeled the effects of diagnosis (i.e. healthy individual or participant with schizophrenia) to account for non-random sampling and possible additional environmental factors specific to psychiatric patients such as treatment effects or stress.
As population stratification is a well-known issue in heterogeneous data sets and can become problematic especially in association studies, we needed to correct for allele frequency differences that are due to systematic ancestry differences. We applied principal component analysis (PCA) to our genotype data using EIGENSTRAT of the EIGENSOFT 3.0 software package [44], [45]. Before PCA, SNP data were pruned based on LD as recommended [46]. We also excluded autosomal SNPs, SNPs in problematic regions of long-range linkage disequilibrium (LD) (as recommended by Price et al. [47]), and all SNPs in a +/−500 kb range of SNPs found in the “GWAS Catalog” (http://www.genome.gov/admin/gwascatalog.txt, accessed on 21/6/11) to be possibly associated with hippocampal volume or schizophrenia, resulting in 103,860 SNPs. The first 10 principal components (based on Tracy-Widom-Statistic, see Table S2 in File S1) were used as additional covariates in our regression model (see above).
To verify our results in an ethnically homogeneous sample we defined a subsample based on stringent criteria, including individuals of European descent only. For this purpose, we again performed EIGENSTRAT-based PCA using the pruned SNP set as defined above to analyze our sample in combination with four HapMap populations (CHB = Han Chinese in Beijing, China, JPT = Japanese in Tokyo, Japan, YRI = Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria, and CEU = Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe; International HapMap Project http://www.hapmap.org/). Based on this analysis, a homogeneous subsample of individuals close to the CEU cluster was selected, (n = 170; see SI 1.3 in File S1 and Figure S1 for further details).
Replication Analyses
For replication, we chose all top-ranking SNPs of our MCIC association analysis, i.e. markers with p-values smaller than 10−5. We then checked for association signals with bilateral hippocampal volume for the aforementioned SNPs (if available) and all other available intragenic SNPs in a window of +/−100 kb of our top SNPs (I) using EnigmaVis, an online interactive visualization tool of genome-wide association signals of the ENIGMA study [48], and (II) estimating similar linear regression models as described above using the IMAGEN data.
Differential Allelic Expression in Human Hippocampus
Biopsy samples were obtained from 142 patients with chronic pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy. After quality control, fresh frozen human hippocampal segments of 138 individuals were prepared as tissue slices under cryostat conditions (Bonn tissue bank) and total DNA and RNA were isolated using AllPrep DNA/RNA Micro Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). A volume of 50 ng of total RNA was amplified (Illumina TotalPrep 96-RNA Amplification Kit, Ambion/Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany) and labelled cRNA was hybridised to Illumina human HT-12 Expression v3 BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). All expression profiles were extracted using GenomeStudio software (Illumina). For genome-wide SNP-genotyping of these individuals, 200 ng of DNA were hybridised to Illumina Human660W-Quad v1 DNA Analysis Bead-Chip (Infinium HD Assay Super manual, Illumina).
The sequences of expression probes were re-aligned to UCSC version 18 (hg18, http://genome.ucsc.edu/) allowing only perfect matches, and then normalized using the vsn2 option implemented in the package ‘VSN’ for R. For quantitative trait analysis, linear regression of an additive allelic model predicting mRNA expression was performed using the GenABEL package for R (http://www.genabel.org/), including the covariates gender, age at sampling, and the first five components resulting from multidimensional scaling analysis of the genotype data carried out in PLINK [43]. For further details see SI 1.4. in File S1 and [17].
Association with Hippocampus-dependent Cognitive Functioning
To test for possible effects of single putative genetic risk variant (identified in the MCIC sample using the linear regression models described above) on hippocampus-dependent cognitive functioning we applied structural equation modeling (SEM) following the guidelines set forth by Arbuckle and Wothke (1999) using AMOS 18.0 with full maximum likelihood estimation. We hypothesized that the risk polymorphism would have an indirect negative effect on memory functioning, which would be mediated via hippocampal volume. “Memory”, the dependent variable, was designed as a latent variable defined by two different neuropsychological measures tapping hippocampus-dependent memory-functions (see SI 1.5. in File S1) which were available for 198 subjects. For reasons of simplicity, we included only the first two most significant principal components (see above; Table S2 in File S1) to correct the independent variable – the genetic polymorphism – for population stratification. Hippocampal volume (adjusted for the effects of ICV and scanner field strength) was specified as mediator variable and we explicitly modeled the effects of age, sex and diagnosis on hippocampal volume and memory.
Results
Sample characteristics
MCIC patients and controls did not differ significantly in parental socioeconomic status or handedness. Patients were slightly older, less likely to be female, included fewer participants of European descent, had lower WRAT3-RT scores and, as expected, a significantly smaller mean hippocampal volume (Table 1). For an overview of the clinical variables of the patient group see Table S1 in File S1. We also found no differences in demographic or clinical variables when stratifying the sample according to the acquisition site-specific scanner field strength.
GWAS
We tested each of the 743,591 SNPs in the MCIC sample using multiple linear regression models for association with human hippocampal volume as described above. Figure 1 shows the quantile-quantile (QQ) plot. An inflation factor of λ = 0.998 was estimated, indicating that there is no inflation of false-positive results derived from genotyping errors or uncontrolled population stratification. No marker exceeded the widely acknowledged genome-wide significance threshold of 5×10−8 [49].
The empirical and theoretical distributions are shown as dots and line, respectively.
Assuming that the most significantly associated SNPs comprise variants which are actually influencing hippocampal volumes, in the following we focus on the ten loci having p-values smaller than 1×10−5. The smallest p-value (p = 8.3×10−7) was obtained for SNP rs35686037, which is located 3,384 bases upstream of NR2F6 (nuclear receptor subfamily 2 group F member 6) and 1,314 bases downstream of USHBP1 (Usher syndrome 1C binding protein 1) on chromosome 19. Furthermore, we found four associated markers with a p-value smaller than 1×10−5 on chromosome 1 (within KIF26B), 2 (within or near TRPM8) and 10 (LOC283089). An overview of the top-SNPs and corresponding gene regions is shown in Table 2; a Manhattan plot of the p-values is shown in Figure 2. Additional information about the distribution of genotypes, call rate, and heterozygosity rates can be found in Table S3 in File S1, regression coefficients, standard errors and corresponding confidence intervals for each of the ten SNPs are given in Table S4 in File S1 and Figure S2.
Negative logarithmic p-values are plotted against their genomic position.
There were no significant pairwise relationships between the ten gene loci and either sex, ethnicity, age, WRAT3-RT scores, parental SES or handedness (data not shown). We also inspected the results for association with left and right hippocampal volume separately. Additionally, we tested for association with hippocampal volume in a model without covarying for diagnostic status (Table S5 in File S1) and in a homogeneous subsample of individuals with ancestry from north-western Europe (defined as described above; see also SI 1.3. in File S1). As can be seen in Table S5 in File S1 and in Table 3, all ten loci showed again significant effects with p-values smaller than 5.5×10−4 and the direction of the effects was the same. Furthermore, we tested for association with hippocampal volume in a subsample of only patients and only healthy controls, respectively. All ten SNPs exceeded nominal significance in each group and again, the direction of these effects were the same (Table 3).
The strongest evidence for association in our main analysis as well as in subsequent analyses (see above) was found for six highly correlated SNPs (rs4808611, rs35686037, rs12982178, rs10424178, rs10406920, and rs8170) on chromosome 19. The LD structure of these six markers is shown in Figure 3. The genomic region, characterized by high LD, includes three genes: NR2F6, USHBP1, and BABAM1 (BRISC and BRAC1 A complex member 1; also referred to as C19orf62). Rs8170 is the only SNP (of all SNPs with p<1×10−5) located in a coding region (coding-synonymous K (AAG)→K (AAA)).
LD is given based on r2 estimated using the current dataset. Each diamond indicates the pairwise magnitude of LD, with dark grey/black indicating strong LD (r2>0.8). Figure prepared with HaploView (Barrett et al. 2005).
For the most significant SNP in this LD block (rs35686037) we found a reduction in hippocampal volume of approximately 5% per risk allele (∼391 mm3 compared to the mean hippocampal volume of 8588 mm3). This corresponds to an effect size of Cohen's f2 = 0.115 and an explained variance of 5.72% (calculated as explained variance in addition to the variance explained by the control variables in the linear model).
Using the in silico replication strategy outlined above, we found the following significant association signals in the genomic neighborhood (+−100 kb) of our main hits: In close proximity of rs9919234 on chromosome 1 we found 17 SNPs associated with hippocampal volume (e.g. rs1472051 with p = 8.7×10−3) in the ENIGMA sample, and two SNPs in the IMAGEN sample, all belonging to the same gene (KIF26B). On chromosome 2 we found 20 associated SNPs (e.g. rs763379 with p = 9.2×10−3; 2 kb upstream of rs17866592) in the ENIGMA sample, and three other SNPs (e.g. rs617970 with p = 3.2×10−4) in the IMAGEN sample. Each of these SNPs is located in the same or in the adjacent gene (TRPM8, SPP2) or the intergenic region between those two genes. Close to rs1254152 on chromosome 10 we identified 31 SNPs in association with hippocampal volume (e.g. rs7911084 with p = 1.4×10−3) in the ENIGMA sample, and rs12570141 with p = 2.9×10−2 in the IMAGEN sample. For the interconnected genomic region on chromosome 19 we searched a wider window (300 kb) and found 12 associated SNPs (e.g. rs4808629 with p = 3.5×10−3) in the ENIGMA sample, and 12 further SNPs (e.g. rs2278897 with p = 5.1×10−4) in the IMAGEN sample, all close to our top-ranking SNPs rs480811, rs35686087 or rs8170. An overview of all relevant SNPs is given in Table S6 and S7 in File S1.
Differential Allelic Expression in Human Hippocampus
Only five of our ten main findings were part of the differential allelic expression analysis in human hippocampus tissue (rs9919234, rs17866592, rs1254152, rs4808611, rs8170). However, based on LD (Figure 3) the latter two SNPs were identified to function as the most relevant proxies for the missing SNPs on chromosome 19 and rs17866592 can serve as proxy for rs11901004 on chromosome 2 (r2 = 1). In a cis-region of the six markers of chromosome 19 (defined using a window of +−1 mega basepairs (Mb)) we identified the minor alleles of rs4808611 and rs8170 (as well as of rs35686037, rs12982178, rs10424178 and rs10406920 based on LD) to be highly associated with lower expression of ABHD8 and MRPL34 (p = 2.7×10−5 and p = 7.6×10−5, respectively; Bonferroni-corrected for the number of transcripts in the cis-region). Both genes are in head-to-head orientation to each other and located ca. 0.12 Mb downstream of BABAM1.
Association with Hippocampus-dependent Cognitive Functioning
In order to explore possible indirect effects of risk polymorphisms on memory functioning we compared different structural equation models: Model 1 did neither include SNP nor hippocampus effects on memory, Model 2 comprised direct SNP effects on memory but no effects of hippocampus and finally Model 3 included direct effects of SNP on hippocampus as well as direct effects of hippocampus on memory (Figure S3). The comparison of established model fit indices [50] and information criteria [51], [52] revealed Model 3 as the best fit (Table S6 in File S1). In this model the negative effect of risk alleles on memory functioning are mediated by hippocampal volume. The size and direction of all effects are depicted in Figure S3 for SNP rs35686037, while the negative indirect effects of each of the six genetic risk variants of chromosome 19 are listed in Table S8 in File S1.
Discussion
By performing genome-wide association analyses of an intermediate phenotype, we identified novel genetic loci that are associated with hippocampal volume, as measured by MRI in patients with schizophrenia and in healthy controls. Six highly correlated SNPs in a LD block on chromosome 19p13.11 and four SNPs in three genomic regions on chromosome 1, 2 and 10 showed p-values between 6.7×10−6 and 8.3×10−7 in the GWA models. The SNPs on chromosome 19 were strongly associated with altered gene expression in human hippocampus tissue. Furthermore, our in silico replication analysis, using large datasets of the ENIGMA study and IMAGEN studies, provides supporting evidence for our association results.
Due to the clustering of our findings in the chromosome 19 region (providing additional support for the validity of these findings), we will first discuss these six SNPs. The genes corresponding to the aforementioned SNPs on chromosome 19p13.11 are protein-coding and feature a direct or indirect association with hippocampus and brain development. NR2F6 is an orphan nuclear receptor also known as EAR2. It has been shown to influence DNA binding, ligand-dependent nuclear receptor activity, zinc ion binding, sequence specific DNA binding transcription factor activity and hormone receptor activity [53], [54]. Furthermore, NR2F6 is involved in neural development, signal transduction and as a co-regulator of thyroid hormone nuclear receptor and glucocorticoid receptor functioning [55]. The latter function involves physical and functional interactions with NR3C1, a glucocorticoid receptor, which plays a major role in regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) system. Glucocorticoids exert negative feedback control on the HPA axis by regulating hippocampal and paraventricular nucleus neurons [56]. Oversecretion of glucocorticoids caused by sustained stress can damage the feedback response and cause hippocampal atrophy [57], [58]. Genetic variants in NR3C1 variants contribute to the genetic programming of the individual's set point of HPA axis activity and may be involved in the deregulation of HPA axis activity by biological or psychosocial stress, trauma, and early life experiences [56]. Accordingly, NR3C1 variants have been associated with hippocampal volume and unipolar depression [59].
BABAM1 plays a role in DNA repair and chromatin modification [60] and USHBP1 interacts via its C-terminus with the first PDZ domain of the Usher syndrome 1C protein, which is coded by one of several genes responsible for the Usher syndrome - a relatively rare genetic disorder that is a leading cause of deafness and gradual blindness [61]. These genes have important functions in the development and stability of the cell layers of the retina. The retina is a part of the central nervous system (and often used as a model in developmental brain cell culture studies) and it may thus be speculated whether genetic variants in USHBP1 are associated with developmental abnormalities in the arrangement of neurons in cell layers in other brain regions, such as the hippocampus, as well.
According to the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science; http://human.brain-map.org/) all three genes (NR2F6, USHBP1, BABAM1) in the highly associated LD block on chromosome 19 are expressed in human brain. As an example, the expression of NR2F6 in human hippocampus is shown in Figure S4. Furthermore, we could show that SNPs in the aforementioned genes influence the expression of proximal genes in human resected hippocampi in an allele-wise manner. The newly identified risk variants in NR2F6, USHBP1, and BABAM1 are associated with the expression of ABHD8 (abhydrolase domain containing 8), important for hydrolase activity [62], and MRPL34 (mitochondrial ribosomal protein L34), a structural constituent of ribosomes and relevant in translation processes [63]. Our findings of differential allelic expression underline the importance of the identified loci for the expression of genes related to protein synthesis and thus could provide a functional understanding of our genetic association results.
The identified polymorphisms and the corresponding genes NR2F6, USHBP1 and BABAM1 have not previously been associated with schizophrenia or other neuropsychiatric disorders. Given that our imaging genetics approach is very different from comparing genotypes across cases and controls this is not surprising. However, since hippocampal volume is a well acknowledged intermediate phenotype for schizophrenia our results open up new avenues for psychiatric research. The fact that the effect of the identified genetic variants on hippocampal volumes was not limited to, or greater in, patients with schizophrenia is in line with the intermediate phenotype hypothesis. Using intermediate phenotypes allows for the identification of risk alleles in individuals who do not carry a diagnosis (i.e. healthy controls, siblings or individuals with subthreshold symptoms) assuming that the liability to schizophrenia is stochastic rather than categorical. However, our study cannot answer the question whether the association between the identified SNPs and hippocampal volume is specific to schizophrenia but it has been suggested that a variety of other polymorphisms with small effect sizes, reciprocal effects with risk alleles of other genes, copy number variants and environmental influences may constitute a background of risk factors that could interact with the effects of NR2F6, USHBP1 and BABAM1 to increase schizophrenia susceptibility. This susceptibility may manifest itself, in part, as a structural change in the medial temporal lobe [64]–[66].
Follow up studies should not only replicate our findings but also relate the identified variants to cognitive or functional markers relevant to neuropsychiatric disorders. We attempted to take a first step into this direction by relating the polymorphisms in the NR2F6, USHBP1, and BABAM1 genes - although not genome-wide significant - to hippocampus-dependent cognitive functions, most importantly, verbal and logical memory [67]–[69]. Indeed, our exploratory structural equation models provide additional evidence for an association between the risk SNPs in these genes and impaired memory functioning which was mediated by reduced hippocampal volumes (see Table S6 and Figure S3 in File S1). In support of our findings, histopathological studies have indicated a causal relationship between verbal memory impairments and hippocampal neuron loss in CA3 and the hilar area for patients with left temporal seizure foci [70], [71].
The four remaining SNPs rs9919234, rs11901004, rs17866592, and rs1254152 (see Table 2) belong to KIF26B (1q44), TRPM8 (2q37.1) and an uncharacterized gene region (LOC283089, 10q26.13), respectively. Intervals in 1q44 have been described as critical regions containing genes leading to structural abnormalities of the corpus callosum [72]. The transient receptor potential (TRP) superfamily comprises a group of non-selective cation channels that sense and respond to changes in their local environments. In the central nervous system, TRPs participate in neurite outgrowth, receptor signalling and excitotoxic cell death resulting from anoxia [73]. Accordingly, TRPM8 was found to be a susceptibility loci for common migraine and has been the focus of neuropathic pain models [74].
Previous imaging genetics studies on hippocampal atrophy using a genome-wide approach have all focused on Alzheimer's disease. All three studies [40], [75], [76] are largely based on the same sample obtained via the multicenter Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative [77]. Potkin et al. (2009) used hippocampal grey matter density as intermediate phenotype and identified susceptibility genes for Alzheimer's disease by analyzing interaction effects. Shen et al. (2010) included a variety of imaging phenotypes (grey matter density and volumetric measures) but did not replicate the initial findings. It was concluded, that different imaging phenotypes (i.e. regions and grey matter density vs. volumes) may not be equally sensitive to the same genetic markers and consequently provide complementary information. Finally Furney et al. (2011) found a disease-specific effect of ZNF292 on entorhinal cortex volume which reached genome-wide significance. Our study design was different from these reports in that we focussed on hippocampal volume and used an independent sample of patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls.
Very recently the ENIGMA consortium published a genome-wide association analysis for mean bilateral hippocampal, total brain and intracranial volume [20]. In a large discovery sample no markers reached genome-wide significance and previously identified polymorphisms associated with hippocampal volume or schizophrenia showed no or little association. The strongest association signal for hippocampal volume after controlling for intracranial volume was reported for two SNPs in the same LD block (rs7294919 and rs7315280 with p = 4.43×10−7 and p = 2.42×10−7, respectively), located between HRK and FBXW8 (12q24.22). Neither SNP reached genome-wide significance in our sample (p = 0.05565 and p = 0.007548, respectively) or in any of the other studies on the genetics of hippocampal volume described above. Possible reasons for the different main results of the ENIGMA study compared to our own GWAS results comprise the different study design and cohorts (i.e. ENIGMA combined 17 European cohorts, some of them multicentre studies, and the data was obtained using different MRI scanner and MRI data analysis technologies as well as different genotyping platforms across the acquisition sites) as well as a somewhat different statistical approach (i.e. their models included other covariates).
Although the main association signals of the ENIGMA and our own study do not correspond, our in silico replication approach using data from the ENIGMA study provides supportive evidence for the validity of our own association signals. Similarly the regression models using genetic and hippocampal volume data of the IMAGEN study revealed SNPs in close proximity to our main hits which were associated with hippocampal volume. Given that the IMAGEN study includes solely 14-year olds, these results indicate that the identified genes or gene regions might exert their influence on hippocampal volume during development.
Nevertheless, the findings of our study have to be considered in the light of the following limitations. Firstly, none of the identified risk variants did reach the commonly accepted genome-wide significance threshold. Our sample set was limited by the number of individuals with genetic information but the use of a quantitative trait design has been shown to substantially increase the statistical power [78]. The fact that six SNPs in strong LD exhibited near-threshold association is encouraging and suggests that our findings were not likely due to genotyping artifact, although the effects may be small. Additionally, validation in a more homogeneous subsample of European descent as well as the gene expression and cognitive functioning analysis lend further support to the relevance of the identified loci. Secondly, the replication data sets did not include equally large numbers of schizophrenia patients (none in the IMAGEN sample) which makes it difficult to compare results and also precludes answering the question whether our findings are specific to schizophrenia. Thirdly, the differential allelic expression analysis was carried out using tissue of patients with chronic pharmacoresistent temporal lobe epilepsy. Although possibly more reliable than using post mortem brain tissue, epilepsy may affect non-coding DNA regulatory elements in some cells in a different way than schizophrenia or at-risk states for schizophrenia [79]. Finally, although the pattern of our results seems to point to developmental mechanisms, the hippocampus is subject to a variety of environmental influences such as physical exercise or stress effects mediated by the HPA [80], [81]. Such effects could either blur earlier developmental effects or they could themselves be moderated by genetic polymorphisms or epigenetic mechanisms [82]. To disentangle these complicated relationships, gene-environment interaction studies are warranted – unfortunately our study did not include any measures of stress or cortisol levels.
Conclusions
Taken together, our findings support previous reports demonstrating that GWAS with a quantitative brain-based intermediate phenotype as a dependent variable is a viable method to identify associated gene variants without making prior assumptions about the underlying biology of the phenotype. Our results were supported by gene expression, cognitive data and similar association signals in the replication samples. Elucidating the specific mechanisms of NR2F6, USHBP1 and BABAM1 in the regulation of neurodevelopment and synaptic (re)organization could improve our conceptual framework of processes related to hippocampal volume reduction and facilitate a better understanding of schizophrenia. Ultimately, imaging genetics could contribute to the development of methods for earlier detection and tailored therapeutic intervention in schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders [83].
Supporting Information
File S1.
SI 1 Material and Methods, SI 2 Results.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872.s001
(DOCX)
Figure S1.
First two principal components (PC) plotted against each other for MCIC data and the four HapMap populations. Definition of European subsample as described above (zoomed in on the right picture). Blue cross marks the center of all HapMap CEU individuals (International HapMap Project http://www.hapmap.org/). Blue circles are the single (inner circle) and 1.5 times (outer circle) the Euclidean distance between this center and the HapMap CEU individual farthest away from this center.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872.s002
(TIF)
Figure S2.
Forest plot of regression coefficients and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for main hits in the patient group and in healthy controls, respectively (MCIC sample). SZ = patients with schizophrenia; HC = healthy controls.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872.s003
(TIF)
Figure S3.
Path model predicting indirect effects of SNP on memory. Standardized path coefficients are given exemplarily for SNP rs35686037. Indirect effect of marker rs35686037 on “Memory” = −0.047 in the MCIC sample. For all other values see Table S4 in File S1. E1 to e5 are error terms.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872.s004
(TIF)
Figure S4.
Expression of NR2F6 in human hippocampus. Hippocampal formation spatially shown in green. Red diamonds represent loci of higher expression compared to other tissues. Figure prepared with Allen Human Brain Atlas – Brain Explorer 2 (Version 2.2 Build 2312) of the Allen Institute for Brain Science (Lau et al., 2008).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064872.s005
(TIF)
Acknowledgments
IMAGEN Consortium (http://www.imagen-europe.com) author list:
Contributors
King's College, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK: G Schumann, P Conrod, L Reed, G Barker, S Williams, E Loth, M Struve, A Lourdusamy, S Costafreda, A Cattrell, C Nymberg, L Topper, L Smith, S Havatzias, K Stueber, C Mallik, T-K Clarke, D Stacey, C Peng Wong, H Werts, S Williams, C Andrew, S Desrivieres, S Zewdie (Coordination office). Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany: A Heinz, J Gallinat, I Häke, N Ivanov, A Klär, J Reuter, C Palafox, C Hohmann, C Schilling, K Lüdemann, A Romanowski, A Ströhle, E Wolff, M Rapp. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, Germany: B Ittermann, R Brühl, A Ihlenfeld, B Walaszek, F Schubert. Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland: H Garavan, C Connolly, J Jones, E Lalor, E McCabe, A Ní Shiothcháin, R Whelan. Department of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany: R Spanagel, F Leonardi-Essmann, W Sommer. Department of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany: H Flor, S Vollstaedt-Klein, F Nees. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany: T Banaschewski, L Poustka, S Steiner. Department of Addictive Behaviour and Addiction, Medicine, Mannheim, Germany: K Mann, M Buehler, S Vollstedt-Klein. Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany: M Rietschel, E Stolzenburg, C Schmal, F Schirmbeck. Brain and Body Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK: T Paus, P Gowland, N Heym, C Lawrence, C Newman, Z Pausova. Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden, Germany: M Smolka, T Huebner, S Ripke, E Mennigen, KU Muller, V Ziesch. Department of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany: C Büchel, U Bromberg, T Fadai, L Lueken, J Yacubian, J Finsterbusch. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, Orsay, France: J-L Martinot, E Artiges, N Bordas, S de Bournonville, Z Bricaud, F Gollier Briand, H Lemaitre, J Massicotte, R Miranda, M-L Paillère Martinot, J Penttilä. Neurospin, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Paris, France: J-B Poline, A Barbot, Y Schwartz, C Lalanne, V Frouin, B Thyreau. Department of Experimental Psychology, Behavioural and Clinical Neurosciences Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK: J Dalley, A Mar, T Robbins, N Subramaniam, D Theobald, N Richmond, M de Rover, A Molander, E Jordan, E Robinson, L Hipolata, M Moreno, Mercedes Arroyo. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK: D Stephens, T Ripley, H Crombag, Y Pena. Centre National de Genotypage, Evry, France (CNG): M Lathrop, D Zelenika, S Heath. German Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Bonn (DZEM), Germany: D Lanzerath, B Heinrichs, T Spranger. Gesellschaft fuer Ablauforganisation m.b.H. (Munich) (GABO), Germany: B Fuchs, C Speiser. Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany: F Resch, J Haffner, P Parzer, R Brunner. Scito, Paris, France: A Klaassen, I Klaassen. PERTIMM, Asnières-Sur-Seine, France: P Constant, X Mignon. NordicNeuroLabs, Bergen, Norway: T Thomsen, S Zysset, A Vestboe. Delosis Ltd, London, UK: J Ireland, J Rogers.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: RG TW VR MNS VC SE. Performed the experiments: RG TW VC SE. Analyzed the data: JH EW HK LP KUM TP IMAGEN MS SC SE. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JL CW NK KUM TP GS IMAGEN. Wrote the paper: JH VR SE. Contributed to and approved the final manuscript: SE JH EW HK JL LP CW NK RG TW VR KUM TP MNS GS IMAGEN MS SC VC.
References
- 1. Cannon TD, Kaprio J, Lönnqvist J, Huttunen M, Koskenvuo M (1998) The genetic epidemiology of schizophrenia in a Finnish twin cohort. A population-based modeling study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55: 67–74.
- 2. Cardno AG, Marshall EJ, Coid B, Macdonald AM, Ribchester TR, et al. (1999) Heritability estimates for psychotic disorders: the Maudsley twin psychosis series. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56: 162–168.
- 3. Sullivan PF, Kendler KS, Neale MC (2003) Schizophrenia as a complex trait: evidence from a meta-analysis of twin studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60: 1187–1192
- 4. Smoller JW, Finn CT (2003) Family, twin, and adoption studies of bipolar disorder. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 123C: 48–58
- 5. Chanock SJ, Manolio T, Boehnke M, Boerwinkle E, Hunter DJ, et al. (2007) Replicating genotype–phenotype associations. Nature 447: 655–660
- 6. McCarthy MI, Abecasis GR, Cardon LR, Goldstein DB, Little J, et al. (2008) Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nat Rev Genet 9: 356–369
- 7. Müller DJ, Zai CC, Shinkai T, Strauss J, Kennedy JL (2011) Association between the DAOA/G72 gene and bipolar disorder and meta-analyses in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Bipolar Disord 13: 198–207
- 8. Gottesman I, Gould TD (2003) The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry 160: 636–645.
- 9. Meyer-Lindenberg A, Weinberger DR (2006) Intermediate phenotypes and genetic mechanisms of psychiatric disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 818–827
- 10. Heckers S, Heinsen H, Geiger B, Beckmann H (1991) Hippocampal neuron number in schizophrenia. A stereological study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 48: 1002–1008.
- 11. Heckers S (2001) Neuroimaging studies of the hippocampus in schizophrenia. Hippocampus 11: 520–528.
- 12. Velakoulis D, Wood SJ, Wong MTH, McGorry PD, Yung A, et al. (2006) Hippocampal and amygdala volumes according to psychosis stage and diagnosis: a magnetic resonance imaging study of chronic schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis, and ultra-high-risk individuals. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63: 139–149
- 13. Ehrlich S, Morrow EM, Roffman JL, Wallace SR, Naylor M, et al. (2010) The COMT Val108/158Met polymorphism and medial temporal lobe volumetry in patients with schizophrenia and healthy adults. Neuroimage 53: 992–1000
- 14. Antonova E, Sharma T, Morris R, Kumari V (2004) The relationship between brain structure and neurocognition in schizophrenia: a selective review. Schizophr Res 70: 117–145.
- 15. Peper JS, Brouwer RM, Boomsma DI, Kahn RS, Hulshoff Pol HE (2007) Genetic influences on human brain structure: a review of brain imaging studies in twins. Hum Brain Mapp 28: 464–473
- 16. Kaymaz N, van Os J (2009) Heritability of structural brain traits an endophenotype approach to deconstruct schizophrenia. Int Rev Neurobiol 89: 85–130
- 17. Wilcke A, Ligges C, Burkhardt J, Alexander M, Wolf C, et al. (2011) Imaging genetics of FOXP2 in dyslexia. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21897444. Accessed 18 October 2011.
- 18. Mistry M, Gillis J, Pavlidis P (2012) Genome-wide expression profiling of schizophrenia using a large combined cohort. Molecular Psychiatry Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22212594. Accessed 8 March 2012.
- 19. Le Hellard S, Håvik B, Espeseth T, Breilid H, Løvlie R, et al. (2009) Variants in doublecortin- and calmodulin kinase like 1, a gene up-regulated by BDNF, are associated with memory and general cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE 4: e7534
- 20. Stein JL, Medland SE, Vasquez AA, Hibar DP, Senstad RE, et al. (2012) Identification of common variants associated with human hippocampal and intracranial volumes. Nat Genet 44: 552–561
- 21. Schumann G, Loth E, Banaschewski T, Barbot A, Barker G, et al. (2010) The IMAGEN study: reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology. Mol Psychiatry 15: 1128–1139
- 22. White T, Magnotta VA, Bockholt HJ, Williams S, Wallace S, et al. (2011) Global white matter abnormalities in schizophrenia: a multisite diffusion tensor imaging study. Schizophr Bull 37: 222–232
- 23.
First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW (2002) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Nonpatient Edition. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.
- 24. Andreasen NC, Flaum M, Arndt S (1992) The Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History (CASH). An instrument for assessing diagnosis and psychopathology. Arch Gen Psychiatry 49: 615–623.
- 25.
Wilkinson G (1993) Wide Range Achievement Test. 3rd ed. Wilmington: Wide Range, Inc.
- 26.
Hollingshead A (1965) Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven: Yale University.
- 27. Annett M (1970) A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 61: 303–321.
- 28.
Andreasen NC (1983) Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
- 29.
Andreasen NC (1984) Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
- 30.
Andreasen NC (1987) Psychiatric Symptoms You Currently Have—Baseline (PSYCH-BASE). The University of Iowa.
- 31. Woods SW (2003) Chlorpromazine equivalent doses for the newer atypical antipsychotics. J Clin Psychiatry 64: 663–667.
- 32. Jovicich J, Czanner S, Greve D, Haley E, van der Kouwe A, et al. (2006) Reliability in multi-site structural MRI studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data. Neuroimage 30: 436–443
- 33. Jovicich J, Czanner S, Han X, Salat D, van der Kouwe A, et al. (2009) MRI-derived measurements of human subcortical, ventricular and intracranial brain volumes: Reliability effects of scan sessions, acquisition sequences, data analyses, scanner upgrade, scanner vendors and field strengths. Neuroimage 46: 177–192
- 34. Fischl B, Sereno MI, Dale AM (1999) Cortical surface-based analysis. II: Inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system. Neuroimage 9: 195–207
- 35. Fischl B, Salat DH, Busa E, Albert M, Dieterich M, et al. (2002) Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 33: 341–355.
- 36. Fischl B, Dale AM (2000) Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 11050–11055
- 37. Desikan RS, Ségonne F, Fischl B, Quinn BT, Dickerson BC, et al. (2006) An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage 31: 968–980
- 38. Buckner RL, Head D, Parker J, Fotenos AF, Marcus D, et al. (2004) A unified approach for morphometric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intracranial volume. Neuroimage 23: 724–738
- 39. Sim K, DeWitt I, Ditman T, Zalesak M, Greenhouse I, et al. (2006) Hippocampal and parahippocampal volumes in schizophrenia: a structural MRI study. Schizophr Bull 32: 332–340
- 40. Shen L, Kim S, Risacher SL, Nho K, Swaminathan S, et al. (2010) Whole genome association study of brain-wide imaging phenotypes for identifying quantitative trait loci in MCI and AD: A study of the ADNI cohort. Neuroimage 53: 1051–1063
- 41. Teo YY (2008) Common statistical issues in genome-wide association studies: a review on power, data quality control, genotype calling and population structure. Curr Opin Lipidol 19: 133–143
- 42. Anderson CA, Pettersson FH, Clarke GM, Cardon LR, Morris AP, et al. (2010) Data quality control in genetic case-control association studies. Nat Protoc 5: 1564–1573
- 43. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, et al. (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81: 559–575
- 44. Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D (2006) Population structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet 2: e190
- 45. Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, et al. (2006) Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 38: 904–909
- 46. Laurie CC, Doheny KF, Mirel DB, Pugh EW, Bierut LJ, et al. (2010) Quality control and quality assurance in genotypic data for genome-wide association studies. Genet Epidemiol 34: 591–602
- 47. Price AL, Weale ME, Patterson N, Myers SR, Need AC, et al. (2008) Long-Range LD Can Confound Genome Scans in Admixed Populations. Am J Hum Genet 83: 132–135
- 48. Novak NM, Stein JL, Medland SE, Hibar DP, Thompson PM, et al. (2012) EnigmaVis: online interactive visualization of genome-wide association studies of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium. Twin Res Hum Genet 15: 414–418
- 49. Panagiotou OA, Ioannidis JPA (2012) What should the genome-wide significance threshold be? Empirical replication of borderline genetic associations. International Journal of Epidemiology 41: 273–286
- 50.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1984) LISREL VI analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least square methods. University of Uppsala, Dept of Statistics.
- 51. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Proc 2nd Inter Symposium of Information Theory 267–281.
- 52. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 445–455.
- 53. Miyajima N, Kadowaki Y, Fukushige S, Shimizu S, Semba K, et al. (1988) Identification of two novel members of erbA superfamily by molecular cloning: the gene products of the two are highly related to each other. Nucleic Acids Res 16: 11057–11074.
- 54. Zhang Y, Dufau ML (2000) Nuclear orphan receptors regulate transcription of the gene for the human luteinizing hormone receptor. J Biol Chem 275: 2763–2770.
- 55. Zhu XG, Park KS, Kaneshige M, Bhat MK, Zhu Q, et al. (2000) The orphan nuclear receptor Ear-2 is a negative coregulator for thyroid hormone nuclear receptor function. Mol Cell Biol 20: 2604–2618.
- 56. Rajeevan MS, Smith AK, Dimulescu I, Unger ER, Vernon SD, et al. (2007) Glucocorticoid receptor polymorphisms and haplotypes associated with chronic fatigue syndrome. Genes Brain Behav 6: 167–176
- 57. Sapolsky RM (2000) Glucocorticoids and hippocampal atrophy in neuropsychiatric disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57: 925–935.
- 58. Lee AL, Ogle WO, Sapolsky RM (2002) Stress and depression: possible links to neuron death in the hippocampus. Bipolar Disord 4: 117–128.
- 59. Zobel A, Jessen F, von Widdern O, Schuhmacher A, Höfels S, et al. (2008) Unipolar depression and hippocampal volume: impact of DNA sequence variants of the glucocorticoid receptor gene. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 147B: 836–843
- 60. Shao G, Patterson-Fortin J, Messick TE, Feng D, Shanbhag N, et al. (2009) MERIT40 controls BRCA1-Rap80 complex integrity and recruitment to DNA double-strand breaks. Genes Dev 23: 740–754
- 61. Petit C (2001) Usher syndrome: from genetics to pathogenesis. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2: 271–297
- 62. Strausberg RL, Feingold EA, Grouse LH, Derge JG, Klausner RD, et al. (2002) Generation and initial analysis of more than 15,000 full-length human and mouse cDNA sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 16899–16903
- 63. Kenmochi N, Suzuki T, Uechi T, Magoori M, Kuniba M, et al. (2001) The human mitochondrial ribosomal protein genes: mapping of 54 genes to the chromosomes and implications for human disorders. Genomics 77: 65–70
- 64. Lawrie SM, McIntosh AM, Hall J, Owens DG, Johnstone EC (2008) Brain structure and function changes during the development of schizophrenia: the evidence from studies of subjects at increased genetic risk. Schizophr Bull 34: 330–340.
- 65. Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Cannon M, McClay J, Murray R, et al. (2005) Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis by a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene: longitudinal evidence of a gene X environment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 57: 1117–1127.
- 66. Poot M, van der Smagt JJ, Brilstra EH, Bourgeron T (2011) Disentangling the myriad genomics of complex disorders, specifically focusing on autism, epilepsy, and schizophrenia. Cytogenet Genome Res 135: 228–240
- 67. Sutherland RJ, Weisend MP, Mumby D, Astur RS, Hanlon FM, et al. (2001) Retrograde amnesia after hippocampal damage: recent vs. remote memories in two tasks. Hippocampus 11: 27–42
- 68.
Cohen NJ, Eichenbaum H (1993) The Neuropsychology of Memory. MIT Press.
- 69.
Squire LR, Schacter DL (2002) The Neuropsychology of Memory. 3rd ed. Guilford Publications, Inc.
- 70. Sass KJ, Spencer DD, Kim JH, Westerveld M, Novelly RA, et al. (1990) Verbal memory impairment correlates with hippocampal pyramidal cell density. Neurology 40: 1694–1697.
- 71. Sass KJ, Sass A, Westerveld M, Lencz T, Novelly RA, et al. (1992) Specificity in the correlation of verbal memory and hippocampal neuron loss: dissociation of memory, language, and verbal intellectual ability. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 14: 662–672
- 72. Orellana C, Roselló M, Monfort S, Oltra S, Quiroga R, et al. (2009) Corpus callosum abnormalities and the controversy about the candidate genes located in 1q44. Cytogenet Genome Res 127: 5–8
- 73. Moran MM, Xu H, Clapham DE (2004) TRP ion channels in the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14: 362–369
- 74. Chasman DI, Schürks M, Anttila V, Vries Bde, Schminke U, et al. (2011) Genome-wide association study reveals three susceptibility loci for common migraine in the general population. Nature Genetics 43: 695–698
- 75. Potkin SG, Guffanti G, Lakatos A, Turner JA, Kruggel F, et al. (2009) Hippocampal atrophy as a quantitative trait in a genome-wide association study identifying novel susceptibility genes for Alzheimer's disease. PLoS ONE 4: e6501
- 76. Furney SJ, Simmons A, Breen G, Pedroso I, Lunnon K, et al. (2011) Genome-wide association with MRI atrophy measures as a quantitative trait locus for Alzheimer's disease. Mol Psychiatry 16: 1130–1138
- 77. Jack CR Jr, Bernstein MA, Fox NC, Thompson P, Alexander G, et al. (2008) The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): MRI methods. J Magn Reson Imaging 27: 685–691
- 78. Potkin SG, Turner JA, Guffanti G, Lakatos A, Torri F, et al. (2009) Genome-wide strategies for discovering genetic influences on cognition and cognitive disorders: methodological considerations. Cogn Neuropsychiatry 14: 391–418
- 79. Kohtz JD, Berghoff E (2010) Regulatory Long Non-coding RNAs and Neuronal Disorders. Physiol Behav 100: 250–254
- 80. Phillips LJ, McGorry PD, Garner B, Thompson KN, Pantelis C, et al. (2006) Stress, the hippocampus and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis: implications for the development of psychotic disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 40: 725–741
- 81. Highley JR, Walker MA, McDONALD B, Crow TJ, Esiri MM (2003) Size of Hippocampal Pyramidal Neurons in Schizophrenia. BJP 183: 414–417
- 82. Krebs MO, Bellon A, Mainguy G, Jay TM, Frieling H (2009) One-carbon metabolism and schizophrenia: current challenges and future directions. Trends Mol Med 15: 562–570
- 83. Correll CU, Hauser M, Auther AM, Cornblatt BA (2010) Research in people with psychosis risk syndrome: a review of the current evidence and future directions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 51: 390–431