Abstract
Genetic liability to substance use disorders can be parsed into loci conferring general and substance-specific addiction risk. We report a multivariate genome-wide association study that disaggregates general and substance-specific loci for problematic alcohol use, problematic tobacco use, and cannabis and opioid use disorders in a sample of 1,025,550 individuals of European and 92,630 individuals of African descent. Nineteen loci were genome-wide significant for the general addiction risk factor (addiction-rf), which showed high polygenicity. Across ancestries PDE4B was significant (among others), suggesting dopamine regulation as a cross-trait vulnerability. The addiction-rf polygenic risk score was associated with substance use disorders, psychopathologies, somatic conditions, and environments associated with the onset of addictions. Substance-specific loci (9 for alcohol, 32 for tobacco, 5 for cannabis, 1 for opioids) included metabolic and receptor genes. These findings provide insight into the genetic architecture of general and substance-specific use disorder risk that may be leveraged as treatment targets.
The lives lost, impacts on individuals and families, and socioeconomic costs attributable to substance use reflect a growing public health crisis1. For example, in the United States, 13.5% of deaths among young adults2 are attributable to alcohol, smoking is the leading risk factor for mortality in males3, and the odds of dying by opioid overdose are greater than those of dying in a motor vehicle crash4. Despite the large impact of substance use and disorders5, there is limited knowledge of the molecular genetic underpinnings of addiction broadly. This may be partially attributable to the often-siloed study of substance use disorders (SUDs) as unique substance-specific entities, despite shared symptomatology and widespread comorbidity among SUDs.
Individual SUDs are heritable (h2 ∼ 50-60%) and highly polygenic6,7. Recent large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified loci associated with problematic drinking8,9, alcohol use disorder (AUD)10,11, cigarettes smoked per day12, nicotine dependence13,14, cannabis use disorder (CUD)15 and opioid use disorder (OUD)16. Echoing evidence from twin and family studies17, these GWAS show that the genomic architecture of SUDs is characterized by a high degree of commonality18. This shared genetic architecture is correlated with genetic liability to non-substance psychopathology (e.g., major depression, schizophrenia) and traits such as executive functioning, risk-taking and neuroticism that underlie neurobiological models of addiction18. Even after accounting for genetic correlations with non-problematic substance use and with other psychiatrically-relevant traits and disorders, there is considerable variance that is unique to a general risk for addiction, indicating that a liability to addiction reflects more than just the combined genetic liability to substance use and psychopathology18-20.
Characterizing the genetic architecture associated with a liability to SUDs in general and to specific SUDs could expedite advances in the nosology, prevention, and treatment of these disorders. To this end, we conducted a multivariate GWAS of largest available discovery GWAS of substance use disorders, including problematic alcohol use (PAU: N=435,563)8, problematic tobacco use (PTU: N=270,120)12,14,18, cannabis use disorder (CUD: N=384,032)15 and opioid use disorder (OUD: N=79,729)16. First, we partitioned SNP effects into 5 sources of variation: (1) a general addiction risk factor (referred to as addiction-rf), and risks specific to (2) alcohol, (3) nicotine, (4) cannabis and (5) opioids. Second, we identified biological pathways underlying risk for these 5 SUD phenotypes using gene, eQTL, and pathway enrichment analyses. Third, we examined whether currently available medications could potentially be repurposed to treat SUDs by examining whether the gene expression profiles of in vitro neuronal cell lines treated with these chemical compounds21 are associated with gene expression profiles in postmortem brain tissue correlated with addiction-rf. Fourth, we assessed the association of a polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from addiction-rf with general and specific SUD phenotypes in an independent case/control sample. Fifth, we examined the extent to which genetic liability to addiction-rf is shared with other phenotypes (e.g., physical and mental health outcomes) by estimating genetic correlations with published GWAS of those traits. We also examined genetic evidence for causality for phenotypes that were significantly genetically correlated with addiction-rf. Sixth, we tested whether the addiction-rf PRS was associated with: (a) medical diagnoses derived from electronic medical records in a population cohort (BioVU, n=66,914)22, and (b) 1,480 behavioral and neural phenotypes in largely substance-naïve 9-10-year-old children (n=4,490) from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study®23.
Results
European ancestry GWAS: Addiction risk factor
As shown in our prior study18, the single factor model fit the data well (X2(1) = .017, p = 0.895, CFI = 1, SRMR = 0.002; factor loadings 0.36 – 0.93; lowest for PTU; Supplemental Methods for full model). Using genomic structural equation modeling24, we identified 19 independent (r2 < 0.1) genome-wide significant (GWS) SNPs that map onto 17 genomic risk loci that were associated with the addiction-rf (Figure 1; Table 1; Supplemental Table 1 for independent SNPs and Supplemental Table 2 for genomic risk loci). The most significant SNP (rs6589386, p=2.9e-12) was intergenic, but closest to DRD2 (Dopamine receptor 2), which was GWS in gene-based analyses (p=7.9e-12). Further, rs6589386 was an expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) for DRD2 in the cerebellum, and Hi-C analyses (in FUMA)25 revealed that the variant made chromatin contact with the promoter of the gene (Supplemental Figure 1).
Gene-based analyses identified 42 significant associations (Supplemental Table 3) with the most significant signals in FTO (p=1.86E-13), DRD2 (p=7.9e-12), and PDE4B (p=9.63E-11). Fine-mapping identified 123 GWS SNPs (of 660 non-independent GWS SNPs) in credible sets as potential causal SNPs based on the posterior probability of inclusion (Supplemental Table 4). Mapping the lead independent SNPs in the credible sets to their nearest gene based on posterior probability of 1, the following SNPs showed the strongest causal potential: rs1937455 (PDE4B), rs3739095 (GTF3C2), rs6718128 (ZNF512), rs4143308 (RP11-89K21.1), rs4953152 (SIX3), rs41335055 (CTD-2026C7.1), rs2678900 (VRK), rs7620024 (TCTA), rs283412 (ADH1C), rs901406 (BANK1), rs359590 (RABEPK), rs10083370 (LINC00637), rs1477196 (FTO), rs291699 (CDK5RAP1) (Supplemental Table 4 and Figure 1). Pathway analysis of gene-based results revealed several significant GO terms including double-stranded DNA binding (pbonferroni=0.005), sequence-specific double-stranded DNA binding (pbonferroni=0.01), regulation of nervous system development (2 terms: pbonferroni=0.011 – 0.037), and positive regulation of transcription by RNA polymerase (pbonferroni=0.038) (Supplemental Table 5).
European ancestry GWAS: Substance-specific risk
Q-SNP analysis24 indicated that some SNPs were associated individually with PAU, PTU, CUD and OUD, and that these associations were inconsistent with the effect of these SNPs via the addiction-rf. Many of these were top loci from past GWAS of individual SUDs that could be mechanistically linked to specific substances (e.g., ADH1B and alcohol, CHRNA5 and tobacco; Supplemental Figure 2A). To assess whether loci were associated with only one substance, we used ASSET (1-sided p < 5e-8)26. Only SNPs that were associated at GWS with one of the individual substances in ASSET were considered as substance-specific. (Supplemental Figure 2B-E).
Problematic Alcohol Use
There were 9 independent SNPs in 6 loci associated specifically with PAU in ASSET (Supplemental Figure 2B; Supplemental Table 6 and 7). The top signal was rs1229984 in ADH1B (p-value=4.11E-68), as expected7. Gene-based enrichment analyses also implicated the alcohol dehydrogenase activity zinc dependent pathway (pbonferroni=0.0347; Supplemental Table 8). Several SNPs were in genes that metabolize sugars including KLB (rs13129401, p=2.37e-18), GCKR (rs1260326, p=1.53e-18), but the pathway analysis did not discover any particular metabolic pathway.
Problematic Tobacco Use
PTU was specifically associated with 32 independent SNPs in 12 loci. The top SNP was rs10419203 (p=5.12e-267), though the signal is likely driven by the CHRNA5 missense variant, rs16969968 (p=2.79e-175), which has previously been linked to tobacco use (Supplemental Figure 2C; Supplemental Table 9 and 10). Several other SNPs were closest to genes encoding nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, including CHRNA4, CHRNB4, CHRNB3, CHRNB2. Gene-based enrichment implicated multiple pathways and gene sets related to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (Supplemental Table 11). Specific dopamine-related associations were also noted (e.g., PDE1C: rs415820; p=2.35e-18; DBH: rs1108581;p=1.00e-14).
Cannabis Use Disorder
ASSET identified 5 substance-specific loci for CUD (Supplemental Table 12 and 13), with lead signals at rs11913634 (p=1.20e-15), rs8104317 (p=1.17e-13), rs72818514 (p=1.57e-09), rs11778040 (p=1.77e-09), and rs11715758 (p=4.84e-08; Supplemental Figure 2D). Interestingly, the lead signal rs11913634 (p = 1.20e-15) on chromosome 5 mapped to FAM19A5, a brain specific gene influencing histone modification, rs8104317 (p=1.17e13) mapped to CACNA1A, while rs11778040 mapped to the previously15 discovered signal for CUD near CHRNA2 and EPHX2. CUD-specific signals showed no significant gene-based enrichment.
Opioid Use Disorder
The only significant substance-specific signal for OUD was the well-characterized mu opioid receptor (OPRM1) SNP, rs1799971 (p=1.63e-08; Figure 2E). Gene-based analyses produced no significant findings.
African ancestry GWAS
The ASSET-based meta-analysis of GWAS data for AUD (N=82,705)11, tobacco dependence (based on the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence, N=9,925)14, CUD (N=9,745)15, and OUD (N=32,088)16 in individuals of African ancestry yielded only 1 GWS SNP: rs2066702, an ADH1B variant that has been associated with alcohol-specific effects (Supplemental Figure 3A). One SNP, rs77193269 (p=4.92e-8), was GWS for AUD and tobacco dependence when considering ASSET loci pleiotropic for 2 traits (Supplemental Figure 3B). Due to its location, this SNP likely represents the ADH1B locus.
Cross-Ancestry GWAS Results
We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis across ancestries using METASOFT27, with ancestry accounted for as a random effect. Only 317,447 SNPs were included after filtering for SNPs that did not show pleiotropic effects in ASSET (i.e., substance-specific) for either ancestry and for SNPs with genome-wide Cochran Q statistics indicating heterogeneity between the two ancestral groups. We found 68 SNPs (Supplemental Figure 4), which were challenging to map to lead loci due to the differences in LD structure across ancestries. Table 2 lists SNP with lowest GWAS p-value on each chromosome. The most significant association was noted near the FUT2 gene (rs507766, p = 3.47e-19). Many GWS signals were consistent with genes found in the European GWAS, including FTO (rs9928094, p = 6.50e-32) and PDE4B (rs1937439, p = 8.56e-12). We also identified two SNPs in genes which have previously been implicated in SUDs including CADM2 (rs62250713, p=1.00E-18) and FOXP2 (rs4727799, p=3.90E-15), both of which were within r2 = 0.6 of lead signals from the European GWAS.
Polygenic architecture and power
The addiction-rf showed a highly polygenic architecture and smaller effect sizes per SNP (Supplemental Figure 5A and 5B) than the original GWAS of PAU, PTU, CUD and OUD. In line with the discovery of variants of relatively large effects acting in PTU, OUD, and PAU (e.g., CHRNA5, OPRM1, and ADH1B)6, the substance-specific genetic architectures were relatively less polygenic.
Transcriptome-wide Association Analysis and Drug Repurposing
A transcriptome-wide association analysis28 of addiction-rf identified 35 genes in 13 brain tissues (Figure 2; Supplemental Table 14). In a gene-set analysis using FUMA25, these genes were enriched for gene sets and pathways related to neural cells and T-cell processes (Supplemental Figure 6). Linking transcriptome-wide patterns to perturbagens that cross the blood-brain barrier from the Library of Integrated Network-Based Cellular Signatures (LINCS)29 database identified 104 medications approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (Supplemental Table 15). The top hits (pbonferroni <0.0001) that reversed the transcriptional profile associated with the addiction-rf factor included mifepristone (rank #1), a progesterone blocker; varenicline (rank #18), a partial nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist drug used in smoking cessation; riluzole (rank #24), a glutamate release and voltage-dependent sodium channel inhibitor; and reboxetine (rank #14), a selective norepinephrine/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor.
LD Score Regression and Genetic Correlations
After Bonferroni correction (p < .05/1,547 =3.20e-5), the addiction-rf was genetically correlated with 250 phenotypes (Figure 3; Supplemental Table 16). Notably, 38 of these included somatic diseases that are often associated with one specific drug (e.g., lung cancer with tobacco, and pain-related conditions with opioids). As expected, we found significant genetic correlations between the addiction-rf and serious, trans-diagnostic psychopathologic behaviors, including suicide attempt (rg=.618, p=2.89e-33) and self-medication (e.g., using non-prescribed drugs or alcohol for anxiety, rg=.635, p=3.18e-5). The addiction-rf was correlated with, but remained separable based on 95% confidence intervals (rg=0.63,±.037, p=2.33e-231), from an externalizing factor24 that included similar indices of problematic substance use and behavioral measures.
Latent Causal Variable Analysis
We conducted Latent causal variable (LCV)30 analyses on the same 250 phenotypes that were significant in our genetic correlation analyses. In general, the genetic causality proportion (gcp, an index of the proportion of genetic causality) was nominally significant for several physical diseases (Supplemental Table 17; addiction-rf is trait 2 in all instances, therefore a negative gcp indicates a causal effect of addiction-rf on another trait). After correction for multiple comparisons (p = 0.05/250 = 1.98e-4), the only significant causal processes were medication codes related to cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes and exogenous hormones where there was support for a causal role of addiction-rf on the physical diseases indexed by these codes.
Polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses
PRS analyses with similar measures of addiction-rf and individual SUDs
In the independent Yale-Penn 3 sample16 (EUR n=1,986), the addiction-rf PRS was significantly associated with a phenotypic factor underlying several SUDs (p<.001), polysubstance use disorder (p<2e-16), and each individual SUD (DSM-IV31: AUD, CUD, OUD, tobacco dependence, or TD, and cocaine use disorder, or CoUD; Figure 4; Supplemental Table 18). Nagelkereke’s r2 values ranged from 2.4% for CUD to 5.9% for TD, and 6.6% for a phenotype similar to addiction-rf that represents phenotypic commonality across AUD, CUD, OUD, TD and CoUD. Odds ratios varied from 1.41 for CUD to 1.73 for OUD.
PheWAS in Electronic Health Record data
In the BioVU sample (EUR N=66,914)22, the addiction-rf PRS was associated with SUDs (p=3.31e-29; Figure 5), various types of substance involvement [e.g., Tobacco Use Disorder p=9.79e-24, alcoholism (so named in EHR, we note the term “alcohol use disorder” is more appropriate), p=1.12e-21), chronic airway obstruction (p=4.99e-10)], and several psychiatric disorders, with the strongest being bipolar disorder (p=2.44e-11). Controlling for any SUD diagnosis to account for causal effects found similar associations with alcoholism, mood disorders, respiratory disease, and heart disease (Supplemental Figure 7A). Controlling for tobacco use disorder diagnosis did not significantly modify associations (Supplemental Figure 7B).
Behavioral and Neural Phenotypes in Substance-Naïve Children
Among 4,491 substance-naïve children aged 9-10 years who completed the baseline session of the ABCD Study®23, the addiction-rf PRS was correlated (after Bonferroni correction) with impulsivity (p=2.09e-05), family history of drug addiction (p=7.04e-07), family history of hospitalization due to mental health concerns (including suicide; p=4.64e-06), childhood externalizing behaviors (e.g., antisocial; p=1.62e-05), childhood thought problems (p=3.51e-06), sleep disturbances (p=1.52e-07), parental externalizing and substance use behaviors (e.g., prenatal smoking; p=2.87e-11), maternal pregnancy characteristics (e.g., urinary tract infection during pregnancy, p=2.70e-7), socio-economic disadvantage (e.g., child’s neighborhood deprivation; p= 9.84e-07), and child’s likeliness to play sports (p=2.80e-06) (Figure 6; Supplemental Table 19 for results from all phenotypes).
Discussion
Our multivariate GWAS (total n=1,025,550) revealed that a general liability to addiction to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and opioids is characterized by a highly polygenic architecture. The addiction-rf correlated with other medically relevant traits and illnesses. Substance-specific genetic factors with relatively less polygenic architectures, and in some instances, a single SNP of larger effect (e.g., ADH1B for alcohol) were also identified. Outlining this common genetic factor - addiction-rf - suggests that current substance-specific diagnostic classification schemes (e.g., DSM) only partially represent the phenomenon of SUD at the genetic level of analysis.
We found 17 genomic loci significantly associated with addiction-rf, and 27 substance-specific loci. Post-hoc fine-mapping, annotation, and exploratory drug repurposing analyses highlight the potential therapeutic relevance of the discovered loci. The addiction-rf PRS was associated with many medical conditions characterized by high morbidity and mortality rates, including psychiatric illnesses, self-harming behaviors, and somatic diseases that could be consequences of chronic substance use (e.g., chronic airway obstruction) or precursors to heavy substance use (e.g., chronic pain). Finally, in a sample of drug-naïve children, the addiction-rf PRS was correlated with impulsivity and externalizing behaviors, a family history of hospitalization for and diagnosis of severe mental illness, thought problems, and neighborhood deprivation, which reflects the shared genetic and gene-environment correlations with phenotypes and exposures present early in life.
Our analyses suggest that the regulation/modulation of dopaminergic genes, rather than variation in dopaminergic genes themselves, is central to general addiction liability. DRD2 was the top gene signal, which was mapped via chromatin refolding, suggesting a regulatory mechanism. The role of striatal dopamine in positive drug reinforcement is well established32. DRD2 plays a role in reward sensitivity and may also be central to executive functioning33 – the interplay of reward and cognition is likely relevant throughout the course of addiction. These complementary observations reinforce the role of dopamine signaling in addiction34,29. Our results give some evidence that chromatin refolding plays a role in these processes.
Other regulatory effects on dopaminergic pathways were supported by the signal at PDE4B, which has been implicated in prior GWASs of disinhibition traits35. The PDE4 antagonist, ibudilast, has been shown to reduce heavy drinking among patients with AUD36,37 and also shown to reduce inflammation in methamphetamine use disorder38. The phosphodiesterase (PDE) system has been proposed as a dopaminergic regulation mechanism, and PDE inhibitors have been tested as treatments for cognitive impairments in schizophrenia that arise from antipsychotic antagonism of dopamine receptors, albeit with side effects39. Further, animal studies suggest that the PDE system is associated with down-regulation of drug-seeking behaviors across opioids, alcohol, and psychostimulants40, convergent evidence of the potential translational significance of this gene system for therapeutics41.
The addiction-rf PRS was associated with general and specific SUD liability in an independent sample. The addiction-rf PRS predicted ∼6% of OUD variance, which is nearly half the total SNP-heritability of OUD16. The addiction-rf PRS also predicted variance in CoUD - as CoUD was not included in the development of the addiction-rf (lack of well-powered CoUD GWAS), these findings highlight the generalizability of the addiction-rf beyond alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and opioids. Further, the addiction-rf PRS explained appreciable variance for a phenotypic factor comprised of AUD, CUD, OUD, TD and CoUD (R2 = 6.6%), suggesting that combining information across SUDs may be a useful strategy in PRS analyses of addiction.
Considering how readily many of the top hits and mechanisms can be translated into medication targets (e.g., PDE4B), we conducted a reverse transcriptional drug repurposing analysis of addiction-rf. Rather than focusing on individual gene targets, this method uses a transcriptional profile to predict the top drugs that reverse the transcriptional pattern that we derived from a transcriptome-wide association analysis. We found >100 potential perturbagens that partially reverse the transcriptional patterns underlying general addiction risk (Supplemental Table 17). Some of these drugs have existing evidence for treatment of SUDs, such as varenicline, an efficacious smoking cessation drug42 that may also reduce craving for alcohol in smokers and drinking in non-smokers43. Other drugs identified in the repurposing analysis that are being actively investigated include mifepristone, which is currently under clinical investigation for the treatment of alcohol dependence44,45; riluzole, for which there is early evidence of a treatment effect in stimulant dependence46,47; and reboxetine, that may have utility in the treatment of CoUD48.
Substance-specific genetic signals fell primarily into three broad categories: drug-specific metabolism (e.g., ADH1B for PAU), drug receptors (e.g., CHRNA5 for PTU, OPRM1 for OUD), and general neurotransmitter mechanisms (e.g., CACNA1A for CUD). In particular, alcohol-specific effects associated with ADH1B and other alcohol dehydrogenase genes49 and tobacco-specific effects associated with CHRNA5 and acetylcholine receptor genes were an order of magnitude greater than those noted for the addiction-rf. Surprisingly, even after accounting for the addiction-rf, dopaminergic genes (DBH and PDE1C in particular) were implicated in substance-specific effects for tobacco (PTU). On the other hand, CUD-specific genes did not include well-studied receptor targets (e.g., CNR1) or metabolic mechanisms (e.g., Cytochrome P450 genes). However, the cannabis-specific loci were eQTLs for CHRNA2, and there is some evidence that CNR1 and CHRNA2 expression are anti-correlated in some brain regions50. It is also likely, given the high loading (0.74) of CUD on addiction-rf, that current GWASs of CUD capture genetic vulnerability that is relatively non-specific. Alternatively, effect sizes for cannabis-specific variants may be too small to detect in the available data.
Genome-wide genetic correlations and PheWAS across multiple different samples supported the role of pleiotropy and/or causality in the relationship between problematic substance use and other disinhibitory behaviors across the lifespan. Age at first sexual intercourse was amongst the phenotypes most highly genetically correlated with addiction-rf. Even in predominantly substance-naïve youth, the addiction-rf PRS was associated with externalizing behaviors, which reinforces the developmental role of these behaviors in the etiology of drug use. Despite the genetic overlap between the addiction-rf and a recent index of externalizing behaviors (rG=0.63)35, a significant portion of the variance in addiction-rf was distinct.
Our analyses highlight the robust genetic association of addiction-rf with serious mental and somatic illness. The addiction-rf PRS was more strongly associated with using drugs to cope with internalizing disorder symptoms (anxiety, depression; rg=0.60-0.62) than with the individual psychiatric traits and disorders themselves (rg=0.3), suggesting that genetic correlations between SUDs and mood disorders may partially be attributable to a predisposition to use substances to alleviate negative mood states (“self-medication”)51. Self-harm as indexed by the ingestion of medication, suicide attempt, and family history of suicide attempt were also highly correlated with the addiction-rf (rg range: 0.45-0.62). The findings regarding personal and family history of suicidal thoughts and behaviors are consistent with other recent reports that addiction is more highly correlated with suicidality than most other behaviors52-54. As with internalizing disorders, although the observed genetic correlation could reflect a causal pathway from SUD to suicidal thoughts and behaviors55, latent causal variable analysis revealed a non-significant causal effect (p=0.72, Supplemental Table 18).
The PheWAS also provided insight into potentially complex mechanisms of genetic liability to environmental pathways of risk. In addition to indices of socio-economic status (SES), the addiction-rf was correlated with maternal smoking during pregnancy and ADHD, in line with evidence that effects ascribed to the prenatal environment may also be mediated by the inheritance of risk loci56,57. The addiction-rf PRS was associated with a family history of serious mental illness, which likely represents an amalgam of genetic and environmental vulnerability58. Finally, disability and SES were also associated with polygenic risk, further supporting the association between environmental risk factors and common genetic effects on SUD liability9,59,60.
This study has limitations. First, our GWAS in individuals of African-ancestry had few discoveries, underscoring the need for systematic data collection on SUDs in globally representative populations. Still, we chose to analyze and present these data as their exclusion only furthers disparities in genetic discoveries. Second, although we discovered many loci, they accounted for only a small proportion of the total variance. More samples, particularly those in diverse populations, and the integration of rarer variants are needed to discover the biological pathways that fall below genome-wide significance or are missed in GWAS. Finally, the authors note that despite interesting correlations between the addiction-rf PRS and a variety of traits, effect sizes were not of a clinically-relevant magnitude nor were analyses designed to make inferences that could apply in a clinical setting. Furthermore, some of the observed associations (e.g., in the ABCD® study where we examine a host of parental characteristics using offspring PRS) are likely confounded by other factors (e.g., SES), which are beyond the scope of detailed study here, and hence have no application in clinical prognostication. Critically, our analyses clearly demonstrate that genetic risk to addictions is polygenic and comprised of very small effects of many loci, and that this genetic vulnerability is accompanied by environmental risk and resilience factors. Therefore, utilizing these PRS alone to forecast outcomes in developing youth is unlikely to be of utility in the absence of rigorously conducted follow-up studies. Consequently, the authors strongly caution against using the findings from this study, including the PRS, beyond research, and particularly across ancestral groups where they can generate spurious findings if not appropriately applied.
Conclusion
The polygenic effects of loci associated with problematic substance use, both those conferring general addiction liability and those that are substance-specific, indirectly pose risks for a range of serious medical conditions across the lifespan. However, unlike many chronic conditions (e.g., type 2 diabetes, hypertension), efficacious treatments for addictions are not widely prescribed. Large-scale GWAS could identify additional genes and biological pathways (e.g., PDE4B and the PDE system) that could be leveraged for medications development. Although there are independent genetic contributions to individual SUDs, this study strongly reinforces the idea that a common and highly polygenic genetic architecture underlies multiple SUDs, a finding that merits integration into medical knowledge on addictions.
Data Availability
Data Availability: The MVP summary statistics were obtained via an approved dbGaP application (phs001672.v4.p1). The authors thank Million Veteran Program (MVP) staff, researchers, and volunteers, who have contributed to MVP, and especially participants who previously served their country in the military and now generously agreed to enroll in the study. (For details, see https://www.research.va.gov/mvp/ and Gaziano, J.M. et al. Million Veteran Program: A mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease. J Clin Epidemiol 70, 214-23 (2016)). This research is based on data from the Million Veteran Program, Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, and was supported by the Veterans Administration (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) award #G002. Publicly available data were also taken from the psychiatric genomics consortium: https://www.med.unc.edu/pgc/, and the GSCAN consortium: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/201564
Footnotes
↵# The full list of the members of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium’s Substance Use Disorders (PGC-SUD) Working Group is in the appendix. [how we list authors depends on journal]
Disclosure: Dr. Kranzler is a member of advisory boards for Dicerna Pharmaceuticals and Sophrosyne Pharmaceuticals, and Enthion Pharmaceuticals; a consultant to Sobrera Pharmaceuticals; and a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology’s Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which was supported in the last three years by Alkermes, Dicerna, Ethypharm, Lundbeck, Mitsubishi, and Otsuka. Drs. Kranzler and Gelernter are named as inventors on PCT patent application #15/878,640 entitled: “Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,” filed January 24, 2018.
Data Availability: The MVP summary statistics were obtained via an approved dbGaP application (phs001672.v4.p1). The authors thank Million Veteran Program (MVP) staff, researchers, and volunteers, who have contributed to MVP, and especially participants who previously served their country in the military and now generously agreed to enroll in the study. (For details, see https://www.research.va.gov/mvp/ and Gaziano, J.M. et al. Million Veteran Program: A mega-biobank to study genetic influences on health and disease. J Clin Epidemiol 70, 214-23 (2016)). This research is based on data from the Million Veteran Program, Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, and was supported by the Veterans Administration (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) award #G002.
Publicly available data were also taken from the psychiatric genomics consortium: https://www.med.unc.edu/pgc/, and the GSCAN consortium: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/201564
Funding: T32DA007261 (ASH), DA54869 (AA, JG, HE), DA54750 (AA, RB), K02DA32573 (AA), R21AA027827 (RB), K01DA51759 (ECJ), DP1DA54394 (SS-R), R01AA027522 (AE), F31AA029934 (SEP), R01MH120219 (EMTD, ADG), RF1AG073593 (EMTD, ADG), P30AG066614 (EMTD), P2CHD042849 (EMTD), R33DA047527 (RP, GAP), T32 AA028259 (JDD)