Genetics and intermediate phenotypes of the schizophrenia—bipolar disorder boundary

Abstract

Categorization of psychotic illnesses into schizophrenic and affective psychoses remains an ongoing controversy. Although Kraepelinian subtyping of psychosis was historically beneficial, modern genetic and neurophysiological studies do not support dichotomous conceptualization of psychosis. Evidence suggests that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder rather present a clinical continuum with partially overlapping symptom dimensions, neurophysiology, genetics and treatment responses. Recent large scale genetic studies have produced inconsistent findings and exposed an urgent need for re-thinking phenomenology-based approach in psychiatric research. Epidemiological, linkage and molecular genetic studies, as well as studies in intermediate phenotypes (neurocognitive, neurophysiological and anatomical imaging) in schizophrenia and bipolar disorders are reviewed in order to support a dimensional conceptualization of psychosis. Overlapping and unique genetic and intermediate phenotypic signatures of the two psychoses are comprehensively recapitulated. Alternative strategies which may be implicated into genetic research are discussed.

Introduction

Insanity was subdivided by Kraepelin in the 1890s into manic depressive psychosis and dementia praecox, distinguished by symptom profile, course of the illnesses and by overall outcome. Since that time, clinical scientists have discussed whether this is a useful division or a false dichotomy. The question remains whether this categorization conforms to a biological distinction between these two syndromes likely to be molecularly based, or not. Formulating answers to this question highlights the current controversy of whether it is more advantageous to utilize traditional diagnostic categories or to pursue dimensional constructs when examining pathophysiology, etiology and treatment of psychiatric diagnoses. Here we explore the biological characteristics of “psychosis” in two chronic psychotic illnesses, schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar-I disorder (BD).

DSM-IV distinguishes between SZ and psychotic mood disorders, mainly on the basis of psychosis being the core defining feature of SZ; whereas, in mood disorders, psychosis is a “secondary” phenomenon. In fact, there is no DSM-IV diagnostic category for psychotic BD, although psychosis is included as a specifier for severe mood episodes. Psychosis in mood disorders is treated as a fleeting feature, even though recent research suggests that a subpopulation of BD patients manifests psychosis as a consistent syndrome and has distinctive genetic characteristics (Potash et al., 2001). A dimensional approach to categorization has emerged in the face of categorical inconsistencies, driven by clinical observations and research need. Recently, dimensions have been the target for drug development in SZ, with a focus on cognitive dysfunction; a dimensional organization is applicable more broadly, for pathophysiology and etiology as well. The idea is clinically based and practical, taking “component symptom complexes” and targeting these for evaluation, mechanistic hypotheses and therapeutics (Hyman and Fenton, 2003) Component symptom complexes are groups of symptoms which associate in an illness and appear to have a common pharmacology, neural basis and putative pathophysiology. For example, the symptom construct “psychosis” could be supported by a common disease mechanism across different psychiatric diagnoses, a concept which is important for clinical prediction, mechanistic research and drug development. Moreover, the relevance of this simpler approach for developing pertinent animal models is evident.

There is consistent evidence that genes contribute to the etiology of psychosis. Recent findings from genetic studies provide evidence for an overlap in genetic susceptibility across the traditional psychosis categories of SZ and BD. Identified candidate genes show strong associations with component symptom complexes, such as psychosis or mood symptoms, that are not projected directly onto either of the two Kraepelinian disease entities. Genetic studies suggest that psychosis may be conceptualized as a clinical phenotype with at least partially unique genetic etiologies, independent of a formal diagnosis. Hypothetically, genes interacting with environmental factors, may determine vulnerability to psychosis. Depending on additional syndrome-specific genetic influence and environmental interactions, psychosis may co-exist with different clinical phenotypes, e.g., mood symptoms or cognitive dysfunction, generating categorical diagnoses. We review existing epidemiological, molecular genetic and intermediate phenotype studies in this paper to support a dimensional conceptualization of psychosis. Historically, genetic and intermediate phenotypes studies started first in SZ research, and by the present time a large volume of data has been collected, although this has not yet led to a clear understanding of pathophysiology of the illness. More recently there have been attempts to explore similar intermediate phenotypes, as well as putative candidate genes in BD, however these strategies are relatively novel for BD research and the available data are still limited. In each section of this manuscript we will review the data in SZ first and then will present the studies available in BD, with emphasis on overlapping, as well as unique genetic and pathophysiologic characteristics of the two illnesses.