Polygenic risk for schizophrenia and associated brain structural changes: A systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundGenome wide association studies (GWAS) of schizophrenia allow the generation of Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS). PRS can be used to determine the contribution to altered brain structures in this disorder, which have been well described. However, findings from studies using PRS to predict brain structural changes in schizophrenia have been inconsistent. We therefore performed a systematic review to determine the association between schizophrenia PRS and brain structure. MethodsFollowing PRISMA systematic review guidelines, databases were searched for literature using key search terms. Inclusion criteria for the discovery sample required case-control schizophrenia GWAS summary statistics from European populations. The target sample was required to be of European ancestry, and have brain structure and genotype information. Quality assessment of the publications was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quantitative non-randomised studies. Main findingsA total of seven studies were found to be eligible for review. Five studies found no significant association and two studies found a significant association of schizophrenia PRS with total brain, reduced white matter volume, and globus pallidus volume. However, the latter studies were conducted using smaller discovery (ncases = 9394 ncontrols = 12,462) and target samples compared to the studies with substantially larger discovery (ncases = 33,636 ncontrols = 43,008) and target samples where no association was observed. Taken together, the results suggest that schizophrenia PRS are not significantly associated with brain structural changes in this disorder. ConclusionsThe lack of significant association between schizophrenia PRS and brain structural changes may indicate that intermediate phenotypes other than brain structure should be the focus of future work. Alternatively, however, the lack of association found here may point to limitations of the current evidence-base, and so point to the need for future better powered studies.