Department of Economics and Business Economics

Could Polygenic Risk Scores Be Useful in Psychiatry? A Review

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperReviewResearchpeer-review

  • Graham K Murray, University of Queensland, University of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
  • ,
  • Tian Lin, University of Queensland
  • ,
  • Jehannine Austin, University of British Columbia
  • ,
  • John J McGrath
  • Ian B Hickie, The University of Sydney
  • ,
  • Naomi R Wray, University of Queensland

Importance: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are predictors of the genetic susceptibility to diseases, calculated for individuals as weighted counts of thousands of risk variants in which the risk variants and their weights have been identified in genome-wide association studies. Polygenic risk scores show promise in aiding clinical decision-making in many areas of medical practice. This review evaluates the potential use of PRS in psychiatry.

Observations: On their own, PRS will never be able to establish or definitively predict a diagnosis of common complex conditions (eg, mental health disorders), because genetic factors only contribute part of the risk and PRS will only ever capture part of the genetic contribution. Combining PRS with other risk factors has potential to improve outcome prediction and aid clinical decision-making (eg, determining follow-up options for individuals seeking help who are at clinical risk of future illness). Prognostication of adverse physical health outcomes or response to treatment in clinical populations are of great interest for psychiatric practice, but data from larger samples are needed to develop and evaluate PRS.

Conclusions and Relevance: Polygenic risk scores will contribute to risk assessment in clinical psychiatry as it evolves to combine information from molecular, clinical, and lifestyle metrics. The genome-wide genotype data needed to calculate PRS are inexpensive to generate and could become available to psychiatrists as a by-product of practices in other medical specialties. The utility of PRS in clinical psychiatry, as well as ethical issues associated with their use, should be evaluated in the context of realistic expectations of what PRS can and cannot deliver. Clinical psychiatry has lagged behind other fields of health care in its use of new technologies and routine clinical data for research. Now is the time to catch up.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJAMA Psychiatry
Volume78
Issue2
Pages (from-to)210-219
Number of pages10
ISSN0003-990X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2021

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 200424769