The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
EditorialsFull Access

New Insights Into the Genetic Architecture of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Another Step Along the Way

Using data from Swedish nationwide administrative registries, an international group of scholars conducted a population-based cohort study to estimate the heritability of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) from common genetic variants, which Mahjani et al. report on in this issue (1). The sample consisted of 2,090 Swedish-born individuals diagnosed with OCD and 1,263 control subjects. DNA from all the participants were genotyped for more than 400,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The proportion of phenotypic variance due to additive genetic variation was found to be 29% (SE=4%). This proportion of the variance is referred to as the “narrow-sense” heritability. This estimate was robust and clearly indicates that these common genetic variants contribute meaningfully to the heritability of OCD within this genetically homogeneous sample. Rare genetic variation was also found to contribute to the heritability of OCD, but to a lesser degree.

Of interest, the authors also conducted a heritability analysis partitioned by individual chromosomes. With one exception, they found that the size of the chromosome was a good predictor of the chromosome’s contribution to total heritability of OCD. This finding is consistent with the prediction that the SNPs affecting risk appear to be distributed at random over each of the chromosomes. The exception was chromosome 13, which has a very low gene density compared to most other chromosomes.

Overall, these results clearly demonstrate that the genetic risk for OCD is influenced by a large number of loci across the genome, which is consistent with an “infinitesimal model.” The infinitesimal model is a simple and robust model for the inheritance of quantitative traits. It is the sum of both the genetic and environmental components. The genetic component follows a normal distribution around the average of the individual’s parents. Hopefully, comparable analyses will be feasible for additional OCD cohorts from more diverse populations in the not-too-distant future (2).

OCD is clearly highly heritable, and it is often comorbid with other psychiatric disorders. However, the genetic heterogeneity of OCD in relation to specific comorbid conditions has not yet been exhaustively explored. Several cross-disorder analyses have previously evaluated the genetic overlap across a number of these disorders, revealing broad genetic correlations (3). Most recently, as part of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), a data-driven meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) was performed across several neuropsychiatric disorders for which large GWAS data sets are available, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette’s syndrome (4, 5).

In addition to genes, the environment also plays a key role in the pathogenesis of OCD. As noted in the introductory section of Mahjani and colleagues’ article, members of this research team have already identified several environmental risk factors associated with an increased risk for developing OCD—smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day during pregnancy, a breech presentation, delivery by cesarean section, a shorter gestational age, lower birth weight, and a family history of an autoimmune condition (610). It will be important to see which genetic risk variants are associated with specific environmental risk factors.

It is fascinating that “environmental events” and “maternal effects” very early in neural and somatic development often play an important role. Maternal effects are influences on the offspring phenotype that result from maternal genotypes and from the maternal environment (6). These effects are distinct from the child’s genetic endowment. They include maternal genotypes that alter the expression and transmission of critical messenger RNA or proteins to the developing embryo and have genetic or environmental effects on the child’s environment in utero. Interestingly, maternal factors have been shown to increase risk for multiple psychiatric phenotypes in offspring (6, 1116). Epigenetic effects are also likely part of this emerging story (17, 18). Fortunately, both maternal and paternal factors can also have a protective role and foster resilience (19).

We are also in the midst of recognizing the important role that the “immune system” plays in very early somatic and neural development as well as in the pathobiology of OCD and Tourette’s syndrome and other neuropsychiatric disorders (16, 2022). For example, microglia play an important role in circuit formation from very early in neural development (23). Given these realities, there may be real potential in monitoring the developmental progression of patient-specific brain organoids. However, to date, very few protocols include patient-specific microglia (24, 25). In addition to inherited genetic variants and epigenetic effects, somatic mosaicism also needs to be considered (25). Somatic mosaicism refers to the occurrence of two or more genetically distinct populations of cells within specific regions of an individual’s body derived from postzygotic mutations. Somatic mutations may be present in an individual’s germline. As a result, these genetic alterations can lead to the transmission of mutant genes from one generation to the next. These mutations can be key in assessing an individual’s risk as well as in providing accurate genetic counseling. Next-generation sequencing is now available. This will facilitate the identification of clinically significant mutations that previously would never have been detected (26).

There are several other interrelated areas of science that merit our attention as we move forward as a field to gain a deeper understanding of OCD and related conditions. They include the role of the individual’s microbiome and the gut-brain axis (27). The microbiota-gut-brain axis provides a bidirectional nervous, endocrine, and immune communication between these two organs. They are connected through a variety of pathways, including the vagus nerve, the immune system, microbial metabolites, the enteric nervous system, and various hormones. An individual’s environment from birth onward, their diet, the use of antibiotics, and many other factors influence the composition of their microbiome, and this complex system may contribute to the emergence of neuropsychiatric disorders. Time will tell.

The more we learn, the more we recognize the complexities that affect the mental health and well-being of our patients with OCD and related conditions. That said, we can be confident that the outstanding international group of scholars who crafted this study will continue to advance our understanding of OCD in its various forms across the course of development. We can also be optimistic that their findings will contribute to effective patient-specific interventions and possibly even prevention.

Yale Child Study Center and Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Send correspondence to Dr. Leckman ().

The author reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.

REFERENCES

1. Mahjani B, Klei L, Mattheisen M, et al.: The genetic architecture of obsessive-compulsive disorder: contribution of liability to OCD from alleles across the frequency spectrum. Am J Psychiatry 2022; 179:216–225LinkGoogle Scholar

2. Saraiva LC, Cappi C, Simpson HB, et al.: Cutting-edge genetics in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Fac Rev 2020; 9:30Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3. Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium: Genomic relationships, novel loci, and pleiotropic mechanisms across eight psychiatric disorders. Cell 2019; 179:1469–1482.e11Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

4. Davis LK, Yu D, Keenan CL, et al.: Partitioning the heritability of Tourette syndrome and obsessive compulsive disorder reveals differences in genetic architecture. PLoS Genet 2013; 9:e1003864Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

5. Yang Z, Wu H, Lee PH, et al.: Investigating shared genetic basis across Tourette syndrome and comorbid neurodevelopmental disorders along the impulsivity-compulsivity spectrum. Biol Psychiatry 2021; 90:317–327Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

6. Mahjani B, Klei L, Hultman CM, et al.: Maternal effects as causes of risk for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2020; 87:1045–1051Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7. Mataix-Cols D, Boman M, Monzani B, et al.: Population-based, multigenerational family clustering study of obsessive-compulsive disorder. JAMA Psychiatry 2013; 70:709–717Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

8. Taylor S: Etiology of obsessions and compulsions: a meta-analysis and narrative review of twin studies. Clin Psychol Rev 2011; 31:1361–1372Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

9. Monzani B, Rijsdijk F, Harris J, et al.: The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for dimensional representations of DSM-5 obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. JAMA Psychiatry 2014; 71:182–189Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10. Mahjani B, Bey K, Boberg J, et al.: Genetics of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychol Med 2021; 51:2247–2259Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

11. Knuesel I, Chicha L, Britschgi M, et al.: Maternal immune activation and abnormal brain development across CNS disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 2014; 10:643–660Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

12. Rivera HM, Christiansen KJ, Sullivan EL: The role of maternal obesity in the risk of neuropsychiatric disorders. Front Neurosci 2015; 9:194Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

13. Serati M, Barkin JL, Orsenigo G, et al.: Research review: the role of obstetric and neonatal complications in childhood attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2017; 58:1290–1300Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14. Mataix-Cols D, Frans E, Pérez-Vigil A, et al.: A total-population multigenerational family clustering study of autoimmune diseases in obsessive-compulsive disorder and Tourette’s/chronic tic disorders. Mol Psychiatry 2018; 23:1652–1658Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

15. Breen MS, Wingo AP, Koen N, et al.: Gene expression in cord blood links genetic risk for neurodevelopmental disorders with maternal psychological distress and adverse childhood outcomes. Brain Behav Immun 2018; 73:320–330Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

16. Martino D, Johnson I, Leckman JF: What does immunology have to do with normal brain development and the pathophysiology underlying Tourette syndrome and related neuropsychiatric disorders? Front Neurol 2020; 11:567407Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

17. Xavier MJ, Roman SD, Aitken RJ, et al.: Transgenerational inheritance: how impacts to the epigenetic and genetic information of parents affect offspring health. Hum Reprod Update 2019; 25:518–540Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

18. McEwen BS: Prenatal programming of neuropsychiatric disorders: an epigenetic perspective across the lifespan. Biol Psychiatry 2019; 85:91–93Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

19. Panter-Brick C, Burgess A, Eggerman M, et al.: Practitioner review: Engaging fathers: recommendations for a game change in parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2014; 55:1187–1212Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

20. Estes ML, McAllister AK: Maternal immune activation: implications for neuropsychiatric disorders. Science 2016; 353:772–777Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

21. Leckman JF, Vaccarino FM: Editorial commentary: “What does immunology have to do with brain development and neuropsychiatric disorders?” Brain Res 2015; 1617:1–6Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

22. Lennington JB, Coppola G, Kataoka-Sasaki Y, et al.: Transcriptome analysis of the human striatum in Tourette syndrome. Biol Psychiatry 2016; 79:372–382Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

23. Bilbo S, Stevens B: Microglia: the brain’s first responders. Cerebrum 2017; 2017:cer-14-17MedlineGoogle Scholar

24 Fasching L, Jang Y, Tomasi S, et al.: Early developmental asymmetries in cell lineage trees in living individuals. Science 2021; 371:1245–1248Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

25. Bodnar B, Zhang Y, Liu J, et al.: Novel scalable and simplified system to generate microglia-containing cerebral organoids from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Front Cell Neurosci 2021; 15:682272Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

26. Cook CB, Armstrong L, Boerkoel CF, et al.: Somatic mosaicism detected by genome-wide sequencing in 500 parent-child trios with suspected genetic disease: clinical and genetic counseling implications. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud 2021; 7:a006125Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

27. Stopińska K, Radziwoń-Zaleska M, Domitrz I: The microbiota-gut-brain axis as a key to neuropsychiatric disorders: a mini review. J Clin Med 2021; 10:4640Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar