The genes behind schizophrenia - July 02, 2009
There’s no shortage of reading material on the genes behind schizophrenia this morning. In addition to three papers in Nature announcing the identification of key genetic glitches responsible for increasing the risk of the disease there are at least five different press releases and well over a hundred news articles at the time of writing.
This new research combines DNA data from tens of thousands of people to identify the genetic variations behind schizophrenia risk. It also shows some links between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
“Our findings are a real scientific breakthrough since they tell us a lot more about the nature of the genetic risk of schizophrenia than we knew as little as a year ago,” says a co-author of one of the studies, David St Clair, of the University of Aberdeen (press release).
Here comes the caveat: “However this is not a breakthrough that is going to change clinical practice any time soon,” he adds. “It will still be many years before our findings can be translated into new drug treatments.”
Although these studies point the finger at genetic variants accounting for about a third of the risk of inheriting schizophrenia there are also an awful lot of those variants (press release).
The world’s media seems divided over how to react to the research.
In the UK the Independent has dedicated its front page to the “breakthrough [that] offers hope of new treatments”. Its headline: Unlocked: the secrets of schizophrenia.
Also positive is the Telegraph, which says “Scientists in three studies have identified similar genetic causes behind both schizophrenia and manic depression in a discovery that could lead to new treatments for millions with the illnesses.”
Standing in the corner of the party and ruining the vibe is Reuters, which says “as many as 30,000 different gene variations may underlie schizophrenia and bipolar disease, meaning any kind of quick test to predict either disease is a long way off”.
More irate is Nicholas Wade over at the New York Times, who thinks the press officers behind those five press releases (including Nature’s presumably) have over egged the pudding:
It seems to me the reports represent more of a historic defeat, a Pearl Harbor of schizophrenia research.
…
Schizophrenia too seems to be not a single disease, but the end point of 10,000 different disruptions to the delicate architecture of the human brain. Yes, that discovery is a landmark. The kind that says you have 10,000 miles yet to go. The march of science is not direct but two steps forward, one step back. This was the step back.
Author of one of the studies Michael O’Donovan, of the International Schizophrenia Consortium and Cardiff University, has a different way of looking at this. “This is a pretty major breakthrough for us,” he told journalists at a press briefing. “Before today you could count on the thumb of one hand the number of common variants that had been reliably identified with schizophrenia. This is a significant increment in knowledge.”
Comments
I don't think that you should describe Nicholas Wade's report the New York Times as "irate". His is the only report that doesn't slavishly follow the press releases' vocabulary of "breakthrough" and "landmark".
Yes the work is a monumental effort. But the outcome is, sadly, a major setback to the hopes of finding simple answers that will help patients. That is how it is, and Wade is the only reporter to say so.
Posted by: David Colquhoun | July 3, 2009 07:35 AM
These papers report not breakthroughs, but reality checks. Billions of pounds have been spent searching for genes for this and that, following the single gene model for rare genetic diseases such as phenylketonuria. These papers confirm what everybody is beginning to realise, that common diseases are never the result of a single gene defect and often associated with thousands of minor defects. Although studying well characterised genetic defects can provide insights as to the biochemical basis of the disease, most common diseases still require a different 'systems' approach to the problem. This is our only present hope of understanding the complexities of interactions between different genes and the environment. Unfortunately the billions that have been devoted to oversimplistic genetic approaches have deprived systems projects of funds, so that now there are far too many postdocs trained in molecular genetics and far too few in systems.
Posted by: John Stein | July 7, 2009 03:02 PM