Results and promises of genetics of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia: molecular-genetic approaches

Abstract

This review highlights the basic paradigms and directions of molecular genetic studies of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Along with the traditional approach based on functional candidate genes, it covers genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for cognition in general population and schizophrenic patients, attempts to integrate GWAS results in polygenic profiles that can be used in personalized care of schizophrenic patients, and a search for biological pathways implicated in the development of cognitive impairments with bioinformatics methods. However, despite significant advances in understanding the genetic basis of the disease and a rapidly growing amount of data on genes associated with cognitive functions, most of the variability of cognitive impairments in patients remains unexplained. The data on the functional complexity of the genome accumulated in the fields of molecular biology and genetics underscore the importance of studying epigenetic mechanisms of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of data-driven studies in schizophrenia symptoms and cognitive deficits

“…Several reviews have been conducted on positive symptoms 23 , negative symptoms [24][25][26] and cognitive dysfunction 7,9,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] . However, these reviews have largely focused on the conventional approach for determining an average change in the course of symptoms over time and the difference between subjects (e.g., patient vs sibling, sibling vs control, or patient vs control) and diagnosis.…”

Implications of data-driven analyses for personalized therapy in psychosis: a systematic review of cluster- and trajectory-based modelling studies

“…37 All these factors blur our understanding of the heterogeneity of the course of schizophrenia. Several reviews have been conducted on cognitive dysfunction 16,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] , negative symptoms 15,48,49 and positive symptoms. 50 However, these proceedings have largely focused on the traditional approach in determining average change in the course of symptoms over time, and variation between subjects (patient vs sibling, sibling vs control, patient vs control) and diagnosis.…”