Background: The causal connection between morning diurnal preference and psychiatric disorders remains enigmatic. Using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR), we aim to explore the potential causal associations between morning diurnal preference and seven prominent psychiatric disorders. Methods: MR is a genetic epidemiological method that leverages genetic variants as instrumental variables to infer causal associations between exposures and outcomes. We obtained morning diurnal preference data from genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets and identified 252,287 individuals as morning people. Psychiatric disorder data were sourced from the FinnGen consortium R9 dataset. Our primary analysis used the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) approach to evaluate the overall causal effect by combining the estimates from each genetic variant. Addition analyses, including weighted median, MR-Egger regression, weighted mode, and simple mode techniques were conducted to ensure robustness. Results: Being a morning person is related to reduced odds of multiple psychiatric disorders, including depression or dysthymia (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.999), anxiety disorders (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), self-harming behaviors (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.99), substance-use disorders (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.93), alcohol dependence (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.92), alcohol use disorders (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.94), acute alcohol intoxication (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.96), schizophrenia (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.92), and schizophrenia or delusion (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.92). Alcohol dependence (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.999) and alcohol use disorders (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) were also related to a lower morning diurnal preference. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that being a morning person is a protective factor for various psychiatric disorders from a genetic perspective. The results provide insights for potential targeted interventions to improve mental wellbeing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: