PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 12, 2026Behavior Genetics0 citationsOpen Access

The Contributions of Multiple Polygenic Scores in Predicting Liability for Major Depressive Disorder and Its Comorbidity with Alcohol Use Disorder

JWJonathan WellsJRJill A. RabinowitzBMBrion S. Maher

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of polygenic scores from major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder in predicting these outcomes and their comorbidity.
  • Analyzed data from 7,965 participants with diverse ancestries
  • Created polygenic scores for MDD and AUD using PRS-CSx
  • Compared models including sociodemographic covariates versus polygenic scores for prediction of MDD, AUD, and comorbidity.
  • Inclusion of MDD and AUD polygenic scores improved prediction of comorbid MDD-AUD, explaining an additional 4.88% of variance
  • MDD polygenic score improved MDD prediction by 0.65% variance
  • AUD polygenic score improved AUD prediction by 1.52% variance
  • Both polygenic scores together did not enhance individual predictions of MDD or AUD.

Abstract

The inclusion of polygenic scores (PGS) from genetically correlated traits such as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) may improve the prediction of these outcomes and their comorbidity. Despite the importance of this work, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of this possibility. The current study evaluates the use of MDD and AUD PGS individually and together to improve the prediction of MDD, AUD, and comorbid MDD-AUD using a sample of European, African, or Admixed American Ancestry participants from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 7,965). Cross-ancestry MDD and AUD PGS were created using PRS-CSx. The best fitting model of comorbid MDD-AUD in the whole sample included PGS for MDD and AUD (PGSMDD OR: 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.35, p = 2.69 × 10- 6; PGSAUD OR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.66-1.87, p = 3.49 × 10- 28), explaining an additional 4.88% of variance compared to a model only including sociodemographic covariates. For MDD, the best fitting model included the MDD PGS (OR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.17-1.33, p = 2.05 × 10- 8), explaining an additional 0.65% of variance. For AUD, the best fitting model included the AUD PGS (OR: 1.37, 95% CI 1.32-1.43, p = 1.25 × 10-28), which explained an additional 1.52% of variance. Inclusion of both PGS did not significantly improve the prediction of individual MDD or AUD. Inclusion of PGS for MDD and AUD significantly improved prediction for comorbid MDD-AUD, but not in MDD or AUD. These results help clarify the role of utilizing genetically correlated PGS in improving prediction of MDD, AUD, and comorbid MDD-AUD.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wells et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69db38534fe01fead37c690bhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-026-10263-3
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Personalized brain circuit scores identify clinically distinct biotypes in depression and anxiety2024 · 206 citations
  2. 2Differences Among Major Depressive Disorder With and Without Co-occurring Substance Use Disorders and Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder2012 · 122 citations
  3. 3Abundant Pleiotropy in Human Complex Diseases and Traits2011 · 592 citations
  4. 4mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations inR2011 · 14,119 citations
  5. 5The heterogeneity of the depressive syndrome: when numbers get serious2011 · 295 citations