Skip to main content
Download PDF

Neurobiology of Risk for Bipolar Disorder

Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry volume 3, pages 315–329 (2016)Cite this article

Opinion statement

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental illness which follows a relapsing and remitting course and requires lifetime treatment. The lack of biological markers for BD is a major difficulty in clinical practice. Exploring multiple endophenotypes to fit in multivariate genetic models for BD is an important element in the process of finding tools to facilitate early diagnosis, early intervention, prevention of new episodes, and follow-up of treatment response in BD. Reviewing of studies on neuroimaging, neurocognition, and biochemical parameters in populations with high genetic risk for the illness can yield an integrative perspective on the neurobiology of risk for BD. The most up-to-date data reveals consistent deficits in executive function, response inhibition, verbal memory/learning, verbal fluency, and processing speed in risk groups for BD. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies report alterations in the activity of the inferior frontal gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, and limbic areas, particularly in the amygdala in unaffected first-degree relatives (FDR) of BD compared to healthy controls. Risk groups for BD also present altered immune and neurochemical modulation. Despite inconsistencies, accumulating data reveals cognitive and imaging markers for risk and to a less extent resilience of BD. Findings on neural modulation markers are preliminary and require further studies. Although the knowledge on the neurobiology of risk for BD has been inadequate to provide benefits for clinical practice, further studies on structural and functional changes in the brain, neurocognitive functioning, and neurochemical modulation have a potential to reveal biomarkers for risk and resilience for BD. Multimodal, multicenter, population-based studies with large sample size allowing for homogeneous subgroup analyses will immensely contribute to the elucidation of biological markers for risk for BD in an integrative model.

Introduction

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mental illness which follows a relapsing and remitting course and requires lifetime treatment. In nearly two thirds of patients, the illness begins before the end of the third decade of life [1]. BD is heritable as shown by varying (59–93 %) yet high heritability rates [2, 3]. Concordance rates increase substantially from 6 % in dizygotic twins to 43 % in monozygotic twins [4]. Children of parents with BD are four times more likely to develop an affective disorder compared to children of parents with no mental disorders [5]. Delayed diagnosis and misdiagnosis are common in BD [6]. Despite evidence for substantial genetic load in the etiology of BD, clinical practice still suffers from the absence of biological markers which could be used in support of the clinical diagnosis.

Endophenotypes are an important subtype of biomarkers that have a clear genetic connection and are more prevalent in patients and in their family members [7]. Exploring multiple endophenotypes to fit in multivariate genetic models for bipolar disorder is an important element in the process of finding diagnostic tools to facilitate early intervention and prevention in BD.

In this review, we aimed to identify common neurocognitive, neuroanatomical, and neurochemical abnormalities that may correspond to vulnerability and resilience factors for BD. Literature on neuroimaging, neurocognition, and biochemical parameters in BD, particularly in populations with high genetic risk for the illness, was reviewed to shed light on the neurobiology of risk for bipolar disorder from an integrative perspective.

Method

Literature review was completed using keywords “bipolar disorder,” “endophenotype,” “risk,” “relatives,” “neurocognition,” “brain imaging,” and “oxidative stress.” Publications were searched using PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science electronic databases. Papers published in English, which involved first-degree relatives (FDR-offspring, sibling, co-twins, parents) of a bipolar proband (BD-P) and a healthy control group with or without a patient group, were included. Publications with FDR of schizophrenia probands (SCH-P) in addition to FDR of BD-P, papers on studies modeling for a genetic link to a proposed biological marker, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews were also included. In each respective targeted area, individual studies published after the most recent meta-analysis and/or systematic review were included in the review. This article does not publish original research, animal or human studies, that would need informed consent that should be carried out by the authors.

Results

Neurocognition and risk for BD

Genetic influence on measures of various neurocognitive domains has been well documented [8]. Verbal ability, executive functioning, and psychomotor processing speed were shown to be highly heritable in familial BD [9]. A large-scale extended pedigree study suggested impaired processing speed, working memory, and declarative (facial) memory to be candidate endophenotypes for BD [10]. After controlling for demography and current mood symptoms, processing speed was still impaired in BD-P type I and their unaffected FDR, showing its validity as endophenotype to separate BD-P and FDR from healthy controls [11].

In search for potential cognitive endophenotypes, a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from studies on FDR (with or without BD-P) in comparison to healthy controls showed impaired executive function, verbal memory, and verbal working memory [12, 13]. Among executive functions, response inhibition deficits were the most robust candidates followed by impaired verbal memory, sustained attention, and set shifting even after controlling for IQ and age [14].

More recent studies focusing on healthy adolescent offsprings of parents with BD found that young FDR have impairments in processing speed and visual memory [15], cognitive flexibility [16], psychomotor speed, focused attention, verbal attention, phonemic verbal fluency, short-term memory and learning [17], verbal intelligence [18], and significantly slower reaction times on an index of executive attention [19] compared to youth with healthy parents. Likewise, healthy parents of patients with BD-I had significantly worse performance in psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, selective attention, response inhibition, and verbal memory [20, 21] than healthy controls. A recent review of conscript, cohort, high-risk, family-based and first-episode mania studies also confirmed that verbal memory and executive function are potential predictors of BD [22].

Recent studies, however, provide further more nuanced evidence specifically with regard to impaired response inhibition and interference control in both adult [23] and adolescent BD-P [24] and their FDR compared to healthy controls. Other studies found that response inhibition was intact despite increased impulsivity and impulsive decision-making in both familial and nonfamilial high-risk groups for BD [25] and interference control was intact in FDR and co-twins of BD-P [26]. Evidence shows significantly worse response inhibition performance in BD-P I with history of psychotic symptoms and their FDR compared to controls [27]. Response inhibition deficit was associated with the process of illness with psychotic features in BD, rather than being a vulnerability marker [28]. On the other hand, impulsivity as measured by BIS-11 (a self-report scale) seems to reveal more consistent signals as a candidate endophenotype both in children, adolescents [29], and adults [25, 30, 31], and as a predictor of onset of BD in reward-sensitive adolescents and young adults [32]. However, specificity of impulsivity to BD is questionable as it shows shared genetic liability with SCH and major depressive disorder [30] and requires further studies. Risk-taking behavior may also be a potential endophenotype and predictor of BD [32, 33].

Recent studies focusing on facial emotion recognition and emotional responsiveness in at-risk relatives compared to healthy controls showed deficits in labeling facial emotion, required significantly more time and more intense emotional information to identify and correctly label face emotions, and were impaired in other aspects of affective response particularly in inhibiting negative valenced stimuli and in having greater response bias toward negatively valenced stimuli [18, 34–39]. Social cognition is another recent area of interest in defining endophenotypes for BD for which theory of mind (ToM) performance has been most commonly considered. BD-FDR performed significantly worse on the verbal but not visual or higher-order ToM tasks compared to healthy controls [40]; their performance was comparable to healthy controls on tasks requiring ToM use and ToM understanding [41].

Do cognitive deficits exist before onset of illness in BD?

Systematic review of data from 23 studies on the premorbid cognitive function of people who later developed BD and of BD-P when presenting with their first episode provided evidence that general intelligence is not impaired in the premorbid stage; however, verbal memory, attention, and executive function deficits tend to be present during and after the first episode. Data supports the notion that specific cognitive domain deficits may precede the illness onset in BD [42•]. However, assessment of premorbid intellectual in BD function may yield contradictory findings, depending on whether the assessment is retrospective or prospective [43].

Are the neurocognitive markers specific to BD? Role of psychosis

The genetic etiology of BD and SCH overlap substantially [2]. Enhanced susceptibility to interference and reduced inhibition [44] as well as deficits in working memory were reported to be more common in BD patients with psychosis, in SCH patients, and their FDR compared to healthy controls [45]. Severity of premorbid intellectual deficit differs quantitatively between BD and SCH. BD presents significant yet small premorbid intellectual function deficits when assessed retrospectively but not prospectively and moderate cognitive impairment after onset of illness, whereas SCH presents with significant premorbid and large post-onset impairment [43]. It appears that both disorders are associated with impaired visual sustained attention which does not differentiate one condition from another [46].

Further differences between BD and SCH have been observed when examining the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in key risk genes in connection to cognitive tests which are closely linked to prefrontal cortical functioning. The Val66Met polymorphism of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene is associated with performance on the Wisconsin Cart Sorting Test in BD but not in SCH, while the reverse is the case for task performance on the N-back working memory task [47]. Among previously identified candidate sets of genes associated with cognitive abilities in SCH or BD visuospatial attention, verbal abilities sets and delayed verbal memory showed the strongest enrichments in BD, whereas color-word interference (cognitive inhibition) test and sets associated with memory learning slope showed enrichment in SCH [48].

Testing SCH-FDR and BD-FDR in comparison to healthy controls on Stroop Color-Word Task and Emotional Stroop Task showed impaired cognitive inhibition in SCH-FDR but emotional bias toward mood-related information in BD-FDR [49]. Assessment of executive functions by using Wisconsin Cart Sorting Test and part A and part B of the Trail Making Task in SCH, BD, and FDR of both groups revealed familial resemblance for both tests in BD families, whereas no resemblance was observed in families with SCH [50]. Using psychosis as a dimension in grouping the participants, a family study revealed a gradient of performance on the working and declarative memory, executive functions, and attention with the poorest being in probands (i.e., SCH-P, BD-P with psychosis), intermediate in FDR of the psychosis spectrum, and highest in the FDR of the nonpsychotic spectrum disorder, supporting the notion that cognitive function in BD and SCH defines a psychosis continuum [51]. Structural equation modeling of cognitive data from 331 twins/siblings showed that illness state and concordance for BD had a modest impact of verbal episodic memory and spatial working memory on the bipolar diathesis; IQ and visual-spatial learning, however, were associated with genetic diathesis to BD and with nonaffective symptomatology, also supporting the notion of psychosis continuum [52].

In an extensive review of studies investigating neurocognitive deficits in premorbid, high-risk and first-episode BD in comparison to outcome studies in SCH, Bora proposed a model where only BD-P who are prone to psychosis may show premorbid neurodevelopmental cognitive deficits similar to SCH. In the absence of psychosis and neurodevelopmental deficits, BD-associated temperamental characteristics set the stage between supranormal premorbid cognition and risk for BP [53••]. Examination of the cognitive profiles of at-risk individuals for BD and BD-P did not appear to support previous suggestions of progressive cognitive decline in BD with illness development [18].

In summary, deficits in executive function, response inhibition, verbal memory/learning, verbal fluency, processing speed, and verbal fluency seem to be promising cognitive markers for risk of developing BD. However, there are limitations in the literature related to the variability of the tests used in measuring the same cognitive domains by different groups, inclusion of varying age groups, nonstandardized definition and use of mixed groups of at-risk individuals (i.e., offspring, siblings, parents), small sample size, and not accounting for the presence of history of psychosis. Such methodological issues cause inconsistencies in the findings and difficulty in interpreting the corresponding functional deficits. Data are still limited on the presence and pattern of premorbid cognitive impairment in the risk population. Findings obtained from cross-sectional studies without controlling for premorbid cognitive impairment may exaggerate the magnitude and misidentify the type of cognitive deficits to be used as markers for risk of BD. Although it may not be specific to BD, the effect of deficits in processing speed on other test performance in patients and to a less extend in the risk groups and controls [54] should be taken into consideration.

Brain imaging and risk for BD

Structural imaging findings

Gray matter (GM) abnormalities

In a recent meta-analysis of data from structural and functional imaging studies, the GM volume of individuals at risk for BD did not differ significantly from healthy controls, including regions traditionally associated with BD, such as the striatum, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and pituitary. The results of this meta-analysis challenge the notion that brain morphology can yield endophenotypic markers for BD. The authors also capitalize on the susceptibility of the hippocampus to nongenetic/environmental factors as obstetric complications and stress-induced excessive glucocorticoid exposure. They also draw attention to an association between inconsistent pituitary findings and state-dependent cortisol abnormalities in mood disorders [55]. Assessment of dexamethasone-suppression-CRH test in high-risk individuals who developed an affective disorder in a 10-year follow-up period revealed no premorbid differences in their cortisol response compared to healthy controls [56]. Dysregulated hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal ( HPA) axis abnormalities in BD can be regarded as a neurobiological scar developing during the course of affective disorders rather than a neuroendocrine vulnerability marker [56]. A later review on studies investigating cortical or subcortical GM abnormalities in BD-FDR shows that findings on various brain regions across studies are inconsistent except for larger insular cortex volumes in adult first-degree relatives and larger right inferior frontal gyrus in BD offspring, in comparison to healthy controls [57].

Recent studies support the above findings with larger inferior frontal gyrus, left insula, smaller cerebellar, and left orbitofrontal gyrus GM volumes being shared both in BD-P and their FDR [58–60], and larger parahippocampal and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex appeared only in BD-FDR [58, 59].

It is worth remembering that the inferior frontal gyrus has a pivotal role in response inhibition and emotion regulation, both of which have been suggested as candidate endophenotypes for BD whereas the cerebellum has extensive connections to brain areas that are involved in cognition and behavior including the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, and limbic system through cortico-ponto-cerebellar and cerebello-thalamo-cortical pathways. The cerebellum also has a homeostatic role in affect regulation in addition to motor functions [59].

Despite an association between genetic liability for BD and GM volumes in regions of the anterior cingulate cortex, ventral striatum, medial frontal gyrus, right precentral gyrus, right insular cortex, and medial orbital gyrus [57], the absence of evidence for GM abnormalities and contradictory findings [61, 62] across studies in BD-FDR may be due to nongenetic factors such as age, clinical features, medication, duration illness, pubertal stage, and age of onset [63–67]. Increased GM volume or thickness of these regions may be consequent of neuroprotective compensatory mechanisms or abnormal brain maturation due to the maladaptive pruning in at-risk group or may be associated with resilience [59].

The search of a relationship between neuroanatomical changes and genetic risk for BD or SCH showed a specific association between SCH and distributed GM volume loss in the bilateral fronto-striato-thalamic and left lateral temporal regions and enlarged lateral ventricles; genetic risk for BD was specifically associated with GM deficits in the right anterior cingulate gyrus and ventral striatum [55].

White matter (WM) abnormalities

There is a limited number of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies of unaffected FDR of BD-P. Some studies found abnormalities in the superior longitudinal fasciculus, inferior longitudinal fasciculus, corpus callosum, right uncinate fasciculus, right inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus, right anterior limb of internal capsule, and thalamic radiation in both BD-P and BD-FDR [68•, 69], while two studies did not find any abnormalities in older relative groups compared with controls [70, 71]. A population-based study showed abnormalities in similar white matter tracts in adolescents with subthreshold bipolar symptoms [72]. These tracts connect regions implicated in the identification and regulation of emotion, attention, impulsivity, response inhibition, set shifting, and risk-taking [68•]. Decreased WM volume is highly associated with genetic risk and familiality in BD [70–74]. However, the results are neither consistent nor robust enough to indicate replicable WM abnormalities in BD-FDR, thus not supportive of the WM abnormalities as an endophenotype of BD, whereas more WM abnormalities in SCH conform better to the concept of endophenotype [68•, 73].

Functional neuroimaging

Recent years have witnessed the publication of a sizeable number of task and resting state fMRI in BD-P and their FDR in comparison to healthy controls.

Resting state

Resting state connectivity between the frontal cortex and basal ganglia or limbic/paralimbic regions was shown to be altered in a nonspecific fashion in unaffected BD-FDR [75•]. Solé-Padullés et al. found no connection differences between any regions in BD-FDR compared with SCH-FDR and healthy controls [76].

Cognitive task—fMRI studies

When reviewing the relevant studies, we found that patients and their parents show activation differences in the frontal cortex, insula, amygdala, parietal cortex, and cingulate cortex as well as connectivity defects between these regions [55, 75•]. Hyperactivation of inferior frontal gyrus (including ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex) and hypoactivation of insula, amygdala, basal ganglions, and limbic system, which were signified in at-risk group, are interpreted as compensatory mechanisms [75•, 77, 78]. An fMRI study found differential effects of the DISC1 Leu607Phe polymorphism on the left pre/postcentral gyrus, extending to inferior frontal gyrus in FDR of BD and SCH during language task [79]. However, relatively small sample sizes of the studies limit the generalizability of the findings.

Emotional task—fMRI studies

Studies which investigated neural substrate of emotional dysregulation in risk groups for BD showed altered activity in insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, dysfunctional connectivity in orbitofrontal cortex-amygdala, and impairment in downregulation of amygdala [75•, 77, 80–83]. Breakspear et al. showed impaired hierarchical model (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-inferior frontal gyrus-anterior cingulate cortex) and reduced activity of inferior frontal gyrus in BD relatives [84]. In the risk group, the change produced by the negative affect in the brain regions was more evident than the positive affect [81, 83]. This is an important finding, yielding a new research area in the light of the fact that response to positive affect is more sensitive to environmental factors and that it could easily be lost compared to the control group [81, 83].

In summary, fMRI studies present alterations in the activity of the same regions involved in the pathophysiology of BD, namely the inferior frontal gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, and limbic area particularly in the amygdala, in unaffected BD-FDR, in comparison to healthy controls.

Genetics and white matter neuroimaging in the risk for BD

Studies combining genetics and neuroimaging demonstrated association between decreased WM in BD-FDR and disrupted NRG1-ErbB4, calcium signaling (CACNA1C), phosphatidylinositol, and CAMs pathways [74, 85]. These pathways relate to WM development, neuronal plasticity, regulation of neurotransmitter release, and cell adhesion [74]. Another study reported an association between FA reduction in the WM tracts which are involved in the pathophysiology of BD and higher polygenic risk scores in affected but not in unaffected relatives [86], which suggest that WM abnormalities are closely linked to expression of psychopathology rather than genetic risk per se.

Overall, there are discrepancies in the results from both structural and functional imaging studies despite promising findings identifying risk markers for BD. Different imaging techniques that had been applied, heterogeneous clinical and demographical profiles of the participants, small sample size, variability of the tasks, heterogeneity of the definition of the risk groups (offspring vs. siblings vs. parents, vs. mixed group of FDR), presence of subsyndromal symptoms in the risk groups in some studies as well as variability in age of the participants contribute to difficulties in identifying a specific pattern of alterations for individuals at risk. Also, the effects of environmental factors and the association between clinical features and MRI findings are not well known. The absence of fMRI studies investigating social cognition, risk-taking, and response inhibition, is also noteworthy.

Inflammation, oxidation, neurotrophins, and other mediators and risk for BD

Exploration of the inflammatory processes on the neuronal function of risk groups is important for a better understanding of the molecular basis of risk for BD as accumulating data implicate these processes in the pathogenesis of BD.

Among several molecules which are suggested to be involved in the pathogenesis of BD and are known to be involved in inflammation (interleukin 1, interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 10, interleukin 17, interferon gamma), oxidative stress (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, protein carbonyl content), and neurotrophins (BDNF), only IL-6 levels have been found to be significantly higher in BD-P compared to BD-FDR [87]. However, increased IL-6 and BDNF plasma levels have been reported in BD offspring compared with healthy controls. High-risk offspring that appeared to have prodromal symptoms presented with higher plasma levels of IL-6 and BDNF than high-risk offspring that appeared asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic [88].

In a prospective follow-up, BD offspring showed increased proinflammatory gene expression in monocytes during adolescence, but not in adulthood [89]. Specifically, in that study, BD offspring had persistent monocyte activation during adolescence and early adulthood as shown by increased cytokine pentraxin-related protein (PTX3) levels and T-regulatory cells and decreased effector T cells (Th1 and Th17). Despite decreased serum levels of BDNF, normal levels of chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2), and S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B) during adolescence, BD offspring showed increased levels of CCL2, BDNF, and S100B in adulthood [89]. These findings suggest an abnormal neuroimmune state in BD offspring, which followed a dynamic course from adolescence into adulthood.

Most recently, plasma levels of lipid peroxidation (lipid hydroperoxide and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, 8-isoprostane), protein oxidation (protein carbonyls), and inflammation (interleukin 1, interleukin 6, interleukin 10, interferon gamma, TNF alfa) were assessed in four groups of adolescents (9–20 years of age), consisting of high-risk offspring, ultrahigh-risk offspring, first-episode BD patients, and healthy controls [90]. The levels of lipid hydroperoxide, an early stage lipid peroxidation marker, showed a decreasing trend along the spectrum of risk for BD-I, while there was no difference in the late stage lipid peroxidation markers (4-hydroxy-2-nonenal, 8-isoprostane), protein carbonyls, and inflammatory markers among groups [90].

Serum BDNF levels were found to be decreased [91] or unchanged [92, 93] in BD-P and BD-FDR compared to healthy controls. Duffy et al. reported that the BDNF genotype significantly moderates the association between high-risk status for both gene expression and protein levels in BD offspring [88]. Correspondingly, anxiety symptoms were associated with the BDNF risk genotype only in BD offspring but not in healthy controls, and BD offspring with the val/val genotype showed higher anxiety symptoms than BD offspring with other genotypes [94].

Ferensztajn et al. reported higher BDNF and matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels and lower IL-6 levels in the offspring of BD-P who were excellent lithium responders compared to the offspring of BD-P who were lithium nonresponders [95].

Comparison of biomarkers related to oxidative stress [8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), mitochondrial complex 1 activation, and glutathione peroxidase activities] and global DNA methylation (5-methylcytosine) between lithium responder BD-P, BD-FDR and healthy controls showed that BD-FDR have decreased global methylation, increased glutathione peroxidase activity, and no change in 8-OHdG or in mitochondrial complex 1 activity [96].

These results show that risk groups for BD present with altered immune and neurochemical modulation. However, the findings are preliminary, and studies on well-defined and clinically homogeneous risk groups, particularly in prospective design to understand the risk and defense mechanisms, are needed.

Conclusion and future directions

Prospective long-term follow-up studies using multimodal (i.e., combination of imaging, cognitive, neurochemical, and genetic assessment of the participants) and standardized techniques (i.e., the same set of cognitive tasks per domain) in well-defined at-risk populations, controlling for age and gender distribution as well as for the presence of symptoms, are needed for better understanding of the neurobiology of risk for BD [97]. Operationalized criteria for defining risk and resilience markers would also assist in improving our understanding of the complex changes observed in patients and their relatives. This would also foster further research into disambiguating compensatory from pathological processes. It is unclear whether disease-specific biomarkers can indeed be identified as most indications point to significant overlap between disorders which has generally motivated a trans-diagnostic approach to psychiatric research. Another unmet need is the information on interaction between immune and neurochemical alterations and cognitive and structural/functional changes. Studies exploring the associations between neurochemical, cognitive, and imaging are needed. Multicenter, population-based studies with large sample size allowing for homogeneous subgroup analysis (i.e., relatives of BD type I vs. type II, psychotic vs. nonpsychotic, offspring vs. sibling, symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, adolescent vs. adult; treatment responder vs. nonresponder) searching for cognitive, imaging, and neurochemical modulatory markers for risk for BD in an integrative way will immensely contribute to the field.

Highlights of the review

The review includes data on cognitive functions, structural and functional imaging, and neurochemical modulation as potential markers for risk and resilience for BD in an integrative way. The most recent data in each respective field has been included in the review besides meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

Despite inconsistencies, compiling data reveals cognitive and imaging markers for risk and to a less extent resilience of BD. Findings on neural modulation markers are preliminary and require further studies. Methodological issues causing obstacle in interpretation of the existing data have been considered.

Abbreviations

BD:

Bipolar disorder

BDNF:

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor

BD-P:

Bipolar disorder probands

CACNA1C:

Calcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha1

CCL2:

Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2

DISC1:

Disrupted in schizophrenia 1

FDR:

First-degree relative (including offspring, sibling, co-twins, parents)

fMRI:

Functional magnetic resonance imaging

GM:

Gray matter

IL-6:

Interleukin 6

8-OHdG:

8-Hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine

PTX3:

Pentraxin-related protein

S100B:

S100 calcium-binding protein b

SCH:

Schizophrenia

SCH-P:

Schizophrenia probands

ToM:

Theory of mind

WM:

White matter

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Baldessarini RJ, Bolzani L, Cruz N, Jones PB, Lai M, Lepri B, et al. Onset-age of bipolar disorders at six international sites. J Affect Disord. 2010;121(1–2):143–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lichtenstein P, Yip BH, Pawitan Y, Cannon TD, Sullivan PF, Hultman CM. Common genetic determinants of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in Swedish families: a population-based study. Lancet. 2009;373:234–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kieseppa T, Partonen T, Haukka J, Kaprio J, Lonnqvist J. High concordance of bipolar I disorder in a nationwide sample of twins. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1814–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGuffin P, Rijsdijk F, Andrew M, Sham P, Katz R, Cardno A. The heritability of bipolar affective disorder and the genetic relationship to unipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:497–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lapalme M, Hodgins S, LaRoche C. Children of parents with bipolar disorder: a metaanalysis of risk for mental disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 1997;42(6):623–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hirschfeld RMA, Lewis L, Vornik LA. Perceptions and impact of bipolar disorder: how far have we really come? Results of the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association 2000 survey of individuals with bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:161–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kendler KS, Neale MC. Endophenotype: a conceptual analysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15:789–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Glahn DC, Bearden CE, Niendam TA, Escamilla MA. The feasibility of neuropsychological endophenotypes in the search for genes associated with bipolar affective disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2004;6(3):171–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Antila M, Tuulio-Henriksson A, Kieseppa T, Soronen P, Palo OM, Paunio T, et al. Heritability of cognitive functions in families with bipolar disorder. Am J Med Genet. 2007;44:802–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glahn DC, Almasy L, Barguil M, Hare E, Peralta JM, Kent Jr JW, et al. Neurocognitive endophenotypes for bipolar disorder identified in multiplex multigenerational families. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(2):168–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Daban C, Mathieu F, Raust A, Cochet B, Scott J, Etain B, et al. Is processing speed a valid cognitive endophenotype for bipolar disorder? J Affect Disord. 2012;139(1):98–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arts B, Jabben N, Krabbendam L, van Os J. Meta-analyses of cognitive functioning in euthymic bipolar patients and their first-degree relatives. Psychol Med. 2008;38:771–85.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Balanzá-Martinez V, Rubio C, Selva-Vera G, Martinez-Aran A, Sánchez-Moreno J, Salazar-Fraile J, et al. Neurocognitive endophenotypes (Endophenocognitypes) from studies of relatives of bipolar disorder subjects: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32:1426–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bora E, Yucel M, Pantelis C. Cognitive endophenotypes of bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis of neuropsychological deficits in euthymic patients and their first-degree relatives. J Affect Disord. 2009;113(1–2):1–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de la Serna E, Vila M, Sanchez-Gistau V, Moreno D, Romero S, Sugranyes G, et al. Neuropsychological characteristics of child and adolescent offspring of patients with bipolar disorder. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2016;65:54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patino LR, Adler CM, Mills NP, Strakowski SM, Fleck DE, Welge JA, et al. Conflict monitoring and adaptation in individuals at familial risk for developing bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15:264–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Deveci E, Ozan E, Kirpinar I, Oral M, Daloglu AG, Aydın N, et al. Neurocognitive functioning in young high-risk offspring having a parent with bipolar I disorder. Turk J Med Sci. 2013;43:110–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCormack C, Green MJ, Rowland JE, Roberts G, Frankland A, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, et al. Neuropsychological and social cognitive function in young people at genetic risk of bipolar disorder. Psychol Med. 2016;46(4):745–58.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Belleau EL, Phillips ML, Birmaher B, Axelson DA, Ladouceur CD. Aberrant executive attention in unaffected youth at familial risk for mood disorders. J Affect Disord. 2013;147(1–3):397–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Erol A, Kosger F, Putgul G, Ersoy B. Ventral prefrontal executive function impairment as a potential endophenotypic marker for bipolar disorder. Nord J Psychiatry. 2014;68(1):18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kosger F, Essizoglu A, Baltacioglu M, Ulkgun N, Yenilmez C. Executive function in parents of patients with familial versus sporadic bipolar disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;61:36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Olvet DM, Burdick KE, Cornblatt BA. Assessing the potential to use neurocognition to predict who is at risk for developing bipolar disorder: a review of the literature. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2013;18(12):129–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hıdıroglu C, Torres IJ, Er A, Isık G, Yalın N, Yatham LN, et al. Response inhibition and interference control in patients with bipolar I disorder and first-degree relatives. Bipolar Disord. 2015;17:781–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Doyle AE, Wozniak J, Wilens TE, Henin A, Seidman LJ, Petty C, et al. Neurocognitive impairment in unaffected siblings of youth with bipolar disorder. Psychol Med. 2009;39(8):1253–63.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wessa M, Kollmann B, Linke J, Schönfelder S, Kanske P. Increased impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for bipolar disorder: evidence from self-report and experimental measures in two high-risk populations. J Affect Disord. 2015;178(1):8–24.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kravariti E, Schulze K, Kane F, Kalidindi S, Bramon E, Walshe M, et al. Stroop-test interference in bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(3):285–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulze KK, Walshe M, Stahl D, Hall MH, Kravariti E, Morris R, et al. Executive functioning in familial bipolar I disorder patients and their unaffected relatives. Bipolar Disord. 2011;13:208–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ethridge LE, Soilleux M, Nakonezny PA, Reilly JL, Hill SK, Keefe RSE, et al. Behavioral response inhibition in psychotic disorders: diagnostic specificity, familiality and relation to generalized cognitive deficit. Schizophr Res. 2014;159:491–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sanchesa M, Scott-Gurnella K, Patela A, Caetanob SC, Zunta-Soaresa GB, et al. Impulsivity in children and adolescents with mood disorders and unaffected offspring of bipolar parents. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55:1337–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fortgang RG, Hultman CM, van Erp TG, Cannon D. Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder: testing for shared endophenotypes. Psychol Med. 2016;46(7):1497–507.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lombardo LE, Bearden CE, Barrett J, Brumbaugh MS, Pittman B, Frangou S, et al. Trait impulsivity as an endophenotype for bipolar I disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2012;14:565–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ng TH, Stange JP, Black CL, Titone MK, Weiss RB, Abramson LY, et al. Impulsivity predicts the onset of DSM-IV-TR or RDC hypomanic and manic episodes in adolescents and young adults with high or moderate reward sensitivity. J Affect Disord. 2016;198:88–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hıdıroğlu C, Demirci Esen O, Tunca Z, Gürz Yalçın N, Lombardo L. Can risk taking be an endophenotype for bipolar disorder? A study on patients with bipolar disorder type I and their first-degree relatives. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013;19:474–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Brotman MA, Guyer AE, Lawson ES, Horsey SE, Rich BA, Dickstein DP, et al. Facial emotion labeling deficits in children and adolescents at risk for bipolar disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:385–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Brotman MA, Skup M, Rich BA, Blair KS, Pine DS, Blair JR, et al. Risk for bipolar disorder is associated with face processing deficits across emotions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(12):1455–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Vierck E, Porter RJ, Joyce PR. Facial recognition deficits as a potential endophenotype in bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2015;230:102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Seidel EM, Habel U, Finkelmeyer A, Hasmann A, Dobmeier M, Derntl B. Risk or resilience? Empathic abilities in patients with bipolar disorders and their first-degree relatives. Psychiatry Res. 2012;46:382–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hanford LC, Sassi RB, Hall GB. Accuracy of emotion labeling in children of parents diagnosed with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2016;194:226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Brand JG, Goldberg TE, Gunawardane N, Gopin CB, Powers RL, Malhotra AK, et al. Emotional bias in unaffected siblings of patients with bipolar I disorder. J Affect Disord. 2012;136:1053–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Reynolds MT, Van Rheenen TE, Rossell SL. Theory of mind in first degree relatives of individuals with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2014;219:400–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang YG, Roberts DL, Liang Y, Shi JF, Wang K. Theory of mind understanding and theory-of-mind use in unaffected first-degree relatives of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2015;230(2):735–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Martino DJ, Samamé C, Ibañez A, Strejilevich SA. Neurocognitive functioning in the premorbid stage and in the first episode of bipolar disorder: a systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2015;226:23–30. This article compiles data on the premorbid stage of individuals, who later on develop BD and on first episode patients and showing that deficits in specific cognitive domains precede the onset of illness.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Trotta A, Murray RM, MacCabe JH. Do premorbid and post-onset cognitive functioning differ between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2015;45(2):381–94.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zalla T, Joyce C, Szöke A, Schürhoff F, Pillon B, Komano O, et al. Executive dysfunctions as potential markers of familial vulnerability to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2004;121(3):207–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim D, Kim JW, Koo TH, Yun HR, Won SH. Shared and distinct neurocognitive endophenotypes of schizophrenia and psychotic bipolar disorder. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2015;13(1):94–102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kumar CT, Christodoulou T, Vyas NS, Kyriakopoulos M, Corrigall R, Reichenberg A, et al. Deficits in visual sustained attention differentiate genetic liability and disease expression for schizophrenia from bipolar disorder. Schizophr Res. 2010;124:152–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rybakowski JK, Borkowska A, Skibinska M, Szczepankiewicz A, Kapelski P, Leszczynska-Rodziewicz A, et al. Prefrontal cognition in schizophrenia and bipolar illness in relation to Val66Met polymorphism of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;60(1):70–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fernandes CPD, Christoforou A, Giddaluru S, Ersland KM, Djurovic S, et al. A genetic deconstruction of neurocognitive traits in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81052.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Besnier N, Richard F, Zendjijian X, Kaladjian A, Mazzola-Pomietto P, Adida M, et al. Stroop and emotional Stroop interference in unaffected relatives of patients with schizophrenic and bipolar disorders: distinct markers of vulnerability? World J Biol Psychiatry. 2009;10(4):809–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Szöke A, Schürhoff F, Golmard JL, Alter C, Roy I, Méary A, et al. Familial resemblance for executive functions in families of schizophrenic and bipolar patients. Psychiatry Res. 2006;144(2–3):131–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ivleva EI, Morris DW, Osuji J, Moates AF, Carmody TJ, Thaker GK, et al. Cognitive endophenotypes of psychosis within dimension and diagnosis. Psychiatry Res. 2012;196(1):38–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Georgiades A, Rijsdijk F, Kane F, Rebollo-Mesa I, Kalidindi S, Schulze KK, et al. New insights into the endophenotypic status of cognition in bipolar disorder: genetic modelling study of twins and siblings. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;208(6):539–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bora E. Developmental trajectory of cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder: comparison with schizophrenia. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25(2):158–68. This article is an extensive review on cognitive data, obtained at the premorbid stage, in first episode and from FDR and discussing delicately the diversity and origins of premorbid cognitive impairment in BD with a particular focus on the overlapping genetic infrastructure with SCH.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Antila M, Kieseppä T, Partonen T, Lönnqvist J, Tuulio-Henriksson A. The effect of processing speed on cognitive functioning in patients with familial bipolar I disorder and their unaffected relatives. Psychopathology. 2011;44:40–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Fusar-Poli P, Howes O, Bechdolf A, Borgwardt S. Mapping vulnerability to bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37(3):170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Ising M, Lauer CJ, Holsboer F, Modell S. The Munich vulnerability study on affective disorders: premorbid neuroendocrine profile of affected high-risk probands. J Psychiatr Res. 2005;39(1):21–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nery FG, Monkul ES, Lafer B. Gray matter abnormalities as brain structural vulnerability factors for bipolar disorder: a review of neuroimaging studies of individuals at high genetic risk for bipolar disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013;47(12):1124–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Eker C, Simsek F, Yılmazer EE, Kitis O, Cinar C, Eker OD, et al. Brain regions associated with risk and resistance for bipolar I disorder: a voxel-based MRI study of patients with bipolar disorder and their healthy siblings. Bipolar Disord. 2014;16(3):249–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sarıçiçek A, Yalın N, Hıdıroğlu C, Çavuşoğlu B, Taş C, Ceylan D, et al. Neuroanatomical correlates of genetic risk for bipolar disorder: a voxel-based morphometry study in bipolar type I patients and healthy first degree relatives. J Affect Disord. 2015;186:110–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sandoval H, Soares JC, Mwangi B, Asonye S, Alvarado LA, Zavala J, et al. Confirmation of MRI anatomical measurements as endophenotypic markers for bipolar disorder in a new sample from the NIMH Genetics of Bipolar Disorder in Latino Populations study. Psychiatry Res. 2016;247:34–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nery FG, Gigante AD, Amaral JA, Fernandes FB, Berutti M, Almeida KM, et al. Gray matter volumes in patients with bipolar disorder and their first-degree relatives. Psychiatry Res. 2015;234(2):188–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fears SC, Schür R, Sjouwerman R, Service SK, Araya C, Araya X, et al. Brain structure-function associations in multi-generational families genetically enriched for bipolar disorder. Brain. 2015;138:2087–102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. van Erp TG, Thompson PM, Kieseppä T, Bearden CE, Marino AC, Hoftman GD, et al. Hippocampal morphology in lithium and non-lithium-treated bipolar I disorder patients, non-bipolar co-twins, and control twins. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33(3):501–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ladouceur CD, Almeida JR, Birmaher B, Axelson DA, Nau S, Kalas C, et al. Subcortical gray matter volume abnormalities in healthy bipolar offspring: potential neuroanatomical risk marker for bipolar disorder? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47(5):532–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Walterfang M, Wood AG, Barton S, Velakoulis D, Chen J, Reutens DC, et al. Corpus callosum size and shape alterations in individuals with bipolar disorder and their first-degree relatives. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009;33(6):1050–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Boccardi M, Almici M, Bresciani L, Caroli A, Bonetti M, Monchieri S, et al. Clinical and medial temporal features in a family with mood disorders. Neurosci Lett. 2010;468(2):93–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hajek T, Gunde E, Bernier D, Slaney C, Propper L, Macqueen G, et al. Pituitary volumes in relatives of bipolar patients: high-risk study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008;258(6):357–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Arat HE, Chouinard VA, Cohen BM, Lewandowski KE, Öngür D. Diffusion tensor imaging in first degree relatives of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients. Schizophr Res. 2015;161(2–3):329–39. This article compiled data on white matter abnormalities in first-degree relatives of bipolar disorder patients, compared white matter abnormalities of first degree relatives of SCH-P and BD-P.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sarıçiçek A, Zorlu N, Yalın N, Hıdıroğlu C, Çavuşoğlu B, Ceylan D, et al. Abnormal white matter integrity as a structural endophenotype for bipolar disorder. Psychol Med. 2016;46(7):1547–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Chaddock CA, Barker GJ, Marshall N, Schulze K, Hall MH, Fern A, et al. White matter microstructural impairments and genetic liability to familial bipolar I disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(6):527–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Emsell L, Chaddock C, Forde N, Van Hecke W, Barker GJ, Leemans A, et al. White matter microstructural abnormalities in families multiply affected with bipolar I disorder: a diffusion tensor tractography study. Psychol Med. 2014;44(10):2139–50.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Paillère Martinot ML, Lemaitre H, Artiges E, Miranda R, Goodman R, Penttilä J, et al. White-matter microstructure and gray-matter volumes in adolescents with subthreshold bipolar symptoms. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(4):462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. van der Schot AC, Vonk R, Brans RG, van Haren NE, Koolschijn PC, Nuboer V, et al. Influence of genes and environment on brain volumes in twin pairs concordant and discordant for bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(2):142–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sprooten E, Brumbaugh MS, Knowles EE, McKay DR, Lewis J, Barrett J, et al. Reduced white matter integrity in sibling pairs discordant for bipolar disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(11):1317–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Piguet C, Fodoulian L, Aubry JM, Vuilleumier P, Houenou J. Bipolar disorder: functional neuroimaging markers in relatives. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015;57:284–96. This article summarized all fMRI studies with FDR of BD-P.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Solé-Padullés C, Castro-Fornieles J, de la Serna E, Romero S, Calvo A, Sánchez-Gistau V, et al. Altered cortico-striatal connectivity in offspring of schizophrenia patients relative to offspring of bipolar patients and controls. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Sepede G, De Berardis D, Campanella D, Perrucci MG, Ferretti A, Salerno RM, et al. Neural correlates of negative emotion processing in bipolar disorder. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2015;201660:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Dima D, Roberts RE, Frangou S. Connectomic markers of disease expression, genetic risk and resilience in bipolar disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2016;6(1). e706.

  79. Whalley HC, Sussmann JE, Johnstone M, Romaniuk L, Redpath H, Chakirova G, et al. Effects of a mis-sense DISC1 variant on brain activation in two cohorts at high risk of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2012;159(3):343–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Mourão-Miranda J, Oliveira L, Ladouceur CD, Marquand A, Brammer M, Birmaher B, et al. Pattern recognition and functional neuroimaging help to discriminate healthy adolescents at risk for mood disorders from low risk adolescents. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e29482.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Heissler J, Kanske P, Schönfelder S, Wessa M. Inefficiency of emotion regulation as vulnerability marker for bipolar disorder: evidence from healthy individuals with hypomanic personality. J Affect Disord. 2014;152:83–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Deveney CM, Connolly ME, Jenkins SE, Kim P, Fromm SJ, Brotman MA. Striatal dysfunction during failed motor inhibition in children at risk for bipolar disorder. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2012;38(2):127–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kanske P, Schönfelder S, Forneck J, Wessa M. Impaired regulation of emotion: neural correlates of reappraisal and distraction in bipolar disorder and unaffected relatives. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5(1):497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Breakspear M, Roberts G, Green MJ, Nguyen VT, Frankland A, Levy F, et al. Network dysfunction of emotional and cognitive processes in those at genetic risk of bipolar disorder. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 11):3427–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. McIntosh AM, Hall J, Lymer GKS, Sussmann JE, Lawrie SM. Genetic risk for white matter abnormalities in bipolar disorder. Internat Rev Psychiatry. 2009;21(4):387–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Whalley HC, Sprooten E, Hackett S, Hall L, Blackwood DH, Glahn DC, et al. Polygenic risk and white matter integrity in individuals at high risk of mood disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74(4):280–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Grande I, Magalhães PV, Chendo I, Stertz L, Panizutti B, Colpo GD, et al. Staging bipolar disorder: clinical, biochemical, and functional correlates. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014;129(6):437–44.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Duffy A, Horrocks J, Doucette S, Keown-Stoneman C, Grof P, Andreazza A, et al. Immunological and neurotrophic markers of risk status and illness development in high-risk youth: understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of bipolar disorder. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2014;2(1):29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Mesman E, Hillegers MH, Ambree O, Arolt V, Nolen WA, Drexhage HA. Monocyte activation, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and S100B in bipolar offspring: a follow-up study from adolescence into adulthood. Bipolar Disord. 2015;17(1):39–49.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Scola G, McNamara RK, Croarkin PE, Leffler JM, Cullen KR, Geske JR, et al. Lipid peroxidation biomarkers in adolescents with or at high-risk for bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2016;192:176–83.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Vasconcelos-Moreno MP, Kunz M, Ferrari P, Passos IC, Bücker J, et al. BDNF levels in first-degree relatives of patients with bipolar disorder: preliminary data. Bipolar Disord. 2012;14:107.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ceylan D, Ozerdem A, GurzYalcin SN, Hidiroğlu C, Aslan YC, Bağcı B, et al. Can serum BDNF levels be identified as a candidate endophenotype in bipolar disorder? Bipolar Disord. 2012;14:66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Nery FG, Gigante AD, Amaral JA, Fernandes FB, Berutti M, Almeida KM, et al. Serum BDNF levels in unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with bipolar disorder. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2016;38(3):197–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Park MH, Chang KD, Hallmayer J, Howe ME, Kim E, Hong SC, et al. Preliminary study of anxiety symptoms, family dysfunction, and the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) Val66Met genotype in offspring of parents with bipolar disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2015;61:81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Ferensztajn E, Skibinska M, Kaczmarek M, Losy J, Rybakowski JK. Neurobiology and temperament in the offspring of excellent lithium responders. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2015;16(4):272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Huzayyin AA, Andreazza AC, Turecki G, Cruceanu C, Rouleau GA, Alda M, et al. Decreased global methylation in patients with bipolar disorder who respond to lithium. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;17(4):561–9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Yatham LN, Torres IJ, Malhi GS, Frangou S, Glahn DC, Bearden CE, et al. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders-Battery for Assessment of Neurocognition (ISBD-BANC). Bipolar Disord. 2010;12(4):351–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank “Lithium Association” as the funding source of the presented review.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ayşegül Özerdem MD, PhD & Güneş Can MD

  2. Department of Neuroscience, Health Sciences Institute, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey

    Ayşegül Özerdem MD, PhD & Deniz Ceylan MD

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Gümüşhane State Hospital, Gümüşhane, Turkey

    Deniz Ceylan MD

Authors
  1. Ayşegül Özerdem MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deniz Ceylan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Güneş Can MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayşegül Özerdem MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Özerdem and Dr. Ceylan receive research support from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). Dr. Özerdem and Dr. Can receive research support from the Dokuz Eylül University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Mood Disorders

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özerdem, A., Ceylan, D. & Can, G. Neurobiology of Risk for Bipolar Disorder. Curr Treat Options Psych 3, 315–329 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40501-016-0093-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40501-016-0093-6

Keywords

  • Bipolar disorder
  • Endophenotype
  • Risk
  • Relatives
  • Neurocognition
  • Brain imaging
  • Oxidative stress