Genome‐wide scan in Portuguese Island families implicates multiple loci in bipolar disorder: Fine mapping adds support on chromosomes 6 and 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of an extensive study in the Portuguese Island population of families with multiple patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, we performed an initial genome-wide scan of 16 extended families with bipolar disorder that identified three regions on chromosomes 2, 11, and 19 with genome-wide suggestive linkage and several other regions, including chromosome 6q, also approached suggestive levels of significance. Dick et al. [2003: Am J Hum Genet 73:107-114] recently reported in a study of 250 families with bipolar disorder a maxLOD score of 3.61 near marker D6S1021 on chromosome 6q. This study replicates this finding having detected a peak NPL = 2.02 (P = 0.025) with the same marker D6S1021(104.7 Mb). Higher-density mapping provided additional support for loci on chromosome 6 including marker D6S1021 with an NPL = 2.59 (P = 0.0068) and peaking at marker D6S1639 (125 Mb) with an NPL = 3.06 (P = 0.0019). A similar pattern was detected with higher-density mapping of chromosome 11 with an NPL = 3.15 (P = 0.0014) at marker D11S1883 (63.1 Mb). Simulations at the density of our fine mapping data indicate that less than 1 scan out of 10 would find two such scores genome-wide in the same scan by chance. Our findings provide additional support for a susceptibility locus for bipolar disorder on 6q, as well as, suggesting the importance of denser scans. Published 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".