Dataset Information

Emotional processing subtypes in bipolar disorder: A cluster analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence regarding the performance of Bipolar Disorder patients (BD) on Emotional Processing (EP) is conflicting, suggesting that heterogeneity within this population may exist. It is not completely understood if this impacts on clinical presentation and functional outcomes.

Methods

A total of 212 BD patients were recruited. Patients underwent MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery as well as a clinical evaluation to detect premorbid traits, comorbidities and clinical features. Performance on each basic emotion on the Emotional Recognition Task (ERT) and Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test were entered into hierarchical cluster analyses in order to determine the number of clusters and to assign subjects to specific clusters. We then compared subgroups on clinical factors and real-world community functioning.

Results

No differences between BD patients as a group and controls were found in EP performance. Two clusters of BD patients were found, one with "intact" performance (71.2%) that performed as healthy controls (HC) and other with "impaired" performance (28.8%) performing worse than HC and schizophrenic patients on basic emotion recognition. Patients in the "impaired group" presented higher rates of childhood trauma, schizotypal traits, lower premorbid IQ and education, poor psychosocial functioning and cognitive performance.

Limitations

Cross-sectional data which limits our ability to infer directionality of our findings.

Conclusion

These results suggest the presence of two subgroups regarding EP performance with unique clinical and neurodevelopmental profiles associated. Next steps will include using these data to identify a homogeneous group of patients to target these disabling symptoms with treatment.

SUBMITTER: Szmulewicz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the pathogenesis of Bipolar Disorder, and even less is known about the genetic differences between its subtypes. Bipolar Disorder is classified into different subtypes, which present different symptoms and lifetime courses. While genetic studies have been conducted in Bipolar Disorder, most examined the gene expression of only Bipolar Disorder Type 1. Studies that include Bipolar Disorder Type 1 and Bipolar Disorder Type 2 often fail to differentiate them into separate conditions. Few large transcriptomic meta-analyses in Bipolar Disorder have been conducted to identify genetic pathways. Thus, using publicly available data sets we aim here to uncover significant differential gene expression that allows distinguishing Type 1 and Type 2 Bipolar Disorders, as well as find patterns in Bipolar Disorder as a whole.MethodsWe analyze 17 different gene expression data sets from different tissue in Bipolar Disorder using GEO2R and manual analysis, of which 15 contained significant differential gene expression results. We use STRING and Cytoscape to examine Gene Ontology to find significantly affected genetic pathways. We identify hub genes using cytoHubba, a plugin in Cytoscape. We find genes common to data sets of the same material or subtype.Results12 out of 15 data sets are enriched for immune system and RNA related pathways. 9 out of 15 data sets are enriched for neurocognitive and metal ion related GO terms. Analysis of Bipolar Disorder Type 1 vs Bipolar Disorder Type 2 revealed most differentially expressed genes were related to immune function, especially cytokines. Terms related to synaptic signaling and neurotransmitter secretion were found in down-regulated GO terms while terms related to neuron apoptosis and death were up-regulated. We identify the gene SNCA as a potential biomarker for overall Bipolar Disorder diagnosis due to its prevalence in our data sets.ConclusionsThe immune system and RNA related pathways are significantly enriched across the Bipolar Disorder data sets. The role of these pathways is likely more critically important to the function of Bipolar Disorder than currently understood. Further studies should clearly label the subtype of Bipolar Disorder used in their research and more effort needs to be undertaken to collect samples from Cyclothymic Disorder and Bipolar Disorder Type 2.