Evidence of a prominent genetic basis for associations between psychoneurometric traits and common mental disorders

Abstract

Threat sensitivity (THT) and weak inhibitory control (or disinhibition; DIS) are trait constructs that relate to multiple types of psychopathology and can be assessed psychoneurometrically (i.e., using self-report and physiological indicators combined). However, to establish that psychoneurometric assessments of THT and DIS index biologically-based liabilities, it is first important to clarify the etiologic bases of these variables and their associations with clinical problems. The current work addressed this important issue using data from a sample of identical and fraternal adult twins (N = 454). THT was quantified using a scale measure and three physiological indicators of emotional reactivity to visual aversive stimuli. DIS was operationalized using scores on two scale measures combined with two brain indicators from cognitive processing tasks. THT and DIS operationalized in these ways both showed appreciable heritability (.45, .68), and genetic variance in these traits accounted for most of their phenotypic associations with fear, distress, and substance use disorder symptoms. Our findings suggest that, as indices of basic dispositional liabilities for multiple forms of psychopathology with direct links to neurophysiology, psychoneurometric assessments of THT and DIS represent novel and important targets for biologically-oriented research on psychopathology.

Toward a neurobehavioral trait conceptualization of depression proneness

“…The fact that depression proneness defined in this way remained somewhat correlated with fear‐disorder symptomatology may reflect a remaining shared element of negative affectivity between the two (Clark & Watson, ). In other work, we have operationalized a neurobehavioral trait dimension of threat sensitivity (or fear‐fearlessness; Yancey et al, ) that relates substantially more to fear‐disorder symptomatology than depressive symptomatology—etiologically as well as phenotypically (Venables et al, ). Considering this work together with current study findings, it is quite conceivable that further separation between dimensions of depression proneness and fear‐disorder proneness could be achieved by quantifying both in joint psychological/neurophysiological terms.…”

“…We tested for distinctiveness from fear-related conditions specifically, rather than internalizing conditions more broadly (i.e., fear and distress disorders;Krueger, 1999;Watson, 2005), because (a) distress disorders encompass major depression and dysthymic disorder, along with generalized anxiety disorder, which overlaps substantially with depression and dysthymia(Mineka et al, 1998); and (b) fear disorders appear more etiologically distinct from depression(Mineka et al, 1998;Venables et al, 2017).…”

Interfacing neural constructs with the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology: ‘Why' and ‘how'

“…This work illustrates the process of reshaping a psychological construct to represent the interface between personality and neurobiology. Moreover, this NB disinhibition factor, and a counterpart NB threat sensitivity factor reported by Yancey et al, can readily be tied to dimensions of the HiTOP model: disinhibition is akin to the broad Disinhibited‐Externalizing dimension of the model, and threat sensitivity corresponds to the Fear subfactor of the Internalizing spectrum …”

“…First, constructs operationalized using neural and report‐based measures together appear to capture risk for psychopathology, rather than elements of manifest symptomatology. Evidence for this point comes from twin research showing that (i) NB traits are substantially genetically influenced and (ii) these genetic influences account for the covariation between NB traits and clinical symptomatology . Thus, NB traits appear to index biologically based dispositional liabilities for psychopathology, rather than experiential influences per se or transient ‘states' that characterize clinical problems.…”

Highs and Lows: Genetic Susceptibility to Daily Events

“…For affective vulnerability, substantial research described its relationship to both genetics and personality: Affective reactivity to negative events appears to be largely inherited (Venables et al, 2017), relatively stable over time (Howland, Armeli, Feinn, & Tennen, 2017), and fundamentally connected to trait neuroticism (Howland et al, 2017;Tong, 2010;Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995). Linking these components, there is evidence that the relationship between neuroticism and the variability of negative affect in everyday life is in part due to genetic influences (Jacobs et al, 2011).…”