Schizophrenia Is Actually Eight Distinct Genetic Disorders

Via io9: ‘New research published in the American Journal of Psychiatry suggests that schizophrenia is not a single disease, but rather a group of eight genetically distinct disorders, each of them with its own set of symptoms. The finding could result in improved diagnosis and treatment, while also shedding light on how genes work together to cause complex disorders.

…Complex diseases like schizophrenia may be influenced by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants that interact with one another in complicated and dynamic ways, leading to what scientists call “multifaceted genetic architectures.” Now, thanks to the work of investigators at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, the genetic architecture for schizophrenia is starting to take shape.

…So, for example, hallucinations and delusions were associated with one set of DNA variations, that carried a 95% risk of schizophrenia. Another symptom, disorganized speech and behavior, was found to carry a 100% risk with another set of DNA.

…When it comes to schizophrenia and other complex conditions, individual genes have only a weak and inconsistent association (which is why it’s often silly to look for single-gene factors). But groups of interacting gene clusters create an extremely high and consistent risk of illness — in this case, on the order of 70% to 100%. It’s nearly impossible for people with these precise genetic variations to avoid the condition. In all, the researchers found no less than 42 clusters of genetic variations that significantly increase the risk of schizophrenia. “…What was missing was the idea that these genes don’t act independently. They work in concert to disrupt the brain’s structure and function, and that results in the illness.” ‘

As a clinical psychiatrist focusing on patients with this condition, this is a confirmation of my certainty about the heterogeneity of schizophrenia. When you try to do research on characteristics, causes, or treatment approaches to a diverse group of people sharing little beyond a diagnosis, it is no wonder that no strong conclusions emerge.

The Scent of a Conservative

Via Pacific Standard: Newly published research… finds that, to a relatively small but observable degree, people are attracted to the body odor of others who share their political ideology.That’s right: To some extent, we emit red smells or blue smells, and consciously or not, potential mates can and do notice the difference.’

Is Wine Tasting Nonsense?

3quarksdaily: Is Wine Tasting Nonsense?

Via 3quarksdaily: ‘Wine tasting has become one of the favorite playthings of the media with articles appearing periodically detailing a new study that allegedly shows wine tasters to be incompetent charlatans, arrogantly foisting their fantasies on an unsuspecting public. But these articles seldom reflect critically on their conclusions or address the question of what genuine expertise in wine tasting looks like. In fact, articles in this genre routinely misinterpret the results of these studies and seem more interested in reinforcing partly undeserved stereotypes of snobbish sommeliers…

What is puzzling about this whole debate about the objectivity of wine critics, however, is why people want objective descriptions of wine. We don’t expect scientific objectivity from art critics, literary critics, or film reviewers. The disagreements among experts in these fields are as deep as the disagreements about wine. There is no reason to think a film critic would have the same judgment about a film if viewed in a different context, in comparison with a different set of films, or after conversing about the film with other experts. Our judgments are fluid and they should be if we are to make sense of our experience. When listening to music aren’t we differently affected by a song depending upon whether we are at home, in a bar, going to the beach, listening with friends or alone? Why would wine be different? The judgment of any critic is simply a snapshot at a particular time and place of an object whose meaning can vary with context. Wine criticism cannot escape this limitation…’