Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T23:46:56.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thinking clearly about the endophenotype–intermediate phenotype–biomarker distinctions in developmental psychopathology research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2013

Mark F. Lenzenweger
Mark F. Lenzenweger*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Binghamton Weill Cornell Medical College
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Mark F. Lenzenweger, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, Science IV, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000; E-mail: mlenzen@binghamton.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The endophenotype is central to modern developmental psychopathology studies. It is used in studies seeking to connect the genetic substrates of the panoply of major mental disorders with processes, tapped by laboratory and other assessment measures, in the genotype to a behavior/psychopathology pathway. Proposed originally by Gottesman and Shields (1972; Shields & Gottesman, 1973) 41 years ago, the endophenotype concept has gained widespread traction in psychopathology research since the Gottesman and Gould (2003) review. Other concepts broadly related to the endophenotype notion have also generated discussion in experimental and developmental psychopathology research. One is the intermediate phenotype, a concept proffered as a putative alternative formulation to the endophenotype. Another concept in this intellectual vein is biomarker. The terms endophenotype, intermediate phenotype, and biomarker have often been used interchangeably in the psychiatric literature, yielding conceptual confusion. However, these three terms are not fungible. The recent Research Domain Criteria proposal from the National Institute of Mental Health has emphasized selected underlying processes thought to be of developmental etiologic significance to psychopathology. These selected processes will be the focus of energetic future research efforts, many of which will make use of the endophenotype and biomarker research paradigms. In this context, the concepts of endophenotype, intermediate phenotype, and biomarker are examined critically and contrasted in terms of meaning, intention, clarity, and intellectual history. This analysis favors use of the endophenotype concept in genetically informed laboratory and neuroscience studies of psychopathology. The term intermediate phenotype is perhaps best restricted to its originally defined meaning in genetics. Biomarker is used to denote objectively measured biological antecedents or consequences of normal or pathogenic processes or a physiologic response to a therapeutic intervention.

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 25 , Issue 4pt2: Development and Psychopathology: A Vision Realized , November 2013 , pp. 1347 - 1357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle. (1962). Nicomachean ethics Ostwald, M., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs–Merrill.Google Scholar
Beauchaine, T.P., Neuhaus, E., Brenner, S.L., & Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2008). Ten good reasons to consider biological processes in prevention and intervention research. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 745–774.Google Scholar
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. (2001). Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 69, 89–95.Google Scholar
Chan, R. C., & Gottesman, I. I. (2008). Neurological soft signs as candidate endophenotypes for schizophrenia: A shooting star or a Northern star? Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 32, 957–971.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1989). Developmental psychopathology: Some thoughts on its evolution. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F.A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, R. J. (1998). Affective style and affective disorders: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depue, R. A., & Lenzenweger, M. F. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of personality disturbance. In Lenzenweger, M. F. & Clarkin, J. F. (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (2nd ed., pp. 391–453). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L., Adamo, U. H., Rock, D., Roberts, S. A., Bassett, A. S., Squires-Wheeler, E., et al. (1997). The New York High-Risk Project: Prevalence and comorbidity of Axis I disorders in offspring of schizophrenic parents at 25-year follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 1096–1102.Google Scholar
Fornito, A., & Bullmore, E. T. (2012). Connectomic intermediate phenotypes for psychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
Garmezy, N. (1996). A paradoxical partnership: Some historical and contemporary referents linking adult schizophreniform disorder and resilient children under stress. In Matthysse, S., Levy, D. L., Kagan, J., & Benes, F. M. (Eds.), Psychopathology: The evolving science of mental disorder (pp. 200–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershon, E. S., & Goldin, L. R. (1986). Clinical methods in psychiatric genetics: I. Robustness of genetic marker investigative strategies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 74, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glahn, D. C., Curran, J. E., Winkler, A. M., Carless, M. A., Kent, J. W. Jr., Charlesworth, J. C., et al. (2012). High dimensional endophenotype ranking in the search for major depression genes. Biological Psychiatry, 71, 6–14.Google Scholar
Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.Google Scholar
Gottesman, I. I., & McGue, M. (in press). Endophenotype. In Cautin, R. L. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (Eds.), Wiley–Blackwell encyclopedia of clinical psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gottesman, I. I., & Shields, J. (1972). Schizophrenia and genetics: A twin study vantage point. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gould, T. D., & Gottesman, I. I. (2006). Psychiatric endophenotypes and the development of valid animal models. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 5, 113–119.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, I. L., & Cicchetti, D. (2012). Genomic sciences for developmentalists: The current state of affairs. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1157–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, D. R., & Gottesman, I. I. (2012). Biologically flavored perspectives on Garmezian resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzman, P. S., Proctor, L. R., & Hughes, D. W. (1973). Eye-tracking patterns in schizophrenia. Science, 76, 43–54.Google Scholar
Insel, T. R., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2009). Endophenotypes: Bridging genomic complexity and disorder heterogeneity. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 988–989.Google Scholar
Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre (1st ed.). Jena, Germany: Gustav Fisher.Google Scholar
John, B., & Lewis, K. R. (1966). Chromosome variability and geographical distribution in insects: Chromosome rather than gene variation provide the key to differences among populations. Science, 152, 711–721.Google Scholar
Karpur, S., Phillips, A. G., & Insel, T. R. (2012). Why has it taken so long for biological psychiatry to develop clinical tests and what to do about it? Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 1174–1179.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S., & Neale, M. C. (2010). Endophenotype: A conceptual analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 15, 789–797.Google Scholar
King, R. C., Mulligan, P. K., & Stansfield, W. D. (2012). A dictionary of genetics (8th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., & Rosenberg, R. S. (2005). The brain and your students: How to explain why neuroscience is relevant to psychology. In Perlman, B., McCann, L. I., & Buskist, W. (Eds.), Voices of experience: Memorable talks from the National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 71–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Lenzenweger, M. F. (1999). Schizophrenia: Refining the phenotype, resolving endophenotypes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 281–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenzenweger, M. F. (2010). Schizotypy and schizophrenia: The view from experimental psychopathology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lenzenweger, M. F. (in press). Endophenotype, intermediate phenotype, biomarker: Definitions, concept comparisons, clarifications. Depression and Anxiety.Google Scholar
Lenzenweger, M. F., & Hooley, J. M., (Eds.). (2003). Principles of experimental psychopathology: Essays in honor of Brendan A. Maher. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lenzenweger, M. F., & Loranger, A. W. (1989). Detection of familial schizophrenia using a psychometric measure of schizotypy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 902–907.Google Scholar
Lenzenweger, M. F., McLachlan, G., & Rubin, D. B. (2007). Resolving the latent structure of schizophrenia endophenotypes using expectation-maximization-based finite mixture modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.Google Scholar
Maher, B.A. (1966). Principles of psychopathology: An experimental approach. Oxford: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Maher, B. A., & Gottesman, I. I. (2005). Deconstructing, reconstructing, and preserving Paul E. Meehl's legacy of construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 17, 415–422.Google Scholar
Masten, A. S. (2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 493–506.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1972). A critical afterword. In Gottesman, I. I. & Shields, J., Schizophrenia and genetics: A twin study vantage point (pp. 367–416). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1977). Specific etiology and other forms of strong influence: Some quantitative meanings. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2, 33–53.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Lindenberg, A., & Weinberger, D. R. (2006). Intermediate phenotypes and genetic mechanisms of psychiatric disorders. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 818–827.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Rockstroh, B. (in press). Endophenotypes in psychopathology research: Where do we stand? Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.Google Scholar
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2011). Biomarkers. Retrieved from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/science/biomarkers/index.cfmGoogle Scholar
Rasetti, R., & Weinberger, D.R. (2011). Intermediate phenotypes in psychiatric disorders. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 21, 340–348.Google Scholar
Ritsner, M. S. (Ed.). (2009). The Handbook of neuropsychiatric biomarkers, endophenotypes, and genes: Vol. 1. Neuropsychological endophenotypes and biomarkers. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sanislow, C. A., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., Kozak, M. J., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., et al. (2010). Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 631–639.Google Scholar
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1008–1015.Google Scholar
Shakow, D. (1977). Schizophrenia: Selected papers. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Shields, J., & Gottesman, I. I. (1973). Genetic studies of schizophrenia as signposts to biochemistry. In Iversen, L. L. & Rose, S. (Eds.), Biochemistry and mental illness (Biochemistry Society Special Publication, Vol. 1, pp. 165–174). London: Biochemical Society.Google Scholar
Stern, C. (1973). Principles of human genetics. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Waller, N. G., Yonce, L. J., Grove, W. M., Faust, D. A., & Lenzenweger, M. F. (2006). A Paul Meehl reader: Essays on the practice of scientific psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Willett, J. B., Singer, J. D., & Martin, N. C. (1998). The design and analysis of longitudinal studies of development and psychopathology in context: Statistical models and methodological recommendations. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 395–426.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (Anscombe, G. E. M., Trans.). Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar