@article{vanKoolwijkRamdasIkrametal.2012,
  author    = {van Koolwijk, Leonieke M. E. and Ramdas, Wishal D. and Ikram, M. Kamran and Jansonius, Nomdo M. and Pasutto, Francesca and Hys, Pirro G. and Macgregor, Stuart and Janssen, Sarah F. and Hewitt, Alex W. and Viswanathan, Ananth C. and ten Brink, Jacoline B. and Hosseini, S. Mohsen and Amin, Najaf and Despriet, Dominiek D. G. and Willemse-Assink, Jacqueline J. M. and Kramer, Rogier and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Struchalin, Maksim and Aulchenko, Yurii S. and Weisschuh, Nicole and Zenkel, Matthias and Mardin, Christian Y. and Gramer, Eugen and Welge-L{\"u}ssen, Ulrich and Montgomery, Grant W. and Carbonaro, Francis and Young, Terri L. and Bellenguez, C{\´e}line and McGuffin, Peter and Foster, Paul J. and Topouzis, Fotis and Mitchell, Paul and Wang, Jie Jin and Wong, Tien Y. and Czudowska, Monika A. and Hofman, Albert and Uitterlinden, Andre G. and Wolfs, Roger C. W. and de Jong, Paulus T. V. M. and Oostra, Ben A. and Paterson, Andrew D. and Mackey, David A. and Bergen, Arthur A. B. and Reis, Andre and Hammond, Christopher J. and Vingerling, Johannes R. and Lemij, Hans G. and Klaver, Caroline C. W. and van Duijn, Cornelia M.},
  title     = {Common Genetic Determinants of Intraocular Pressure and Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma},
  series = {PLoS Genetics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS Genetics},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pgen.1002611},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-131378},
  pages     = {e1002611},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Intraocular pressure (IOP) is a highly heritable risk factor for primary open-angle glaucoma and is the only target for current glaucoma therapy. The genetic factors which determine IOP are largely unknown. We performed a genome-wide association study for IOP in 11,972 participants from 4 independent population-based studies in The Netherlands. We replicated our findings in 7,482 participants from 4 additional cohorts from the UK, Australia, Canada, and the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium 2/Blue Mountains Eye Study. IOP was significantly associated with rs11656696, located in GAS7 at 17p13.1 (p = 1.4 x 10\(^{-8}\)), and with rs7555523, located in TMCO1 at 1q24.1 (p = 1.6 x 10\(^{-8}\)). In a meta-analysis of 4 case-control studies (total N = 1,432 glaucoma cases), both variants also showed evidence for association with glaucoma (p = 2.4 x 10\(^{-2}\) for rs11656696 and p = 9.1 x 10\(^{-4}\) for rs7555523). GAS7 and TMCO1 are highly expressed in the ciliary body and trabecular meshwork as well as in the lamina cribrosa, optic nerve, and retina. Both genes functionally interact with known glaucoma disease genes. These data suggest that we have identified two clinically relevant genes involved in IOP regulation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}