Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-03T20:11:44.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Joint effects of childhood adversity and genetic risk for psychosis on psychopathology in the UK Biobank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2026

Zheng-An Lu
Affiliation:
Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Alexander Ploner
Affiliation:
Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Sarah E. Bergen*
Affiliation:
Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Corresponding author: Sarah Bergen; Email: Sarah.Bergen@ki.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The individual effects of genetic factors and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on risk of psychosis, including schizophrenia (SCZ) and bipolar disorder (BIP), have been widely acknowledged, but their interaction effects on individual psychopathological symptoms remain unclear.

Methods

Based on data from 163,704 individuals in the UK Biobank, we investigated the joint effects of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) of SCZ and BIP and ACEs on psychopathology. ACEs status and 55 psychopathological symptoms from seven domains were measured retrospectively using an online mental health questionnaire in 2016. Recent genome-wide association studies for SCZ and BIP were combined with genotype data to generate PRSs. Logistic regression analyses were then conducted to explore univariate and joint main effects of PRSs and ACEs on psychopathological symptoms, as well as their additive and multiplicative interaction effects.

Results

The interaction mechanisms for PRSs and ACEs varied across symptom domains: additive interactions were observed on the depression (RERIBIP-ACEs = 0.20–0.25), anxiety (RERISCZ-ACEs = 0.20; RERIBIP-ACEs = 0.22–0.26), help-seeking (RERISCZ-ACEs = 0.24; RERIBIP-ACEs = 0.23), and cognition domains (RERISCZ-ACEs = −0.23 to -0.17), whereas multiplicative interactions were only detected on the psychotic (betaSCZ-ACEs = −0.543; betaBIP-ACEs = −0.181), mania (betaBIP-ACEs = −0.195), self-harm or suicide (betaSCZ-ACEs = −0.118), and cognitive domains (betaSCZ-ACEs = −0.204 to −0.157).

Conclusions

The interplay mechanisms for genetic liability to SCZ and BIP and ACEs vary across symptom domains. This study reveals heterogeneity in gene–ACEs interaction mechanisms underlying psychosis and may provide personalized guidance for psychological care after ACEs.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow chart of the current study. ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; OR, odds ratio; PRSs, polygenic risk scores.

Figure 1

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of included participants stratified by exposure to any ACEs

Figure 2

Figure 2. Joint effects of PRSs and ACEs on psychopathological symptoms. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of PRS-SCZ (A) or PRS-BIP (B) and ACEs (C) on psychopathological symptoms in the joint and univariate models. The univariate estimates, joint estimates adjusting for ACEs, joint estimates adjusting for PRS-SCZ, and joint estimates adjusting for PRS-BIP are represented by purple circles, blue triangles, orange diamonds, and red asterisks, respectively. The error bars indicate confidence intervals. Joint estimates are derived from joint logistic regression models incorporating both PRS-SCZ or PRS-BIP and ACEs, after adjusting for covariates. Univariate estimates are derived from univariate logistic regression models for PRSs or ACEs, with covariates adjusted for. The x-axis indexes odd ratios, and the y-axis stands for psychopathological symptoms. The cut-off of high versus low PRS is set at the 75th percentile. Since we only included symptoms that showed statistically significant univariate associations with both ACEs and the corresponding PRS in the joint models, data are not shown for symptoms showing non-significant univariate associations with either ACEs or PRS-SCZ/PRS-BIP in the plot. Non-significant joint estimates for PRSs with ACEs adjusted for after Bonferroni correction (P < 2.73 × 10−4) were represented by transparent points. OR, odds ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals; PRS, polygenic risk scores; ACEs, adverse childhood experiences.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Additive interaction effects between PRSs and ACEs on psychopathological symptoms. Panels (a) and (b) show the additive interaction effects of PRS-SCZ (a) or PRS-BIP (b) and ACEs, by illustrating: (1) excess risk conferred by PRSs alone (blue bar); (2) excess risk conferred by ACEs alone (orange bar); (3) RERI (pink bar). The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals of RERIs. The sum of these three components equals the combined risks of higher PRS and ACEs. The excess risks were calculated based on the ORs derived from logistic regression models incorporating main effects from PRSs (high vs. low), ACEs, and their multiplicative interaction term as exposures, with all covariates adjusted for. Excess risk of PRS alone was calculated as ORhigh PRS + no ACEs − 1. Excess risk of ACEs alone was calculated as ORlow PRS + ACEs − 1. RERI was calculated as ORhigh PRS + ACEs − ORlow PRS + ACEs − ORhigh PRS + no ACEs + 1, which can be interpreted as the difference between the combined risk of PRSs and ACEs and the sum of risk for PRSs and ACEs alone. A positive RERI indicates a synergistic effect, whereas a negative RERI indicates an antagonistic effect. The x-axis indexes excess risk, and the y-axis displays psychopathological symptoms. The cut-off of the risk status of PRS was set at the 75th percentile. Data are missing for symptoms with non-significant univariate associations with either ACEs or PRSs. # indicates nominal significance at P < 0.05. ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals; OR, odds ratio; PRS, polygenic risk scores; RERI, relative excess risk due to interaction.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Multiplicative interaction effects between PRSs and ACEs on psychopathological symptoms. Panels (A) and (B) show the multiplicative interaction effects of PRS-SCZ (A) or PRS-BIP (B) and ACEs, by illustrating: (1) Log(OR) for PRSs alone (blue bar); (2) Log(OR) for ACEs alone (orange bar); (3) coefficient for multiplicative interaction term (pink bar). The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals of multiplicative interaction. The excess risks were calculated based on the ORs derived from logistic regression models incorporating main effects from PRSs (high vs. low), ACEs, and their multiplicative interaction term as exposures, with all covariates adjusted for. Log(OR) for PRSs alone was calculated as Log(ORhigh PRS + no ACEs). Log(OR) for ACEs alone was calculated as Log(ORlow PRS + ACEs). Multiplicative interaction was calculated as Log(ORhigh PRS + ACEs)−Log(ORhigh PRS + no ACEs)−Log(ORlow PRS + ACEs). A positive multiplicative interaction indicates that the effects of ACEs are amplified among individuals with a higher PRS, whereas a negative multiplicative interaction indicates that the effects of ACEs are ameliorated among individuals with a higher PRS. The x-axis indexes log(OR), and the y-axis displays psychopathological symptoms. The cut-off of the risk status of PRS was set at the 75th percentile. Data are missing for symptoms with non-significant univariate associations with either PRSs or ACEs. # indicates nominal significance at P < 0.05. * indicates Bonferroni-corrected significance level (P < 0.05/26 for PRS-SCZ and ACEs; P < 0.05/29 for PRS-BIP and ACEs). ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals; OR, odds ratio; PRS, polygenic risk scores.

Supplementary material: File

Lu et al. supplementary material

Lu et al. supplementary material
Download Lu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 963.8 KB