Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Genetic insights into human cortical organization and development through genome-wide analyses of 2,347 neuroimaging phenotypes

Nature Genetics volume 55, pages 1483–1493 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Our understanding of the genetics of the human cerebral cortex is limited both in terms of the diversity and the anatomical granularity of brain structural phenotypes. Here we conducted a genome-wide association meta-analysis of 13 structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging-derived cortical phenotypes, measured globally and at 180 bilaterally averaged regions in 36,663 individuals and identified 4,349 experiment-wide significant loci. These phenotypes include cortical thickness, surface area, gray matter volume, measures of folding, neurite density and water diffusion. We identified four genetic latent structures and causal relationships between surface area and some measures of cortical folding. These latent structures partly relate to different underlying gene expression trajectories during development and are enriched for different cell types. We also identified differential enrichment for neurodevelopmental and constrained genes and demonstrate that common genetic variants associated with cortical expansion are associated with cephalic disorders. Finally, we identified complex interphenotype and inter-regional genetic relationships among the 13 phenotypes, reflecting the developmental differences among them. Together, these analyses identify distinct genetic organizational principles of the cortex and their correlates with neurodevelopment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic overview of 13 brain MRI phenotypes and the genetic analyses.
Fig. 2: Manhattan plots of GWAS meta-analysis of 13 global MRI phenotypes.
Fig. 3: Pleiotropy among the 13 global phenotypes demonstrated by genetic/phenotypic correlations, structural equation modeling and colocalization analysis.
Fig. 4: Enrichment of GWAS signals in different cell types during development.
Fig. 5: Signatures of constraint and links to neurodevelopment for the global phenotypes.
Fig. 6: Topographic similarity and principal component structure of cortical phenotypes.

Data availability

All summary statistics for the GWAS meta-analyses are available for access here: https://portal.ide-cam.org.uk/overview/483. To prevent potential misuse, the data are available under controlled access after approval by the research team for educational and research purposes only. Data from the UKB and ABCD can be applied for and accessed by approved researchers. GWAS summary statistics for other brain imaging phenotypes can be obtained from: The Oxford Brain Imaging Genetics PheWeb (PheWeb (ox.ac.uk)), GWAS catalog (GWAS Catalog (ebi.ac.uk)), GWAS ATLAS (Genome-wide association study ATLAS (ctglab.nl)) and Brain Imaging Genetics Knowledge Portal Brain Imaging Genetics Summary Statistics. The SPARK dataset can be obtained by application to SFARIbase (SFARI | SFARI Base). The DDD dataset can be obtained via EGA (deciphering developmental disorders (DDD)—EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive (ega-archive.org)).

Code availability

Code used are available at https://github.com/ucam-department-of-psychiatry/UKB (ref. 136), https://github.com/ucam-department-of-psychiatry/ABCD (ref. 137), vwarrier/ABCD_geneticQC (github.com; ref. 138) and vwarrier/Imaging_genetics_analyses (github.com; ref. 139).

References

  1. Bethlehem, R. A. I. et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature 604, 525–533 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson, P. M. et al. ENIGMA and global neuroscience: a decade of large-scale studies of the brain in health and disease across more than 40 countries. Transl. Psychiatry 10, 100 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gilmore, J. H., Knickmeyer, R. C. & Gao, W. Imaging structural and functional brain development in early childhood. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 123–137 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Paus, T., Keshavan, M. & Giedd, J. N. Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 947–957 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Elliott, L. T. et al. Genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank. Nature 562, 210–216 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Grasby, K. L. et al. The genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex. Science 367, eaay6690 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Stein, J. L. et al. Identification of common variants associated with human hippocampal and intracranial volumes. Nat. Genet. 44, 552–561 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao, B. et al. Common genetic variation influencing human white matter microstructure. Science 372, eabf3736 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Makowski, C. et al. Discovery of genomic loci of the human cerebral cortex using genetically informed brain atlases. Science 375, 522–528 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jansen, P. R. et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis of brain volume identifies genomic loci and genes shared with intelligence. Nat. Commun. 11, 5606 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, S. M. et al. An expanded set of genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 737–745 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Naqvi, S. et al. Shared heritability of human face and brain shape. Nat. Genet. 53, 830–839 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jayaraman, D., Bae, B.-I. & Walsh, C. A. The genetics of primary microcephaly. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 19, 177–200 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li, M. et al. Integrative functional genomic analysis of human brain development and neuropsychiatric risks. Science 362, eaat7615 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bycroft, C. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562, 203–209 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Casey, B. J. et al. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 43–54 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Glasser, M. F. et al. A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Nature 536, 171–178 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. An atlas of genetic correlations across human diseases and traits. Nat. Genet. 47, 1236–1241 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hedman, A. M., van Haren, N. E. M., Schnack, H. G., Kahn, R. S. & Hulshoff Pol, H. E. Human brain changes across the life span: a review of 56 longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. 33, 1987–2002 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brouwer, R. M. et al. Genetic variants associated with longitudinal changes in brain structure across the lifespan. Nat. Neurosci. 25, 421–432 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Willer, C. J., Li, Y. & Abecasis, G. R. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 26, 2190–2191 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bulik-Sullivan, B. K. et al. LD score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat. Genet. 47, 291–295 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sodini, S. M., Kemper, K. E., Wray, N. R. & Trzaskowski, M. Comparison of genotypic and phenotypic correlations: Cheverud’s conjecture in humans. Genetics 209, 941–948 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Grotzinger, A. D. et al. Genomic structural equation modelling provides insights into the multivariate genetic architecture of complex traits. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 513–525 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sanderson, E. et al. Mendelian randomization. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 6 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Rakic, P. Specification of cerebral cortical areas. Science 241, 170–176 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ronan, L. et al. Differential tangential expansion as a mechanism for cortical gyrification. Cereb. Cortex 24, 2219–2228 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Garcia, K. E., Kroenke, C. D. & Bayly, P. V. Mechanics of cortical folding: stress, growth and stability. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170321 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Richman, D. P., Stewart, R. M., Hutchinson, J. W. & Caviness, V. S. Jr. Mechanical model of brain convolutional development. Science 189, 18–21 (1975).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tallinen, T., Chung, J. Y., Biggins, J. S. & Mahadevan, L. Gyrification from constrained cortical expansion. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12667–12672 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Reillo, I., de Juan Romero, C., García-Cabezas, M. Á. & Borrell, V. A role for intermediate radial glia in the tangential expansion of the mammalian cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 21, 1674–1694 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kriegstein, A., Noctor, S. & Martínez-Cerdeño, V. Patterns of neural stem and progenitor cell division may underlie evolutionary cortical expansion. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7, 883–890 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. De Leeuw, C. A., Mooij, J. M., Heskes, T. & Posthuma, D. MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004219 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Sey, N. Y. A. et al. A computational tool (H-MAGMA) for improved prediction of brain-disorder risk genes by incorporating brain chromatin interaction profiles. Nat. Neurosci. 23, 583–593 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Akbarian, S. et al. The PsychENCODE project. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1707–1712 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Eze, U. C., Bhaduri, A., Haeussler, M., Nowakowski, T. J. & Kriegstein, A. R. Single-cell atlas of early human brain development highlights heterogeneity of human neuroepithelial cells and early radial glia. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 584–594 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Polioudakis, D. et al. A single-cell transcriptomic atlas of human neocortical development during mid-gestation. Neuron 103, 785–801 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ziffra, R. S. et al. Single-cell epigenomics reveals mechanisms of human cortical development. Nature 598, 205–213 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Florio, M. & Huttner, W. B. Neural progenitors, neurogenesis and the evolution of the neocortex. Development 141, 2182–2194 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Geschwind, D. H. & Rakic, P. Cortical evolution: judge the brain by its cover. Neuron 80, 633–647 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Gertz, C. C., Lui, J. H., LaMonica, B. E., Wang, X. & Kriegstein, A. R. Diverse behaviors of outer radial glia in developing ferret and human cortex. J. Neurosci. 34, 2559–2570 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Nott, A. et al. Brain cell type-specific enhancer-promoter interactome maps and disease-risk association. Science 366, 1134–1139 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Fukutomi, H. et al. Neurite imaging reveals microstructural variations in human cerebral cortical gray matter. Neuroimage 182, 488–499 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zeng, J. et al. Widespread signatures of natural selection across human complex traits and functional genomic categories. Nat. Commun. 12, 1164 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Karczewski, K. J. et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature 581, 434–443 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Fu, J. M. et al. Rare coding variation provides insight into the genetic architecture and phenotypic context of autism. Nat. Genet. 54, 1320–1331 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Prevalence and architecture of de novo mutations in developmental disorders. Nature. 542, 433–438 (2017).

  48. Niemi, M. E. K. et al. Common genetic variants contribute to risk of rare severe neurodevelopmental disorders. Nature 562, 268–271 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. SPARK Consortium. SPARK: a US cohort of 50,000 families to accelerate autism research. Neuron 97, 488–493 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Weissbrod, O. et al. Functionally informed fine-mapping and polygenic localization of complex trait heritability. Nat. Genet. 52, 1355–1363 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kabeche, L., Nguyen, H. D., Buisson, R. & Zou, L. A mitosis-specific and R loop-driven ATR pathway promotes faithful chromosome segregation. Science 359, 108–114 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kaczmarczyk, A. & Sullivan, K. F. CENP-W plays a role in maintaining bipolar spindle structure. PLoS ONE 9, e106464 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Koolen, D. A. et al. The Koolen-de Vries syndrome: a phenotypic comparison of patients with a 17q21.31 microdeletion versus a KANSL1 sequence variant. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24, 652–659, (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhou, X. et al. Cellular and molecular properties of neural progenitors in the developing mammalian hypothalamus. Nat. Commun. 11, 4063 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Kuwayama, N. et al. A role for Hmga2 in the early-stage transition of neural stem-progenitor cell properties during mouse neocortical development. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.086330 (2021).

  56. De Crescenzo, A. et al. A splicing mutation of the HMGA2 gene is associated with Silver–Russell syndrome phenotype. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 287–293 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chenn, A. & Walsh, C. A. Regulation of cerebral cortical size by control of cell cycle exit in neural precursors. Science 297, 365–369 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Xiang, Y.-Y. et al. Versican G3 domain regulates neurite growth and synaptic transmission of hippocampal neurons by activation of epidermal growth factor receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 19358–19368 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dobyns, W. B. et al. MACF1 mutations encoding highly conserved zinc-binding residues of the GAR domain cause defects in neuronal migration and axon guidance. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 103, 1009–1021 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Aschard, H., Vilhjálmsson, B. J., Joshi, A. D., Price, A. L. & Kraft, P. Adjusting for heritable covariates can bias effect estimates in genome-wide association studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 96, 329–339 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Chen, S. et al. A genome-wide mutational constraint map quantified from variation in 76,156 human genomes. Preperint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.20.485034 (2022).

  62. Demange, P. A. et al. Investigating the genetic architecture of noncognitive skills using GWAS-by-subtraction. Nat. Genet. 53, 35–44 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Bhaduri, A. et al. An atlas of cortical arealization identifies dynamic molecular signatures. Nature 598, 200–204 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Yeo, B. T. T. et al. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J. Neurophysiol. 106, 1125–1165 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mesulam, M. M. From sensation to cognition. Brain 121, 1013–1052 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Alexander-Bloch, A. F. et al. On testing for spatial correspondence between maps of human brain structure and function. Neuroimage 178, 540–551 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sha, Z. et al. The genetic architecture of structural left–right asymmetry of the human brain. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1226–1239 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Rubenstein, J. L. & Rakic, P. Genetic control of cortical development. Cereb. Cortex 9, 521–523 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cox, S. R. et al. Ageing and brain white matter structure in 3,513 UK Biobank participants. Nat. Commun. 7, 13629 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Sexton, C. E. et al. Accelerated changes in white matter microstructure during aging: a longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging study. J. Neurosci. 34, 15425–15436 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Pletikos, M. et al. Temporal specification and bilaterality of human neocortical topographic gene expression. Neuron 81, 321–332 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhu, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal transcriptomic divergence across human and macaque brain development. Science 362, eaat8077 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Yoon, B., Shim, Y.-S., Lee, K.-S., Shon, Y.-M. & Yang, D.-W. Region-specific changes of cerebral white matter during normal aging: a diffusion-tensor analysis. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 47, 129–138 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Shi, Y. et al. Diffusion tensor imaging-based characterization of brain neurodevelopment in primates. Cereb. Cortex 23, 36–48 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Coalson, T. S., Van Essen, D. C. & Glasser, M. F. The impact of traditional neuroimaging methods on the spatial localization of cortical areas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6356–E6365 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Kharabian Masouleh, S. et al. Influence of processing pipeline on cortical thickness measurement. Cereb. Cortex 30, 5014–5027 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Alfaro-Almagro, F. et al. Confound modelling in UK Biobank brain imaging. NeuroImage 224, 117002 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Barch, D. M. et al. Demographic, physical and mental health assessments in the adolescent brain and cognitive development study: rationale and description. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 55–66 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fischl, B. et al. Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 14, 11–22 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Van Essen, D. C., Glasser, M. F., Dierker, D. L., Harwell, J. & Coalson, T. Parcellations and hemispheric asymmetries of human cerebral cortex analyzed on surface-based atlases. Cereb. Cortex 22, 2241–2262 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Rosen, A. F. G. et al. Quantitative assessment of structural image quality. Neuroimage 169, 407–418 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Alfaro-Almagro, F. et al. Image processing and quality control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank. Neuroimage 166, 400–424 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hagler, D. J. Jr et al. Image processing and analysis methods for the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Neuroimage 202, 116091 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Daducci, A. et al. Accelerated microstructure imaging via convex optimization (AMICO) from diffusion MRI data. Neuroimage 105, 32–44 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Schaer, M. et al. How to measure cortical folding from MR images: a step-by-step tutorial to compute local gyrification index. J. Vis. Exp. 2, e3417 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Knussmann, G. N. et al. Test-retest reliability of FreeSurfer-derived volume, area and cortical thickness from MPRAGE and MP2RAGE brain MRI images. Neuroimage Rep. 2, 100086 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Haddad, E. et al. Multisite test-retest reliability and compatibility of brain metrics derived from FreeSurfer versions 7.1, 6.0, and 5.3. Hum. Brain Mapp. 44, 1515–1532 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hedges, E. P. et al. Reliability of structural MRI measurements: the effects of scan session, head tilt, inter-scan interval, acquisition sequence, FreeSurfer version and processing stream. Neuroimage 246, 118751 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Madan, C. R. & Kensinger, E. A. Test-retest reliability of brain morphology estimates. Brain Inform. 4, 107–121 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Duff, E. et al. Reliability of multi-site UK Biobank MRI brain phenotypes for the assessment of neuropsychiatric complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection: the COVID-CNS travelling heads study. PLoS ONE 17, e0273704 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. O’Donnell, L. J. & Westin, C.-F. An introduction to diffusion tensor image analysis. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 22, 185–196 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhang, H., Schneider, T., Wheeler-Kingshott, C. A. & Alexander, D. C. NODDI: practical in vivo neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging of the human brain. Neuroimage 61, 1000–1016 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Tariq, M., Schneider, T., Alexander, D. C., Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott, C. A. & Zhang, H. Bingham–NODDI: mapping anisotropic orientation dispersion of neurites using diffusion MRI. Neuroimage 133, 207–223 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Andica, C. et al. Scan–rescan and inter-vendor reproducibility of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging metrics. Neuroradiology 62, 483–494 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kong, X.-Z. et al. Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy individuals worldwide via the ENIGMA Consortium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E5154–E5163 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Kurth, F., Gaser, C. & Luders, E. A 12-step user guide for analyzing voxel-wise gray matter asymmetries in statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Nat. Protoc. 10, 293–304 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Leroy, F. et al. New human-specific brain landmark: the depth asymmetry of superior temporal sulcus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1208–1213 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. et al.A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526, 68–74 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Gogarten, S. M. et al. Genetic association testing using the GENESIS R/bioconductor package. Bioinformatics 35, 5346–5348 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Manichaikul, A. et al. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 26, 2867–2873 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Jiang, L. et al. A resource-efficient tool for mixed model association analysis of large-scale data. Nat. Genet. 51, 1749–1755 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Day, F. R., Loh, P.-R., Scott, R. A., Ong, K. K. & Perry, J. R. B. A robust example of collider bias in a genetic association study. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 392–393 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Hartwig, F. P., Tilling, K., Davey Smith, G., Lawlor, D. A. & Borges, M. C. Bias in two-sample Mendelian randomization when using heritable covariable-adjusted summary associations. Int. J. Epidemiol. 50, 1639–1650 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Zhu, Z. et al. Causal associations between risk factors and common diseases inferred from GWAS summary data. Nat. Commun. 9, 224 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Burgess, S. & Thompson, S. G. Multivariable Mendelian randomization: the use of pleiotropic genetic variants to estimate causal effects. Am. J. Epidemiol. 181, 251–260 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Grotzinger, A. D. et al. Multivariate genomic architecture of cortical thickness and surface area at multiple levels of analysis. Nat. Commun. 14, 946 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Loh, P.-R., Kichaev, G., Gazal, S., Schoech, A. P. & Price, A. L. Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets. Nat. Genet. 50, 906–908 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Zheng, J. et al. PhenoSpD: an integrated toolkit for phenotypic correlation estimation and multiple testing correction using GWAS summary statistics. Gigascience 7, giy090 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Yang, J. et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet. 42, 565–569 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Dahlke, J. A. & Wiernik, B. M. psychmeta: an R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 43, 415–416 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Foley, C. N. et al. A fast and efficient colocalization algorithm for identifying shared genetic risk factors across multiple traits. Nat. Commun. 12, 764 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Berisa, T. & Pickrell, J. K. Approximately independent linkage disequilibrium blocks in human populations. Bioinformatics 32, 283–285 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Bowden, J., Smith, G. D., Haycock, P. C. & Burgess, S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet. Epidemiol. 40, 304–314 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G. & Burgess, S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44, 512–525 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Verbanck, M., Chen, C.-Y., Neale, B. & Do, R. Publisher correction: detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat. Genet. 50, 1196 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Morrison, J., Knoblauch, N., Marcus, J. H., Stephens, M. & He, X. Mendelian randomization accounting for correlated and uncorrelated pleiotropic effects using genome-wide summary statistics. Nat. Genet. 52, 740–747 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Hemani, G., Tilling, K. & Smith, G. D. Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PLoS Genet. 13, e1007081 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Hemani, G. et al. The MR-base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. eLife 7, e34408 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Burgess, S. Sample size and power calculations in Mendelian randomization with a single instrumental variable and a binary outcome. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 922–929 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Bryois, J. et al. Genetic identification of cell types underlying brain complex traits yields novel insights into the etiology of Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Genet 52, 482–493 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Won, H. et al. Chromosome conformation elucidates regulatory relationships in developing human brain. Nature 538, 523–527 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Finucane, H. K. et al. Partitioning heritability by functional annotation using genome-wide association summary statistics. Nat. Genet. 47, 1228–1235 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Finucane, H. K. et al. Heritability enrichment of specifically expressed genes identifies disease-relevant tissues and cell types. Nat. Genet. 50, 621–629 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Ge, T., Chen, C.-Y., Ni, Y., Feng, Y.-C. A. & Smoller, J. W. Polygenic prediction via Bayesian regression and continuous shrinkage priors. Nat. Commun. 10, 1776 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Warrier, V. et al. Gene–environment correlations and causal effects of childhood maltreatment on physical and mental health: a genetically informed approach. Lancet Psychiatry 8, 373–386 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Warrier, V. et al. Genetic correlates of phenotypic heterogeneity in autism. Nat. Genet. 54, 1293–1304 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Wright, C. F. et al. Optimising diagnostic yield in highly penetrant genomic disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 1559–1571 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Wang, G., Sarkar, A., Carbonetto, P. & Stephens, M. A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 82, 1273–1300 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Hu, B. et al. Neuronal and glial 3D chromatin architecture informs the cellular etiology of brain disorders. Nat. Commun. 12, 3968 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. McLaren, W. et al. The ensembl variant effect predictor. Genome Biol. 17, 122 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Zhu, Z. et al. Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nat. Genet. 48, 481–487 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. O’Brien, H. E. et al. Expression quantitative trait loci in the developing human brain and their enrichment in neuropsychiatric disorders. Genome Biol. 19, 194 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Yang, J., Qi, T., Wu, Y., Zhang, F. & Zeng, J. Genetic control of RNA splicing and its distinctive role in complex trait variation. Nat. Genet. 54, 1355–1363 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Qi, T. et al. Identifying gene targets for brain-related traits using transcriptomic and methylomic data from blood. Nat. Commun. 9, 2282 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Bethlehem, R. A. I. & Romero-Garcia, R. ucam-department-of-psychiatry/UKB: V1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8051797 (2023).

  137. Bethlehem, R. A. I. & Romero-Garcia, R. ucam-department-of-psychiatry/ABCD: V1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8051799 (2023).

  138. Warrier, V. vwarrier/ABCD_geneticQC: v1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8050609 (2023).

  139. Warrier, V. vwarrier/Imaging_genetics_analyses: v1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8050589 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

V.W. is supported by St. Catharine’s College Cambridge, funding from the Wellcome Trust (214322\Z\18\Z) and UKRI (10063472). E.-M.S. is supported by a Ph.D. studentship awarded by the Friends of Peterhouse. E.A.W.S. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Center (BRC-1215-20014). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. R.A.I.B. is supported by the Autism Research Trust. S.B.C. received funding from the Wellcome Trust (214322\Z\18\Z). S.B.C. also received funding from the Autism Center of Excellence, SFARI, the Templeton World Charitable Fund, the MRC and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Center. The research was supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. J.S. was supported by NIMH (T32MH019112-29 and K08MH120564). E.T.B. was supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award and the Wellcome Trust collaborative award for the Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network. A.F.A.-B. was supported by NIMH (K08MH120564). R.R.G. was supported by the EMERGIA Junta de Andalucía program (EMERGIA20_00139). S.L.V. was supported by Max Planck Gesellschaft, (Otto Hahn Award) and the Helmholtz Association’s Initiative and Networking Fund under the Helmholtz International Lab grant agreement InterLabs-0015, and the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF Competition 2, 2015–2016) awarded to the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative at McGill University, through the Helmholtz International BigBrain Analytics and Learning Laboratory (HIBALL). G.K.M. was supported by MRC (MR/W020025/1). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY license to any author-accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. We thank L.K. Abraham and J. Asimit for their helpful discussions. Additional acknowledgments are provided in the Supplementary Information.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Hyejung Won, Hilary C. Martin, Edward T. Bullmore.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Varun Warrier, Eva-Maria Stauffer, Lisa Ronan, Rafael Romero-Garcia, Simon Baron-Cohen, Graham K. Murray, Edward T. Bullmore & Richard A. I. Bethlehem

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Varun Warrier, Simon Baron-Cohen & Richard A. I. Bethlehem

  3. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK

    Qin Qin Huang, Emilie M. Wigdor & Hilary C. Martin

  4. Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Eric A. W. Slob

  5. Department of Applied Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Eric A. W. Slob

  6. Erasmus University Rotterdam Institute for Behavior and Biology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Eric A. W. Slob

  7. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jakob Seidlitz, Michael J. Gandal & Aaron Alexander-Bloch

  8. Lifespan Brain Institute, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jakob Seidlitz, Michael J. Gandal & Aaron Alexander-Bloch

  9. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jakob Seidlitz & Aaron Alexander-Bloch

  10. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain & Behaviour (INM-7), Research Centre Jülich, FZ Jülich, Jülich, Germany

    Sofie L. Valk

  11. Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Sofie L. Valk

  12. Otto Hahn Group Cognitive Neurogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany

    Sofie L. Valk

  13. Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Travis T. Mallard

  14. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Travis T. Mallard

  15. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Andrew D. Grotzinger

  16. Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Andrew D. Grotzinger

  17. Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS) HUVR/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla/CIBERSAM, ISCIII, Dpto. de Fisiología Médica y Biofísica, Seville, Spain

    Rafael Romero-Garcia

  18. Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel H. Geschwind

  19. Program in Neurogenetics, Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel H. Geschwind

  20. Center for Autism Research and Treatment, Jane and TerrySemel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel H. Geschwind

  21. Institute of Precision Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniel H. Geschwind

  22. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Francis Crick Avenue, Cambridge, UK

    Madeline A. Lancaster

  23. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK

    Graham K. Murray & Edward T. Bullmore

  24. Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Graham K. Murray

  25. Department of Genetics and the Neuroscience Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Hyejung Won

Authors
  1. Varun Warrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva-Maria Stauffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qin Qin Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emilie M. Wigdor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eric A. W. Slob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jakob Seidlitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lisa Ronan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sofie L. Valk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Travis T. Mallard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Andrew D. Grotzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Rafael Romero-Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Simon Baron-Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Daniel H. Geschwind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Madeline A. Lancaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Graham K. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Michael J. Gandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Aaron Alexander-Bloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Hyejung Won
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Hilary C. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Edward T. Bullmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Richard A. I. Bethlehem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

V.W. and R.A.I.B. designed the study, wrote the first draft of the manuscript and carried out revisions. V.W., R.A.I.B., H.C.M., E.T.B. and H.W. supervised the work. V.W., R.A.I.B., E.S., Q.Q.H., E.M.W., E.A.W.S., J.S. and R.R.G. analyzed the data. T.T.M. and A.D.G. advised on SEM. L.R. and S.V. advised on cortical structure and organization. S.B.C., D.H.G., M.L., G.K.M., M.J.G. and A.B. provided input to various analytical methods and helped interpret the data. All authors edited the manuscript and contributed to critical revisions of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Varun Warrier or Richard A. I. Bethlehem.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.A.-B. receives consulting income from Octave Biosciences. E.T.B. serves as a consultant for Sosei Heptares, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Monument Therapeutics and SR One. M.J.G. receives grant support from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, unrelated to the current manuscript. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Genetics thanks Matthew F. Glasser and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Consistency in genetic effects between ABCD and UKB.

(a) Correlation in effect size (regression beta from GWAS) between ABCD and UKB cohorts for all 237 genome-wide significant SNPs in the UKB: Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.54 with 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.63. (b) Genetic correlation (central point) and 95% confidence intervals (error bars) for 12 global phenotypes in the UKB and ABCD cohorts. Given the relatively small size of ABCD, the intercept has been constrained as there is no participant overlap between the UKB (Nmax = 31,797) and ABCD (Nmax = 4,866) and there is no inflation in test statistics due to uncontrolled population stratification. Consequently, estimates of genetic correlation can be above 1.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Mendelian randomization analysis for causal relationships between genetic effects on global brain phenotypes.

Scatter plots for the bidirectional MR effects between surface area and folding index, intrinsic curvature index, and local gyrification index. Slopes of the line (MR regression coefficient) indicate the estimated MR effect by method. Linear a, b, and c are scatter plots where surface area is the exposure, and d, e, and f are scatter plots where surface area is the outcome. All scatter plots are for MR analyses conducted by splitting the UKB into two samples of similar sample sizes. All estimates were statistically significant in scatter plots A,B, and C. Inverse-variance weighted MR failed to reach statistical significance in scatter plots d, e, and f. Number of SNPs included in the MR are provided in Supplementary Table 9. Error bars represent standard errors of the effect size (point estimates).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Forest plots and leave-one-out plots.

Forest plots (a–c) and leave-one-out (d–f) between surface area and folding index (FI, A and D), Intrinsic curvature index (ICI, B and E), and local gyrification index (LGI, C and F). Number of SNPs included in the MR are provided in Supplementary Table 9. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals of the effect (point estimates).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Regional heritability.

a. The distribution of the SNP heritability for the 180 bilaterally-averaged regional phenotypes of the 13 neuroimaging modalities. Maximum GWAS sample size = 36,663. Box plots indicate the median value (central line), the interquartile range, and the whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum. b. The cortical spatial topology of SNP heritability for the 13 neuroimaging modalities.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Asymmetry indices and SNP heritability of asymmetry indices for the 13 phenotypes.

a. Asymmetry indices for the 13 phenotypes. Positive values indicate leftward asymmetry. b. SNP heritabilities for asymmetry indices by region and phenotype. SNP heritability was calculated using GCTA–GREML for approximately 9,650 unrelated individuals from the UK Biobank. Significant regions were identified after FDR correction within each of the 13 phenotypes.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Topography of the first phenotypic principal components.

Color scales depict the relative eigenvector ranging from −20 to +29, in all plots the midpoint is defined as 0. It should be noted that the sign is somewhat ambiguous and that the magnitude is relative to its own scaling (in this case within each phenotype for which the PCA is performed). Thus, in this context, the color scale indicates to what extent regions show more homogenous similarity (that is, regions with more similar color have more similar covariance).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–8, Notes 1–4 and associated figures, and additional acknowledgments.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–34.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Warrier, V., Stauffer, EM., Huang, Q.Q. et al. Genetic insights into human cortical organization and development through genome-wide analyses of 2,347 neuroimaging phenotypes. Nat Genet 55, 1483–1493 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01475-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01475-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing