4.8 Article

Genomics and psychological resilience: a research agenda

Journal

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1770-1778

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-019-0457-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [T32MH017119]
  2. NIMH [K24MH094614]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH113930]
  4. Demarest Lloyd, Jr. Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although exposure to adversity increases risk for poor mental health outcomes, many people exposed to adversity do not develop such outcomes. Psychological resilience, defined broadly as positive emotional and/or behavioral adaptation to adversity, may be influenced by genetic factors that have remained largely unexplored in the era of large-scale genome-wide studies. In this perspective, we provide an integrative framework for studying human genome-wide variation underlying resilience. We first outline three complementary working definitions of psychological resilience-as a capacity, process, and outcome. For each definition, we review emerging empirical evidence, including findings from positive psychology, to illustrate how a resilience-based framework can guide novel and fruitful directions for the field of psychiatric genomics, distinct from the ongoing study of psychiatric risk and related traits. Finally, we provide practical recommendations for future genomic research on resilience, highlighting a need to augment cross-sectional findings with prospective designs that include detailed measurement of adversities and outcomes. A research framework that explicitly addresses resilience could help us to probe biological mechanisms of stress adaptation, identify individuals who may benefit the most from prevention and early intervention, and ascertain modifiable protective factors that mitigate negative outcomes even for those at high genetic risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available