PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.

PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.
Sample Answer for PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system. Included After Question

PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.

Question Description

I’m working on a psychology discussion question and need support to help me learn.

PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.

Reading:

“The Interplay of Nature, Nurture and Developmental Influences: The Challenge Ahead for Mental Health” by Michael Rutter, MD, FRS.

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Gene–environment interactions in psychiatry: joining forces with neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,7 (7), 583-590.

“Too small to Fail” by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, June 2, 2016.

Film:

Wonder (d. Steven Chbosky, 2017, USA)

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.
Title: PERSPECTIVES mammalian nervous system.

Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 617–628 (2004). 104. Miyawaki, A. Innovations in the imaging of brain functions using fluorescent proteins. Neuron 48, 189–199 (2005). 105. Barco, A., Alarcon, J. M. & Kandel, E. R. Expression of constitutively active CREB protein facilitates the late phase of long-term potentiation by enhancing synaptic capture. Cell 108, 689–703 (2002). 106. Woo, N. H. & Nguyen, P. V. ‘Silent’ metaplasticity of the late phase of long-term potentiation requires protein phosphatases. Learn. Mem. 9, 202–213 (2002). 107. Woo, N. H. & Nguyen, P. V. Protein synthesis is required for synaptic immunity to depotentiation. J. Neurosci. 23, 1125–1132 (2003). 108. Fiala, J. C. & Harris, K. M. in Dendrites (eds Stuart, G., Spruston, N. & Häusser, M.) 376 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1999). Acknowledgements We thank C. Stevens, M. Wilson and members of the Tonegawa laboratory for helpful discussions, and critical reading of and comments on the manuscript. Research was supported by the RIKEN-MIT Neuroscience Research Center, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and grants from the National Institutes of Health (S.T. and R.J.K). Competing interests statement The authors declare no competing financial interests. DATABASES The following terms in this article are linked online to: Entrez Gene: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query. fcgi?db=gene 4EBP1 | 4EBP2 | BDNF | eEF1α | eIF4E | S6 Access to this links box is available online. OPINION Gene–environment interactions in psychiatry: joining forces with neuroscience Avshalom Caspi and Terrie E. Moffitt Abstract | Gene–environment interaction research in psychiatry is new, and is a natural ally of neuroscience. Mental disorders have known environmental causes, but there is heterogeneity in the response to each causal factor, which gene– environment findings attribute to genetic differences at the DNA sequence level. Such findings come from epidemiology, an ideal branch of science for showing that gene–environment interactions exist in nature and affect a significant fraction of disease cases. The complementary discipline of epidemiology, experimental neuroscience, fuels gene–environment hypotheses and investigates underlying neural mechanisms. This article discusses opportunities and challenges in the collaboration between psychiatry, epidemiology and neuroscience in studying gene–environment interactions. Gene–environment interactions occur when the effect of exposure to an environmental pathogen on a person’s health is conditional on his or her genotype. The first evidence that genotype moderates the capacity of an environmental risk to bring about mental disorders was reported in 2002 (REF. 1). Although mental health research into gene–environment interactions is new, it seems to be gathering momentum. We argue that, to fulfill its potential, gene–environment interaction research must integrate with neuroscience. Moreover, the gene–environment interaction approach brings exciting opportunities for extending the range and power of neuroscience. Here, we examine opportunities for collaboration between experimental neuroscience and research on NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE gene–environment interactions. Successful collaboration can solve the biggest mystery of human psychopathology: how does an environmental factor, external to the person, get inside the nervous system and alter its elements to generate the symptoms of a disordered mind? Concentrating the considerable resources of neuroscience and gene–environment research on this question will bring discoveries that advance the understanding of mental disorders, and increase the potential to control and prevent them. Psychiatric genetic approaches The recent history of psychiatric research that has measured genetic differences at the DNA sequence level can be divided into three approaches, each with its own logic and assumptions. The first approach assumes direct linear relations between genes and behaviour (FIG. 1a). The goal of this approach has been to correlate psychiatric disorders with individual differences in DNA sequence. This has been attempted using both linkage analysis and association analysis, with regard to many psychiatric conditions such as depression2, schizophrenia3 and addiction4. Although a few genes have accumulated replicated evidence of association with disorder, replication failures are routine and overall progress has been slow5. Because of inconsistent findings, many scientists have despaired of the search for a straightforward association between genotype and diagnosis6, that is, for direct main effects. The second approach has sought to make more progress by replacing the disorder outcomes with intermediate phenotypes, called ‘endophenotypes’ (FIG. 1b). Endophenotypes are heritable neurophysiological, biochemical, endocrinological, neuroanatomical or neuropsychological constituents of disorders7. Endophenotypes are assumed to have simpler genetic underpinnings than disorders themselves. Therefore, this research approach pursues the hypothesis that it will be easier to identify genes associated with endophenotypes than genes associated with their correlated disorders. Although this approach substitutes the psychiatric diagnosis with an intermediate brain measure, it still searches for direct main effects. The third approach to psychiatric genetics, unlike the first two approaches, seeks to incorporate information about the environment (FIG. 1c). This gene–environment interaction approach differs fundamentally from the ‘main-effect approaches’, with regard to the assumptions about the causes of psychiatric disorders. Maineffect approaches assume that genes cause disorder, an assumption carried forward from early work that identified single-gene causes of rare Mendelian conditions. By contrast, the gene–environment interaction approach assumes that environmental pathogens cause disorder, and that genes influence susceptibility to pathogens. In contrast to main-effect studies, there is no necessary expectation of a direct gene-tobehaviour association in the absence of the environmental pathogen. The gene–environment interaction approach has grown out of two observations: first, that mental disorders have environmental causes; second, that people show heterogeneity in their response to those causes8. VOLUME 7 | JULY 2006 | 583 PERSPECTIVES a Gene b Gene Disorder Endophenotype c Environment Disorder Disorder Genotype d Environment Neural substrate reactivity Disorder Genotype Figure 1 | Approaches to psychiatric genetics research. a | The gene-to-disorder approach assumes direct linear relations between genes and disorder. b | The endophenotype approach replaces the disorder outcomes with intermediate phenotypes. c | The gene–environment interaction approach assumes that genes moderate the effect of environmental pathogens on disorder. d | Neuroscience complements the latter research by specifying the proximal role of nervous system reactivity in the gene–environment interaction. Nature and nurture Like other non-communicable diseases that have common prevalence in the population and complex multi-factorial aetiology, most mental disorders have known non-genetic, environmental risk factors (that is, predictors whose causal status is unproven) and/or environmental pathogens (that is, proven causes)9,10. Environmental pathogens have been documented for substance-use disorders11, antisocial disorders12, depression13, and even schizophrenia-spectrum disorders14,15. The pool of environmental factors is currently more limited for disorders such as autism, Alzheimer’s-type dementia, and attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Nevertheless, the concordance of monozygotic twins for even these highly heritable disorders is less than perfect, indicating the existence of non-genetic contributing causes. Environmental risk factors for mental disorders discovered to date include (but are not limited to) maternal stress during pregnancy, maternal substance abuse during pregnancy, low birth weight, birth complications, deprivation of normal parental care during infancy, childhood physical maltreatment, childhood neglect, premature parental loss, exposure to family conflict and violence, stressful life events involving loss or threat, substance abuse, toxic exposures and head injury. These environmental causes are considered to be only contributory because exposure to them does not always generate disorder. Both human and animal studies consistently reveal variability in individuals’ behavioural responses to environmental pathogens. Heterogeneity of response characterizes all known environmental risk factors 584 | JULY 2006 | VOLUME 7 for psychopathology, including even the most overwhelming of traumas. Such response heterogeneity is associated with pre-existing individual differences in temperament, personality, cognition and autonomic physiology, all of which are known to be under genetic influence16. The hypothesis of genetic moderation implies that differences between individuals, originating in the DNA sequence, bring about differences between individuals in their resilience or vulnerability to the environmental causes of many pathological conditions of the mind and body. This pathogenesis hypothesis is under study in relation not only to mental disorders, but also to cancer17, diabetes18, and cardiovascular19, immune/infectious20,21 and respiratory22 diseases. Gene–environment interaction studies in psychiatry are new, but some of the initial findings are intriguing. Our own studies provided proof of principle of this approach. In the first report of gene–environment interaction in relation to behaviour, we tested the hypothesis that a functional polymorphism in the promoter region of the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) would moderate the effect of child maltreatment in the cycle of violence. Results showed that maltreated children, whose genotype conferred low levels of MAOA expression, more often developed conduct disorder, antisocial personality and adult violent crime than children with a high-activity MAOA genotype1. In a second study, we proposed that a functional polymorphism in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) gene would moderate the influence of stressful life events on depression. Individuals with one or two copies of the 5-HTT ‘short’ allele exhibited more depressive symptoms, diagnosable depression, and suicidality following stressful life events than individuals with two copies of the ‘long’ allele23. A third study, by investigating the differential effects of cannabis on its users, demonstrated that gene–environment interactions involve environmental pathogens apart from psycho-social risks. We suggested that a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene would moderate the link between adolescent cannabis use and risk of developing adult psychosis. Cannabis users carrying the COMT valine allele were likely to exhibit psychotic symptoms and to develop schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, but cannabis use had no such adverse influence on individuals with two copies of the COMT methionine allele24. Additional gene–environment findings are emerging. In two studies of ADHD, polymorphisms in the dopamine system interacted with antenatal risk factors (for example, low birth weight and maternal use of alcohol) to predict key symptoms associated with the disorder25,26. In another report, polymorphisms in the glucocorticoid receptor-regulating gene FKBP5 interacted with acute injury to predict psychological dissociation, a key feature of post-traumatic stress syndrome27. The study of gene–environment interactions has been the province of epidemiology, in which genotypes, environmental pathogen exposures and disorder outcomes are studied as they naturally occur in the human population28. Genetic epidemiology is ideal for achieving three goals. First, epidemiological studies identify the involvement of hypothesized gene–environment interactions. Second, to increase confidence in the interaction, epidemiological studies incorporate control factors necessary for ruling out alternative explanations. Third, epidemiological studies attest whether an interaction accounts for a non-trivial proportion of the disorder in the human population. However, genetic epidemiology is limited for understanding the biological mechanisms involved in an interaction, and therefore its potential will be better realized when it is integrated with experimental neuroscience. Neuroscience can complement psychiatric genetic epidemiology by specifying the more proximal role of nervous system reactivity in the gene–environment interaction (FIG. 1d). Such information about proximal mechanisms will be essential for developing theory and treatments. www.nature.com/reviews/neuro PERSPECTIVES ‘Bootstrapping’ with neuroscience The original impetus for conducting each of our epidemiological gene–environment interaction studies came from findings that had been established by neuroscience research. We have subsequently observed that, once a novel gene–environment interaction is reported, a wave of new neuroscience follows. This suggests a mutually beneficial relationship of ‘bootstrapping’ between the two fields (FIG. 2). In the initial phase of research into gene– environment interactions, neuroscience provides building blocks that are needed to construct a hypothesis (FIG. 2a). The building blocks correspond to the three elements of the triad: the disorder, the environmental pathogen and the genotype. First, evidence is needed about which neural substrate is involved in the disorder. Second, evidence is needed that an environmental cause of the disorder has effects on variables indexing the same neural substrate. Third, evidence is needed that a candidate gene has functional effects on variables indexing that same neural substrate. It is this convergence of environmental and genotypic effects within the same neural substrate that allows for the possibility of gene–environment interactions. At present, such evidence concerning environmental and genotypic effects in relation to neural substrate measures is sparse, and therefore gene–environment interaction hypotheses are likely to be circumstantial at best, and flimsy at worst. But this situation is steadily improving. When we were constructing our hypothesis regarding the genetic moderation of the depressogenic effects of stressful life events23, we were aided by direct evidence linking the 5-HTT candidate gene to individual differences in physiological responsiveness to stress conditions in three different experimental paradigms, including knockout mice29, stress-reared rhesus macaques30 and human functional brain imaging31. Such helpful studies are uncommon as yet, but they are emerging. In the second (epidemiological) phase of research, the new gene–environment interaction hypothesis is tested against data (FIG. 2b). Elsewhere, we have discussed potential pitfalls of gene–environment interaction studies and have outlined strategies to guide this research8,32. If the initial data are consistent with the hypothesis, the finding must be replicated to determine whether it is sufficiently reliable to warrant further neuroscience investigations33. Most gene–environment interaction findings have emerged too recently to be evaluated according to their replication records. NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE a Neuroscience evidence base b Epidemiological gene–environment interaction research c Experimental neuroscience Neuroscience Gene–envionment interaction Neuroscience Building blocks Hypothesis New studies D 1 Disorder links to neural substrate N 2 Environment affects neural substrate N 3 Genotype affects neural substrate N Finding Genetic variation in neurosystem responses to environments N G×E→D G E Figure 2 | Integrating neuroscience and gene–environment interaction research. Neuroscience provides the building blocks for constructing hypotheses about gene–environment interaction (a) that are tested against data (b), subsequently stimulating new studies to illuminate the black box of biology (c) between the gene (G), the environmental pathogen (E) and the disorder (D). However, two of these findings are promising. First, several studies have sought to replicate the interaction between the highand low-activity MAOA genotypes and maltreatment34–38; a meta-analysis revealed a significant pooled effect36. Second, positive replications of the interaction between 5-HTT*long/5HTT*short genotypes and life stress have also appeared39–47, along with two failures to replicate48,49. It is important to note that useful information can also be gleaned from inconsistencies across study findings. For example, as more studies accumulate it will be possible to evaluate whether the moderating effect of the 5-HTT genotype on life stress is stronger among females or males, younger adults or older adults, and first-onset or recurrent depression cases. In the third phase of research, scientific activity comes a full circle, back to neuroscience (FIG. 2c). A new wave of studies is stimulated, each aiming to illuminate the black box of biology between the gene, the environmental pathogen, and the disorder50 (as illustrated in the triangle in FIG. 2). For example, evidence that variation in the promoter region of the 5-HTT gene shapes depressogenic responses to life stress has led to more focused neuroscience research on a genetic susceptibility mechanism for stressrelated depression51–54. Similarly, evidence that a polymorphism in the MAOA gene might contribute to the cycle of violence in maltreated children1 — a hypothesis stimulated by behavioural evidence from mouse knockouts for MAOA55 and functional gene knockouts in humans56 — has, in turn, stimulated efforts to probe circuits of emotional arousal in the brain by studying this polymorphism in imaging paradigms57 (see also BOX 1). Enhancing neuroscience A replicated finding on gene–environment interactions adds new information, producing a stimulating effect on neuroscience. The result of a reliable gene–environment interaction finding is clear evidence for a pathway of causal neural process connecting the three disparate ‘end points’ that form the triad of gene, environmental pathogen and disorder. The pathway might initially be hidden from scientific view, but knowing three endpoints (instead of two) enhances the likelihood of finding the neurobiological paths that unite them. Candidate genes can add information about where in the body, cell and molecule the environmental pathogen’s effect on disorder occurs. A replicated finding on gene–environment interactions yields at least three insights. First, the insight that the result of exposure to an environmental pathogen depends on the person’s genotype offers clues about the root beginnings of a causal pathway. Variation in the DNA sequence antedates all other variables in the triad. Therefore, covariation between a measured genotype and a neural substrate variable is useful for making deductions about the position of the neural substrate variable in the causal chain. For example, if a study showed that amygdala activation in response to emotional stimuli was abnormal in depressed subjects, this could indicate either VOLUME 7 | JULY 2006 | 585 PERSPECTIVES Box 1 | How does genotype moderate the psychological effects of cannabis use? Evidence from studies around the world shows that cannabis use is a statistical risk factor for the emergence of psychosis, ranging from psychotic symptoms (such as hallucinations and delusions) to clinically significant disorders (such as schizophrenia)93. However, most people who use cannabis do not develop psychosis, which suggests that some individuals may be genetically vulnerable to its effects. This hypothesis received initial support from research showing that the association between cannabis use and psychosis outcome is most marked in subjects with an established vulnerability to psychosis94. However, the genetic risk involved was not specified. Subsequent research focused on risk measured by individual differences on the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene; in particular, a valine allele at codon 158 producing more enzymatic activity and faster breakdown of dopamine than the methionine allele. Both the COMT valine allele77 and cannabis use95 have been independently associated with brain endophenotypes for schizophrenia96,97. An epidemiological study (see panel a) that traced a longitudinal cohort from prior to the onset of cannabis use (age 11 years), through to the peak risk period of psychosis onset (age 26 years), revealed that individuals with one or more high-activity valine alleles (VAL/METor VAL/VAL) showed subsequent increased risk of psychotic symptoms and psychosis-spectrum disorder if they used cannabis24. Cannabis use had no such adverse influence on individuals with two copies of the methionine allele (MET/MET). But is the quantification of drug exposure information using the self-reports of adolescent subjects sufficiently accurate? Is it possible that valine-allele carriers who use cannabis are unusual in some unmeasured way? And how does the valine allele influence sensitivity to cannabis? These questions have been addressed by researchers in the Netherlands, who used an experimental design to extend the epidemiological finding98. In their studies, subjects were tested on two occasions, separated by 1 week, as part of a double-blind, placebo controlled cross-over design. In randomized order, they received either 0 µg or 300 µg -9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the principal component of cannabis) per kilogram bodyweight. Cannabis affected cognition and state psychosis, but this was conditional on COMT genotype. As illustrated in panel b, individuals carrying two copies of the valine allele exhibited more cannabis-induced memory and attention impairments than carriers of the methionine allele, and were the most sensitive to cannabis-induced psychotic experiences. Further research — including the use of both animal and imaging paradigms — is needed to provide a fuller understanding of genetically moderated responses to cannabis99. a b 12 Memory performance: delayed recognition scores on a visual memory task 15 10 5 10 VAL/MET VAL/VAL COMT genotype No adolescent cannabis use Adolescent cannabis use a causal role for the amygdala in depression, or a consequence of depression on the amygdala. However, if such amygdala activation depends on the subjects’ genotype, this suggests that amygdala activation has precedence. Such precedence is not sufficient for causation, but it is necessary. Second, awareness of gene–environment interactions can help to reveal stronger effects 586 | JULY 2006 | VOLUME 7 MET/MET VAL/MET 0) 0) (2 (2 5) 5) (3 (3 (1 9) = 9) n 48 ) (5 4) (1 (3 (1 MET/MET 11 ) (9 1) 9 n = 51 ) (4 8) 0 11 (1 Schizophreniform disorder in adulthood (%) 20 VAL/VAL COMT genotype Placebo condition Cannabis treatment condition in neuroscience data. Neuroscience variables are generally responsive to environmental input. If responsiveness is under the influence of hidden genetic variation within a research sample, this unmeasured heterogeneity will dilute findings. Returning to the prior example, amygdala activation to an emotional stimulus can appear positive but weak across all subjects in an experiment, as the result of unwittingly averaging data from two genotype groups, one of strong responders and another of non-responders. If genetically vulnerable subgroups can be identified for analysis, modest associations may be revealed as stronger than previously thought. Third, gene–environment interactions might help to solve the perennial riddle of disorder-specific pathophysiology. Most environmental pathogens constitute a nonspecific risk for many disorders. For example, smoking influences cancer, osteoporosis, lung disease, heart disease and fetal growth; child maltreatment influences both aggression and depression; birth complications influence both ADHD and schizophrenia. A potential explanation for why there are different outcomes from one environmental pathogen is that the pathogen is connected to each disorder through a different pathophysiological pathway; there is little research into this, although genes of known functionality may offer clues. Furthering gene–environment research Psychiatric genetics has earned an ignoble reputation for its methodological problems, but this reputation should not discourage neuroscientists from bringing genetics into their laboratories to study the genetic moderation of environmental pathogens’ effects on neural substrates. Many initial reports of gene-to-disorder associations proved to be false positives5, prompting the publication of methodological warnings58–60. However, most of the methodological problems arise from the fact that genetic epidemiology is an observational discipline that measures genotypes, environmental risk conditions and disorder outcomes as they naturally occur. This observational method involves several compromises to validity, but the same problems do not afflict the experimental method. Therefore, experimental neuroscience paradigms will benefit gene–environment interaction research by addressing some of the methodological concerns that are now plaguing genetic epidemiology, as explained below. First, there is concern about the need for very large samples in genetics research61. In case-control studies, large samples are needed because genetic effects are expected to be very small. In cohort studies, small effects are also a concern, and there is the added need for large samples due to the fact that the environmental exposure and/or the disorder might have a low prevalence in cohorts33. By contrast, experimental studies have more control over the group sizes and intensity of environmental stimulus needed www.nature.com/reviews/neuro PERSPECTIVES to obtain a detectable effect62. Moreover, unlike mental disorders, neural substrate outcome measures (such as emotional arousal or adrenocorticotropic hormone responses) tend to be quantitatively distributed such that low prevalence is not at issue. Second, there is concern about gene– environment correlation63,64. When genes influence the probability of subjects’ exposure to an environmental pathogen, this results in the contamination of measures of environmental exposure with genetic variation, thereby clouding interpretation of the findings. For example, the probability of experiencing certain stressful life events is known to be under partial genetic influence, as is the tendency to expose oneself to environmental pathogens such as cannabis or tobacco. By contrast, experimental random assignment of subjects to the environmental risk condition rules out this type of self-selection. For example, epidemiologists study self-initiated cigarette smoking, while neuroscientists can study participants that are randomly assigned to nicotine exposure. Third, there is concern about the difficulty of achieving precise and reliable measures of environmental exposure, particularly if the exposure typically occurs over extended periods of the life course8,65. For example, it is very difficult to ascertain the frequency, timing and extent of the trauma that is entailed in stressful life events. Likewise, it is notoriously difficult, using survey methods, to measure the amount of active drug that is ingested during recreational cannabis use over many years. Experimental administration of the environmental pathogen or stimulus with standardized dosage and timing rules out this concern. Fourth, there is concern about the low prior probability of a true association between a disorder and any one among many thousands of genetic polymorphisms66. If little or nothing is known prior to a statistical test of association between a gene and behaviour, then this results in a low prior probability of the hoped-for association, and any association uncovered could easily be a chance false positive result. Neuroscience research enhances the prior probability of a candidate gene being associated with disorder by connecting that genotype with brain responsiveness to a known environmental cause of the disorder. Thus, a key contribution from experimental neuroscience is evidence and theory that supports the biological plausibility of genetic hypotheses, which helps to prevent false positives. Consider research in cognate medical fields, where caffeine consumption has been linked to the risk of myocardial NATURE REVIEWS | NEUROSCIENCE Exposure to environmental pathogen Infant rearing condition of rhesus macaques Genotype rh-5HTTLPR Mother-reared Short/long Neural substrate reactivity measure ACTH release under stress Pre-stressor Post-stressor 0 100 200 300 400 500 ACTH Long/long Pre-stressor Post-stressor 0 100 200 300 400 500 ACTH Peer-reared Short/long Pre-stressor Post-stressor 0 100 200 300 400 500 ACTH Long/long Pre-stressor Post-stressor 0 100 200 300 400 500 ACTH Figure 3 | Exposure to adverse rearing, genotype and adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH) levels. Influence of exposure to early stress (peer rearing) on subsequent exaggerated responses of the limbic-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (LHPA) responses to stress is conditioned by serotonin transporter gene promoter variation (rh-5HTTLPR) in rhesus macaques. When exposed to stress later in life, peer-reared animals with the short/long genotype had higher ACTH levels than animals with the long/long genotype. There were no differences between genotypes among animals reared with their mothers (data from REF. 105). infarction. Caffeine is metabolized by an enzyme (CYP1A2) in the liver, knowledge that allowed researchers to test (and confirm) the hypothesis that carriers of the slow metabolizer variant of the CYP1A2 gene are at a heightened risk of myocardial infarction67. As researchers learn more about genes, the brain and environmental pathogens, the prior probability of hypotheses will become stronger, and false positive gene findings fewer. One caveat must be mentioned. Experiments that randomly assign subjects to environmental pathogens will inevitably be limited to using substitutes analogous to the environmental pathogens that cause mental disorders. Real environmental pathogens are not amenable to experimental administration for three reasons: first, ethics prohibit exposing humans to risk; second, animal-model exposures cannot be equated with human exposures; and third, harm from naturally occurring environmental pathogens often accumulates for months or years longer than a laboratory experiment. These shortcomings of experimental gene– environment interaction studies must be acknowledged. However, the shortcomings are diminished where a chain of inference can link experimental findings involving an analogue pathogen to epidemiological findings involving its counterpart natural environmental pathogen. Towards a nomological network A nomological network refers to the interlocking system of laws — the predicted pattern of theoretical relationships — which define a construct68. A chain of inferences is required to validate the claim that specific gene–environment interactions are surrounded by a nomological network of individual supporting findings. In mental health research, such an emerging nomological network is illustrated by many approaches that are used to understand the role of 5-HTT gene variation in emotion regulation and emotional disorders69,70. We hope that the present article will encourage further collaboratio