Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:16:50.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Authors' reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Mary Cannon
Affiliation:
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Email: [email protected]
Ian Kelleher
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
Jack A. Jenner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen and the Mental Health Care Foundation in Friesland, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011 

We thank readers for their interest in our editorial. Reference Kelleher, Jenner and Cannon1 The main purposes of the editorial were threefold: (i) to highlight the relatively recent identification and characterisation of a non-clinical psychosis population (for review see Kelleher & Cannon Reference Kelleher and Cannon2 ); (ii) to point out that there might be important overlap in the genetics of the clinical and non-clinical psychosis phenotypes; and (iii) to discuss the potential value of this population for empirically testing evolutionary theories of psychosis.

Dr Euba points out that hypervigilance may lead to an individual being ‘handicapped by an inability to trust others in the social group’ and as a result being less likely to procreate. However, hypervigilance is not in itself a disadvantage. In fact, the more vigilant an animal, the more likely it is to identify threats such as predators and to protect both itself and its progeny, allowing the propagation of associated genes. Increasing levels of vigilance, however, would promote survival of the organism and its progeny only to a point. As this trait becomes ever more pronounced, it would eventually lead to the dysfunction identified by Euba – paranoia. Nesse referred to this as cliff-edged fitness, Reference Kipling3 whereby traits may increase fitness up to a critical threshold, but beyond this point, fitness drops precipitously (the cliff edge here being the transition from hypervigilance into paranoia). Thus, while in its extreme form – paranoia – hypervigilance will be negatively selected owing to negative fitness consequences, a ‘subthreshold’ level of this trait would be positively selected.

We agree with Treffurth that it is possible that non-clinical psychotic symptoms may be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous and that associated genes may have been passed on alongside other fitness-enhancing phenotypes. Our argument, however, is that if, as has been suggested by many researchers to date, the genetics of psychosis encode for positive as well as negative traits, then people with the recently characterised non-clinical psychosis phenotype may provide a valuable population in which to conduct empirical research.

Hubbeling makes the very point that we wished to emphasise in our editorial – that the non-clinical psychosis phenotype provides us with a population in which to test hypotheses about the evolutionary benefit of psychosis genes. It is clear why genes that promote certain traits, such as language development, hypervigilance and complex social cognition, would be selected in evolution. The ‘how’ questions, as Hubbeling points out, require attention, for instance how these traits differ in (non-psychotic) persons with psychosis genes compared with persons without (or with fewer) psychosis genes. This type of research is precisely what we wish to encourage by highlighting the validity of the non-clinical psychosis phenotype for empirical investigation. This population provides a potentially valuable means for moving beyond ‘just-so’ stories Reference Nesse4 into the realm of testable hypotheses.

Footnotes

Edited by Kiriakos Xenitidis and Colin Campbell

References

1 Kelleher, I, Jenner, JA, Cannon, M. Psychotic symptoms in the general population – an evolutionary perspective. Br J Psychiatry 2010; 197: 167–9.Google Scholar
2 Kelleher, I, Cannon, M. Psychotic-like experiences in the general population: characterizing a high-risk group for psychosis. Psychol Med 2010; May 19: 16 (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Kipling, R. Just So Stories. Macmillan, 1902.Google Scholar
3 Nesse, RM. Cliff-edged fitness functions and the persistence of schizophrenia. Behav Brain Sci 2004; 27: 862–3.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.