Although the link between alcohol involvement and behavioral phenotypes (e.g. impulsivity, negative affect, executive function [EF]) is well-established, the directionality of these associations, specificity to stages of alcohol involvement, and extent of shared genetic liability remain unclear. We estimate longitudinal associations between transitions among alcohol milestones, behavioral phenotypes, and indices of genetic risk.

Data came from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (n = 3681; ages 11–36). Alcohol transitions (first: drink, intoxication, alcohol use disorder [AUD] symptom, AUD diagnosis), internalizing, and externalizing phenotypes came from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism. EF was measured with the Tower of London and Visual Span Tasks. Polygenic scores (PGS) were computed for alcohol-related and behavioral phenotypes. Cox models estimated associations among PGS, behavior, and alcohol milestones.

Externalizing phenotypes (e.g. conduct disorder symptoms) were associated with future initiation and drinking problems (hazard ratio (HR)⩾1.16). Internalizing (e.g. social anxiety) was associated with hazards for progression from first drink to severe AUD (HR⩾1.55). Initiation and AUD were associated with increased hazards for later depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation (HR⩾1.38), and initiation was associated with increased hazards for future conduct symptoms (HR = 1.60). EF was not associated with alcohol transitions. Drinks per week PGS was linked with increased hazards for alcohol transitions (HR⩾1.06). Problematic alcohol use PGS increased hazards for suicidal ideation (HR = 1.20).

Behavioral markers of addiction vulnerability precede and follow alcohol transitions, highlighting dynamic, bidirectional relationships between behavior and emerging addiction.

Researchers have identified genetic and neural risk factors for externalizing behaviors. However, it has not yet been determined if genetic liability is conferred in part through associations with more proximal neurophysiological risk markers.

Participants from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, a large, family-based study of alcohol use disorders were genotyped and polygenic scores for externalizing (EXT PGS) were calculated. Associations with target P3 amplitude from a visual oddball task (P3) and broad endorsement of externalizing behaviors (indexed via self-report of alcohol and cannabis use, and antisocial behavior) were assessed in participants of European (EA; N = 2851) and African ancestry (AA; N = 1402). Analyses were also stratified by age (adolescents, age 12–17 and young adults, age 18–32).

The EXT PGS was significantly associated with higher levels of externalizing behaviors among EA adolescents and young adults as well as AA young adults. P3 was inversely associated with externalizing behaviors among EA young adults. EXT PGS was not significantly associated with P3 amplitude and therefore, there was no evidence that P3 amplitude indirectly accounted for the association between EXT PGS and externalizing behaviors.

Both the EXT PGS and P3 amplitude were significantly associated with externalizing behaviors among EA young adults. However, these associations with externalizing behaviors appear to be independent of each other, suggesting that they may index different facets of externalizing.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) and schizophrenia (SCZ) frequently co-occur, and large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified significant genetic correlations between these disorders.

We used the largest published GWAS for AUD (total cases = 77 822) and SCZ (total cases = 46 827) to identify genetic variants that influence both disorders (with either the same or opposite direction of effect) and those that are disorder specific.

We identified 55 independent genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms with the same direction of effect on AUD and SCZ, 8 with robust effects in opposite directions, and 98 with disorder-specific effects. We also found evidence for 12 genes whose pleiotropic associations with AUD and SCZ are consistent with mediation via gene expression in the prefrontal cortex. The genetic covariance between AUD and SCZ was concentrated in genomic regions functional in brain tissues (p = 0.001).

Our findings provide further evidence that SCZ shares meaningful genetic overlap with AUD.

Studies suggest that alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders have distinct genetic backgrounds.

We examined whether polygenic risk scores (PRS) for consumption and problem subscales of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C, AUDIT-P) in the UK Biobank (UKB; N = 121 630) correlate with alcohol outcomes in four independent samples: an ascertained cohort, the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA; N = 6850), and population-based cohorts: Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC; N = 5911), Generation Scotland (GS; N = 17 461), and an independent subset of UKB (N = 245 947). Regression models and survival analyses tested whether the PRS were associated with the alcohol-related outcomes.

In COGA, AUDIT-P PRS was associated with alcohol dependence, AUD symptom count, maximum drinks (R2 = 0.47–0.68%, p = 2.0 × 10−8–1.0 × 10−10), and increased likelihood of onset of alcohol dependence (hazard ratio = 1.15, p = 4.7 × 10−8); AUDIT-C PRS was not an independent predictor of any phenotype. In ALSPAC, the AUDIT-C PRS was associated with alcohol dependence (R2 = 0.96%, p = 4.8 × 10−6). In GS, AUDIT-C PRS was a better predictor of weekly alcohol use (R2 = 0.27%, p = 5.5 × 10−11), while AUDIT-P PRS was more associated with problem drinking (R2 = 0.40%, p = 9.0 × 10−7). Lastly, AUDIT-P PRS was associated with ICD-based alcohol-related disorders in the UKB subset (R2 = 0.18%, p < 2.0 × 10−16).

AUDIT-P PRS was associated with a range of alcohol-related phenotypes across population-based and ascertained cohorts, while AUDIT-C PRS showed less utility in the ascertained cohort. We show that AUDIT-P is genetically correlated with both use and misuse and demonstrate the influence of ascertainment schemes on PRS analyses.