Article

Genome-wide association study of major recurrent depression in the U.K. population.

Medical Research Council's Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London, United Kingdom.
American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 08/2010; 167(8):949-57. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091380
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies of major depression in twins and families have shown moderate to high heritability, but extensive molecular studies have failed to identify susceptibility genes convincingly. To detect genetic variants contributing to major depression, the authors performed a genome-wide association study using 1,636 cases of depression ascertained in the U.K. and 1,594 comparison subjects screened negative for psychiatric disorders.
Cases were collected from 1) a case-control study of recurrent depression (the Depression Case Control [DeCC] study; N=1346), 2) an affected sibling pair linkage study of recurrent depression (probands from the Depression Network [DeNT] study; N=332), and 3) a pharmacogenetic study (the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression [GENDEP] study; N=88). Depression cases and comparison subjects were genotyped at Centre National de Génotypage on the Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChip. After applying stringent quality control criteria for missing genotypes, departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and low minor allele frequency, the authors tested for association to depression using logistic regression, correcting for population ancestry.
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in BICC1 achieved suggestive evidence for association, which strengthened after imputation of ungenotyped markers, and in analysis of female depression cases. A meta-analysis of U.K. data with previously published results from studies in Munich and Lausanne showed some evidence for association near neuroligin 1 (NLGN1) on chromosome 3, but did not support findings at BICC1.
This study identifies several signals for association worthy of further investigation but, as in previous genome-wide studies, suggests that individual gene contributions to depression are likely to have only minor effects, and very large pooled analyses will be required to identify them.

Full-text

Available from: Ian W Craig, Jun 15, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
264 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obesity is strongly associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) and various other diseases. Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple risk loci robustly associated with body mass index (BMI). In this study, we aimed to investigate whether a genetic risk score (GRS) combining multiple BMI risk loci might have utility in prediction of obesity in patients with MDD. Linear and logistic regression models were conducted to predict BMI and obesity, respectively, in three independent large case-control studies of major depression (Radiant, GSK-Munich, PsyCoLaus). The analyses were first performed in the whole sample and then separately in depressed cases and controls. An unweighted GRS was calculated by summation of the number of risk alleles. A weighted GRS was calculated as the sum of risk alleles at each locus multiplied by their effect sizes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of predictors of obesity. In the discovery phase, a total of 2,521 participants (1,895 depressed patients and 626 controls) were included from the Radiant study. Both unweighted and weighted GRS were highly associated with BMI (P <0.001) but explained only a modest amount of variance. Adding 'traditional' risk factors to GRS significantly improved the predictive ability with the area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analysis, increasing from 0.58 to 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.68; χ(2) = 27.68; P <0.0001). Although there was no formal evidence of interaction between depression status and GRS, there was further improvement in AUC in the ROC analysis when depression status was added to the model (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.73; χ(2) = 28.64; P <0.0001). We further found that the GRS accounted for more variance of BMI in depressed patients than in healthy controls. Again, GRS discriminated obesity better in depressed patients compared to healthy controls. We later replicated these analyses in two independent samples (GSK-Munich and PsyCoLaus) and found similar results. A GRS proved to be a highly significant predictor of obesity in people with MDD but accounted for only modest amount of variance. Nevertheless, as more risk loci are identified, combining a GRS approach with information on non-genetic risk factors could become a useful strategy in identifying MDD patients at higher risk of developing obesity.
    BMC Medicine 04/2015; 13(1):86. DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0334-3 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most measures of depression severity are based on the number of reported symptoms, and threshold scores are often used to classify individuals as healthy or depressed. This method – and research results based on it – are valid if depression is a single condition, and all symptoms are equally good severity indicators. Here, we review a host of studies documenting that specific depressive symptoms like sad mood, insomnia, concentration problems, and suicidal ideation are distinct phenomena that differ from each other in important dimensions such as underlying biology, impact on impairment, and risk factors. Furthermore, specific life events predict increases in particular depression symptoms, and there is evidence for direct causal links among symptoms. We suggest that the pervasive use of sum-scores to estimate depression severity has obfuscated crucial insights and contributed to the lack of progress in key research areas such as identifying biomarkers and more efficacious antidepressants. The analysis of individual symptoms and their causal associations offers a way forward. We offer specific suggestions with practical implications for future research.
    BMC Medicine 04/2015; 13(72):1-11. DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A polygenic risk score (PRS) is a sum of trait-associated alleles across many genetic loci, typically weighted by effect sizes estimated from a genome-wide association study (GWAS). The application of PRS has grown in recent years as their utility for detecting shared genetic aetiology among traits has become appreciated; PRS can also be used to establish the presence of a genetic signal in underpowered studies, infer the genetic architecture of a trait, for screening in clinical trials, and can act as a biomarker for a phenotype. Here we present the first dedicated PRS software, PRSice ('precise'), for calculating, applying, evaluating and plotting the results of polygenic risk scores. PRSice can calculate PRS at a large number of thresholds ("high resolution") to provide the best-fit PRS, as well as provide results calculated at broad P-value thresholds, can thin SNPs according to linkage disequilibrium and P-value or use all SNPs, handles genotyped and imputed data, can calculate and incorporate ancestry-informative variables, and can apply PRS across multiple traits in a single run. We exemplify the use of PRSice via application to data on Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder and Smoking, illustrate the importance of identifying the best-fit PRS, and estimate a P-value significance threshold for high-resolution PRS studies. Availability: PRSice is written in R, including wrappers for bash data management scripts and PLINK-1.9 to minimise computational time. PRSice runs as a command-line program with a variety of user-options, and is freely available for download from http://PRSice.info CONTACT: jack.euesden@kcl.ac.uk; paul.oreilly@kcl.ac.uk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. © The Author (2014). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    Bioinformatics 12/2014; 31(9). DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu848 · 4.62 Impact Factor