K. Roseberry’s research while affiliated with Indiana University School of Medicine - Lafayette and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (21)


W7. NEXT-GENERATION PRECISION MEDICINE FOR SUICIDALITY PREVENTION: COMPREHENSIVE BIO-SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION
  • Article

October 2024

·

6 Reads

European Neuropsychopharmacology

Alexander Niculescu

·

·

Rowan Bhagar

·

[...]

·


Steps 1-3: discovery, prioritization, validation and testing of biomarkers for suicidality
A Cohorts used in study, depicting flow of discovery, prioritization, and validation of biomarkers from each step. B Prioritization using Convergent Functional Genomics (CFG). C Validation -biomarkers are assessed for stepwise change from discovery subjects with no symptoms, high symptoms to the validation subjects where samples were collected from suicide completers, using ANOVA. The histograms depict a top increased (I) and a top decreased biomarker (D). Number of probesets and scoring at each of the Steps. Step 1 -Discovery probesets are identified based on their score for tracking symptoms and ranked 33.3% (2 pt), 50% (4 pt) and 80% (6 pt). Step 2- Prioritization with CFG for prior evidence of involvement in Suicidality. Maximum of 6 pt. Genes scoring at least 6 pt out of a maximum possible of 18 pt after Discovery and Prioritization are carried forward to the validation step. Step 3- Validation in an independent cohort of suicide completers. We selected the top CFE score ≥8 (n = 2340) for further testing and characterization. E Predictions for State—High Suicidality. Top cross-sectional and longitudinal markers are shown in all subjects, males, and females. Table below displays number of significant markers within each prediction group by AUC. F Predictions for Trait—Hospitalizations in the First Year. Top cross-sectional and longitudinal markers are shown in all subjects, males, and females. Table below displays number of significant markers within each prediction group by AUC. G Predictions for Trait—All Future Hospitalizations. Top cross-sectional and longitudinal markers are shown in all subjects, males, and females. Table below displays number of significant markers within each prediction group by odds ratio.
Prototype reports and population Radar Plot
Subject phchp328 (female, 37 years old) died by suicide by overdose a year after being tested by us. Phchp385 (male, 47 years old) died by suicide by hanging three years after being tested by us. A Prototype Report for Phchp328v1. B Prototype Report for phchp385v1. Reports based on panels of top predictive biomarkers for that gender. C, D Radar plots of Hospitalizations in the First Year following testing. Our individual subject scores (black line), as well as average scores for high risk subjects (red, n = 768) and average scores for low risk subjects (blue, n = 176).
Machine learning analysis
A, C, E, G Positive predictive value and ROC AUC of occurrence of hospitalizations as well as time to first hospitalization for various machine learning models utilizing all three aspects of the biopsychosocial model (biomarkers, CFIS, and HAMD-SI). B, D, F, H Salience analysis of which features of the model are the most important.
Top biomarkers after 4 Steps of convergent functional evidence (CFE).
Biological Analyses A. Pathways. B. Diseases. C. Upstream Regulators. D. Genomic Co-Morbidity for Top Biomarkers. E. Therapeutics for Top Biomarkers.
Next-generation precision medicine for suicidality prevention
  • Article
  • Full-text available

September 2024

·

107 Reads

·

1 Citation

Translational Psychiatry

Suicidality remains a clear and present danger in society in general, and for mental health patients in particular. Lack of widespread use of objective and/or quantitative information has hampered treatment and prevention efforts. Suicidality is a spectrum of severity from vague thoughts that life is not worth living, to ideation, plans, attempts, and completion. Blood biomarkers that track suicidality risk provide a window into the biology of suicidality, as well as could help with assessment and treatment. Previous studies by us were positive. Here we describe new studies we conducted transdiagnostically in psychiatric patients, starting with the whole genome, to expand the identification, prioritization, validation and testing of blood gene expression biomarkers for suicidality, using a multiple independent cohorts design. We found new as well as previously known biomarkers that were predictive of high suicidality states, and of future psychiatric hospitalizations related to them, using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. The overall top increased in expression biomarker was SLC6A4, the serotonin transporter. The top decreased biomarker was TINF2, a gene whose mutations result in very short telomeres. The top biological pathways were related to apoptosis. The top upstream regulator was prednisolone. Taken together, our data supports the possibility that biologically, suicidality is an extreme stress-driven form of active aging/death. Consistent with that, the top subtypes of suicidality identified by us just based on clinical measures had high stress and high anxiety. Top therapeutic matches overall were lithium, clozapine and ketamine, with lithium stronger in females and clozapine stronger in males. Drug repurposing bioinformatic analyses identified the potential of renin-angiotensin system modulators and of cyclooxygenase inhibitors. Additionally, we show how patient reports for doctors would look based on blood biomarkers testing, personalized by gender. We also integrated with the blood biomarker testing social determinants and psychological measures (CFI-S, suicidal ideation), showing synergy. Lastly, we compared that to machine learning approaches, to optimize predictive ability and identify key features. We propose that our findings and comprehensive approach can have transformative clinical utility.

Download

Steps 1-3: Discovery, Prioritization and Validation of Biomarkers for Hallucinations and Delusions
A, F Cohorts used in study, depicting flow of discovery, prioritization, and validation of biomarkers from each step. B, G Discovery cohort longitudinal within-subject analysis. Phchp### is study ID for each subject. V# denotes visit number. C, H Prioritization using Convergent Functional Genomics (CFG). D, I Validation -biomarkers are assessed for stepwise change from discovery subjects with no symptoms, high symptoms to the validation subjects with clinically severe symptoms, using ANOVA. The histograms depict a top increased and a top decreased biomarker (E, J). Number of probesets and scoring at each of the Steps. Step 1 -Discovery probesets are identified based on their score for tracking symptoms and ranked 33% (2 pt), 50% (4 pt) and 80% (6 pt). Step 2- Prioritization with CFG for prior evidence of involvement in psychotic disorders. Maximum of 12 pt. Genes scoring at least 6 pt out of a maximum possible of 18 pt after Discovery and Prioritization are carried forward to the validation step. Step 3- Validation in an independent cohort of psychiatric patients with clinically severe hallucination (P3 or P1 ≥ 4, PANSS ≥ 21) We selected the top CFE score ≥ 14 (n = 98 for hallucinations, n = 70 for delusions) for further testing and characterization.
Best single biomarkers predictors for state and trait
A–C Hallucinations (D, E, F). Delusions. From top candidate biomarkers after Steps 1–3 (Discovery, Prioritization, Validation) (n = 98 for hallucinations, n = 70 for delusions). Bar graph shows nominally significant predictive biomarkers in each group. Table underneath the figures displays the actual number of biomarkers for each group whose ROC AUC p values (A, B, D, E) and Cox Odds Ratio p values (C, F) are at least nominally significant. Some gender and diagnosis group are missing from the graph as they did not have any significant biomarkers. Cross-sectional is based on levels at one visit. Longitudinal is based on levels at multiple visits (integrates levels at most recent visit, maximum levels, slope into most recent visit, and maximum slope). Dividing lines represent the cutoffs for a test performing at chance levels (white), and at the same level as the best biomarkers for all subjects in cross-sectional (gray) and longitudinal (black) based predictions. Biomarkers perform better than chance. Biomarkers performed better when personalized by gender and diagnosis. *nominally significant with p < 0.05 ** survived Bonferroni correction for the number of candidate biomarkers tested.
Example of prototype report for physicians
A Hallucinations. B Delusions. Using a panel of the best predictive biomarkers for state and trait in all and by gender. The raw expression values of the biomarkers in the 794 microarrays gene expression database were Z-scored by gender. For state score, the Z-scored expression value of each increased biomarker was compared to the average value for the biomarker in the high hallucinations group (P3, hallucinations ≥4), and the average value of the no hallucinations group (P3, hallucination = 1) resulting in scores of 1 or 0 respectively, and 0.5 if it was in between. The reverse was done for decreased biomarkers. For trait chronic risk score, we calculated the average expression value for a biomarker in the first-year hospitalizations group, and in the not hospitalized in the first-year group, and for all future hospitalizations, and no future hospitalizations. The digitized biomarkers were then added into a polygenic risk score. A similar approach was done for delusions. The digitized biomarkers were also used for matching with existing psychiatric medications and alternative treatments (nutraceuticals and others). We used our large datasets and literature databases to match biomarkers to medications that had effects on gene expression opposite to their expression in high hallucinations or delusions. Each medication matched to a biomarker got the biomarker score of 1, 0.5 or 0. The scores for the medications were added, normalized for the number of biomarkers that were 1 or 0.5 in that patient, resulting in a percentile match. Subject 297v1 is a 54 year old African-American male with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. He had a high CFI-SZ score of 90, indicating he had been severely ill in the past. At the time of testing, his PANSS P3 Hallucinations items was 1, and his P1 delusions item was 1, indicating no symptoms by clinical assessment. His psychiatric medications were divalproex 1250 mg at bedtime and fluphenazine 7.5 mg at bedtime. His nutraceuticals were cyanocobalamin 500 mcg daily, vitamin E 400 units daily, and a multivitamin. The reports indicate that he was a good match for valproate, a medication he was on, and while externally he was rated low on PANSS items, he still had significant internal levels of biomarkers of disease severity.
Precision medicine for psychotic disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, and pharmacogenomics

February 2024

·

244 Reads

·

7 Citations

Molecular Psychiatry

Psychosis occurs inside the brain, but may have external manifestations (peripheral molecular biomarkers, behaviors) that can be objectively and quantitatively measured. Blood biomarkers that track core psychotic manifestations such as hallucinations and delusions could provide a window into the biology of psychosis, as well as help with diagnosis and treatment. We endeavored to identify objective blood gene expression biomarkers for hallucinations and delusions, using a stepwise discovery, prioritization, validation, and testing in independent cohorts design. We were successful in identifying biomarkers that were predictive of high hallucinations and of high delusions states, and of future psychiatric hospitalizations related to them, more so when personalized by gender and diagnosis. Top biomarkers for hallucinations that survived discovery, prioritization, validation and testing include PPP3CB, DLG1, ENPP2, ZEB2, and RTN4. Top biomarkers for delusions include AUTS2, MACROD2, NR4A2, PDE4D, PDP1, and RORA. The top biological pathways uncovered by our work are glutamatergic synapse for hallucinations, as well as Rap1 signaling for delusions. Some of the biomarkers are targets of existing drugs, of potential utility in pharmacogenomics approaches (matching patients to medications, monitoring response to treatment). The top biomarkers gene expression signatures through bioinformatic analyses suggested a prioritization of existing medications such as clozapine and risperidone, as well as of lithium, fluoxetine, valproate, and the nutraceuticals omega-3 fatty acids and magnesium. Finally, we provide an example of how a personalized laboratory report for doctors would look. Overall, our work provides advances for the improved diagnosis and treatment for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.



Temporal effects on death by suicide: empirical evidence and possible molecular correlates

April 2023

·

143 Reads

·

3 Citations

Discover Mental Health

Popular culture and medical lore have long postulated a connection between full moon and exacerbations of psychiatric disorders. We wanted to empirically analyze the hypothesis that suicides are increased during the period around full moons. We analyzed pre-COVID suicides from the Marion County Coroner’s Office (n = 776), and show that deaths by suicide are significantly increased during the week of the full moon (p = 0.037), with older individuals (age ≥ 55) showing a stronger effect (p = 0.019). We also examined in our dataset which hour of the day (3–4 pm, p = 0.035), and which month of the year (September, p = 0.09) show the most deaths by suicide. We had blood samples on a subset of the subjects (n = 45), which enabled us to look at possible molecular mechanisms. We tested a list of top blood biomarkers for suicidality (n = 154) from previous studies of ours ⁷, to assess which of them are predictive. The biomarkers for suicidality that are predictive of death by suicide during full moon, peak hour of day, and peak month of year, respectively, compared to outside of those periods, appear to be enriched in circadian clock genes. For full moon it is AHCYL2, ACSM3, AK2, and RBM3. For peak hour it is GSK3B, AK2, and PRKCB. For peak month it is TBL1XR1 and PRKCI. Half of these genes are modulated in expression by lithium and by valproate in opposite direction to suicidality, and all of them are modulated by depression and alcohol in the same direction as suicidality. These data suggest that there are temporal effects on suicidality, possibly mediated by biological clocks, pointing to changes in ambient light (timing and intensity) as a therapeutically addressable target to decrease suicidality, that can be coupled with psychiatric pharmacological and addiction treatment preventive interventions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44192-023-00035-4.


Steps 1–3: Discovery, prioritization, and validation of biomarkers for anxiety
A Cohorts used in study, depicting flow of discovery, prioritization, validation of biomarkers from each step and independent testing cohorts. B Discovery cohort longitudinal within-subject analysis. Phchp### is study ID for each subject. V# denotes visit number. Red are high anxiety visits and blue are low anxiety visits. C Convergent Functional Genomics evidence. D In the validation step biomarkers are assessed for stepwise change from the validation group with severe Anxiety, to the discovery groups of subjects with high Anxiety, low Anxiety, to the validation group with severe Anxiety, using ANOVA. N = number of testing visits. The histograms depict a top increased and a top decreased biomarker in validation. E Scoring at each of the steps. Discovery probesets are identified based on their score for tracking anxiety with a maximum of 6 points (33% (2 pt), 50% (4 pt) and 80% (6 pt)). Prioritization with CFG for prior evidence of involvement in anxiety disorders. In the prioritization step probesets are converted to their associated genes using Affymetrix annotation and GeneCards. Genes are prioritized and scored using CFG for anxiety evidence, with a maximum of 12 points. Genes scoring at least 6 points out of a maximum possible of 18 total internal and external scores points are carried to the validation step. Validation in an independent cohort of psychiatric patients with clinically severe anxiety (STAI State ≥ 55 and SAS-4 > =60). Four biomarkers were nominally significant, and 57 biomarkers were stepwise changed. We selected for further testing in independent cohorts the top candidate biomarkers, with a total score after the first 3 steps (CFE3) of 8 and above (n = 95 biomarkers).
Best Single Biomarkers Predictors for Anxiety, State and Trait
From top candidate biomarkers after Steps 1–3 (Discovery, Prioritization, Validation-Bold) (n = 95). Bar graph shows best predictive biomarkers in each group. All markers with * are nominally significant p < 0.05. Table underneath the figures displays the actual number of biomarkers for each group whose ROC AUC p values (A–C) and Cox Odds Ratio p values (D) are at least nominally significant. Some gender and diagnosis groups are missing from the graph as they did not have any significant biomarkers or that the cohort was too small with limited data for the z-scoring by gender-dx. Cross-sectional is based on levels at one visit. Longitudinal is based on levels at multiple visits (integrates levels at most recent visit, maximum levels, slope into most recent visit, and maximum slope). Dividing lines represent the cutoffs for a test performing at chance levels (white), and at the same level as the best biomarkers for all subjects in cross-sectional (gray) and longitudinal (black) based predictions. Biomarkers perform better than chance. Biomarkers performed better when personalized by gender and diagnosis. * nominally significant. ** survived Bonferroni correction for the number of candidate biomarkers tested.
Example of a potential report for physicians
Using the panel of the top biomarkers for anxiety from Table 1 (n = 19). This subject (Phchp328) was previously described by us in a suicidality biomarker study, as high risk for suicide, and died by suicide a year after completing our study. No information was provided to the patient’s clinicians by us at that time due to anonymity and privacy rules in research studies. The raw expression values of the 19 biomarkers for the high and low anxiety groups were Z-scored by gender and diagnosis. We calculated as thresholds the average expression value for a biomarker in the high anxiety group SAS-4 ≥ 60, and in the low anxiety group SAS-4 ≤ 40. The first average should be higher than the second average in increased biomarkers, and the reverse is true for decreased biomarkers. 15 out of 19 biomarkers were thus concordant. We also calculated as thresholds the average expression value for a biomarker in the first-year hospitalizations group, and in the not hospitalized in first-year group. We did the same thing for all future hospitalizations, and no future hospitalizations. The first average should be higher than the second average in increased biomarkers, and the reverse is true for decreased biomarkers. 18 out of 19 biomarkers were thus concordant for first year, and for all future. The Z-scored expression value of each increased in expression biomarker was compared to the average value for the biomarker in the high anxiety group SAS-4 ≥ 60, and the average value of the low anxiety group SAS-4 ≤ 40, resulting in scores of 1 if above high anxiety, 0 if below low anxiety, and 0.5 if it was in between. The reverse was done for decreased in expression biomarkers. The digitized biomarkers were then added into a polygenic risk score and normalized for the number of biomarkers in the panel, resulting in a percentile score. We did the same thing for first-year hospitalizations, and all future hospitalizations, generating a combined score for chronic anxiety risk. The digitized biomarkers were also used for matching with existing psychiatric medications and alternative treatments (nutraceuticals and others). We used our large datasets and literature databases to match biomarkers to medications that had effects on gene expression opposite to their expression in high anxiety. Each medication matched to a biomarker got the biomarker score of 1, 0.5, or 0. The scores for the medications were added, normalized for the number of biomarkers that were 1 or 0.5 in that patient, resulting in a percentile match.
Towards precision medicine for anxiety disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

March 2023

·

301 Reads

·

17 Citations

Molecular Psychiatry

Anxiety disorders are increasingly prevalent, affect people’s ability to do things, and decrease quality of life. Due to lack of objective tests, they are underdiagnosed and sub-optimally treated, resulting in adverse life events and/or addictions. We endeavored to discover blood biomarkers for anxiety, using a four-step approach. First, we used a longitudinal within-subject design in individuals with psychiatric disorders to discover blood gene expression changes between self-reported low anxiety and high anxiety states. Second, we prioritized the list of candidate biomarkers with a Convergent Functional Genomics approach using other evidence in the field. Third, we validated our top biomarkers from discovery and prioritization in an independent cohort of psychiatric subjects with clinically severe anxiety. Fourth, we tested these candidate biomarkers for clinical utility, i.e. ability to predict anxiety severity state, and future clinical worsening (hospitalizations with anxiety as a contributory cause), in another independent cohort of psychiatric subjects. We showed increased accuracy of individual biomarkers with a personalized approach, by gender and diagnosis, particularly in women. The biomarkers with the best overall evidence were GAD1, NTRK3, ADRA2A, FZD10, GRK4, and SLC6A4. Finally, we identified which of our biomarkers are targets of existing drugs (such as a valproate, omega-3 fatty acids, fluoxetine, lithium, sertraline, benzodiazepines, and ketamine), and thus can be used to match patients to medications and measure response to treatment. We also used our biomarker gene expression signature to identify drugs that could be repurposed for treating anxiety, such as estradiol, pirenperone, loperamide, and disopyramide. Given the detrimental impact of untreated anxiety, the current lack of objective measures to guide treatment, and the addiction potential of existing benzodiazepines-based anxiety medications, there is a urgent need for more precise and personalized approaches like the one we developed.


Fig. 1 Traditional analyses. a ROC AUC b T-test. c Summary of results d. Individual items T-test
Aggregate demographics
Polyphenic risk score shows robust predictive ability for long-term future suicidality

December 2022

·

57 Reads

·

5 Citations

Discover Mental Health

Suicides are preventable tragedies, if risk factors are tracked and mitigated. We had previously developed a new quantitative suicidality risk assessment instrument (Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality, CFI-S), which is in essence a simple polyphenic risk score, and deployed it in a busy urban hospital Emergency Department, in a naturalistic cohort of consecutive patients. We report a four years follow-up of that population (n = 482). Overall, the single administration of the CFI-S was significantly predictive of suicidality over the ensuing 4 years (occurrence- ROC AUC 80%, severity- Pearson correlation 0.44, imminence-Cox regression Hazard Ratio 1.33). The best predictive single phenes (phenotypic items) were feeling useless (not needed), a past history of suicidality, and social isolation. We next used machine learning approaches to enhance the predictive ability of CFI-S. We divided the population into a discovery cohort (n = 255) and testing cohort (n = 227), and developed a deep neural network algorithm that showed increased accuracy for predicting risk of future suicidality (increasing the ROC AUC from 80 to 90%), as well as a similarity network classifier for visualizing patient's risk. We propose that the widespread use of CFI-S for screening purposes, with or without machine learning enhancements, can boost suicidality prevention efforts. This study also identified as top risk factors for suicidality addressable social determinants. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44192-022-00016-z.


Polyphenic Risk Score Shows Robust Predictive Ability For Long-Term Future Suicidality

March 2022

·

21 Reads

Suicides are preventable tragedies, if risk factors are tracked and mitigated. We had previously developed a new quantitative suicidality risk assessment instrument (Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality, CFI-S), which is in essence a simple polyphenic risk score, and deployed it in a busy urban Emergency Department, in a naturalistic cohort of consecutive patients. We report a four years follow-up of that population (n = 482). Overall, the single administration of the CFI-S was significantly predictive of suicidality over the ensuing 4 years (occurrence- ROC AUC 80%, severity- Pearson correlation 0.44, imminence-Cox regression Hazard Ratio 1.33). The best predictive single phenes (phenotypic items) were feeling useless (not needed), a past history of suicidality, and social isolation. We next used machine learning approaches to enhance the predictive ability of CFI-S. We divided the population into a discovery cohort (n=255) and testing cohort (n=227), and developed a deep neural network algorithm that showed increased accuracy for predicting risk of future suicidality (increasing the ROC AUC from 80% to 90%), as well as a similarity network classifier for visualizing patient’s risk. We propose that the widespread use of CFI-S for screening purposes, with or without machine learning enhancements, can boost suicidality prevention efforts. This study also identified as top risk factors for suicidality addressable social determinants.


Steps 1–3: Discovery, Prioritization and Validation of Biomarkers for Mood
A Cohorts used in study, depicting flow of discovery, prioritization, and validation of biomarkers from each step. B Discovery cohort longitudinal within-subject analysis. Phchp### is study ID for each subject. V# denotes visit number. C Differential gene expression in the Discovery cohort- number of genes identified with differential expression (DE) and absent–present (AP) methods with an internal score of 2 and above. Red increased in expression in high mood, blue decreased in expression in high mood. At the discovery step probesets are identified based on their score for tracking mood with a maximum of internal points of 6 (33% (2pt), 50% (4pt) and 80% (6pt)). D Prioritization with CFG for prior evidence of involvement in mood disorders. In the prioritization step probesets are converted to their associated genes using Affymetrix annotation and GeneCards. Genes are prioritized and scored using CFG for mood evidence with a maximum of 12 points. Genes scoring at least 6 points out of a maximum possible of 18 total discovery and prioritization points are carried to the validation step. E Validation in two independent cohort of psychiatric patients with clinically severe depression (HAMD ≥ 22) and clinically severe mania (YMRS ≥ 20). In the validation step biomarkers are assessed for stepwise change from the validation group with mania, to the discovery groups of subjects with high mood, low mood, to the validation group with depression, using ANOVA. N number of testing visits. Two hundred ninety-one biomarkers were nominally significant, and 1446 biomarkers were stepwise changed. PRPS1 and SLC6A4 are examples of significantly increased, respectively, decreased, biomarkers in validation. There were 26 markers that had an overall Convergent Functional Evidence (CFE) score from Steps 1–3 that was at least as good as SLC6A4, which serves as a de facto positive control and that we decided to use as a cutoff. The markers in red are increased in high mood, the markers in blue are decreased in high mood/increased in depression (color figure online).
Best single biomarkers predictors for depression, state and trait
From top candidate biomarkers after Steps 1–3 (discovery, prioritization, validation-bold) (n = 26). Bar graph shows best predictive biomarkers in each group. All markers are nominally significant p < 0.05. Table underneath the figures displays the actual number of biomarkers for each group whose ROC AUC p values (A–C,) and Cox odds ratio (OR) p values (D) are at least nominally significant. Some gender and diagnosis group are missing from the graph as they did not have any significant biomarkers, or sufficient timepoints in the case of longitudinal predictions. Cross-sectional is based on levels at one visit. Longitudinal is based on levels at multiple visits (integrates levels at most recent visit, maximum levels, slope into most recent visit, and maximum slope). Dividing lines represent the cutoffs for a test performing at chance levels (white), and at the same level as the best biomarkers for all subjects in cross-sectional (gray) and longitudinal (black) based predictions. All biomarkers perform better than chance. Biomarkers performed better when personalized by gender and diagnosis, particularly in females. * survived Bonferroni correction for the number of candidate biomarkers tested (n = 26).
Therapeutics: matching with medications
A Pharmacogenomics. See also Tables 3 and S4. B New repurposed drugs using the panels of markers. See also Table 4. There is overlap between depression, bipolar and mania biomarkers. RPL3 could be targeted to treat mania with less risk of inducing depression. Six biomarkers (CD47, FANCF, GLO1, HNRNPDL, OLFM1, SMAD7) could be targeted to treat depression with less risk of inducing mania. Other six biomarkers (DOCK10, GLS, NRG1, PRPS1, TMEM161B, SLC6A4) could be targeted to treat depression fast/powerfully, but may induce mania, so need to be coupled with a mood stabilizer or antipsychotic. An example of the latter is SLC6A4. SSRIs should thus be used cautiously in monotherapy to treat depression, and clinicians should have a low threshold for adding mood stabilizers.
Example of report for physicians
Using the panel of the top biomarkers BioM12 + 1: Depression (n = 12 genes), as well as RPL3 for mania risk. This subject (Phchp328) was previously described by us in a suicidality biomarker study (Levey et al. [5]), as high risk for suicide, and died by suicide a year after completing our study. No information was provided to her clinicians by us at that time due to anonymity and privacy rules in research studies. The raw expression values of the biomarkers were Z-scored by gender and diagnosis. The Z-scored expression value of each increased biomarker was compared to the average value for the biomarker in the severely depressed group (HAMD ≥ 22), and the average value of the non-depressed group (HAMD ≤ 7), resulting in scores of 1 or 0, respectively, and 0.5 if it was in between. The reverse was done for decreased biomarkers. The “digitized” biomarkers were then added into a polygenic risk score. The subject had a BioM12 polygenic depression score of 88.46, being at the 90% of the 794 subjects in our database. Three out of the three biomarkers for future risk for depression hospitalizations (NRG1, PRPS1, SMAD7) had a score of 1 in this patient (***). More than 50% of the 6 bipolar biomarkers that are part of the BioM12 (Table 3A and B) (*), as well as the mania marker RPL3 (Table 3C) (*), had a score of 1 in this patient, resulting in increased risk for bipolar switching (**). This subject’s clinical diagnosis was major depressive disorder (MDD), but it is likely she had bipolar disorder. The “digitized” biomarkers were also used for matching with existing psychiatric medications. Biomarkers were matched based on our CFG databases with existing psychiatric medications that had effects on gene expression opposite to depression, in the direction of high mood. Each medication matched to a biomarker got a score of 1 that was then multiplied with the biomarker score of 1, 0.5 or 0. The scores for the medications were added, and medications prioritized by this score. In addition, the signature of the biomarkers in the panel that had a score of 1, and their direction of change, was used to interrogate the CMAP and LINCS databases for new repurposed medications that would treat depression in this patient.
Precision medicine for mood disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

July 2021

·

1,209 Reads

·

76 Citations

Molecular Psychiatry

Mood disorders (depression, bipolar disorders) are prevalent and disabling. They are also highly co-morbid with other psychiatric disorders. Currently there are no objective measures, such as blood tests, used in clinical practice, and available treatments do not work in everybody. The development of blood tests, as well as matching of patients with existing and new treatments, in a precise, personalized and preventive fashion, would make a significant difference at an individual and societal level. Early pilot studies by us to discover blood biomarkers for mood state were promising [1], and validated by others [2]. Recent work by us has identified blood gene expression biomarkers that track suicidality, a tragic behavioral outcome of mood disorders, using powerful longitudinal within-subject designs, validated them in suicide completers, and tested them in independent cohorts for ability to assess state (suicidal ideation), and ability to predict trait (future hospitalizations for suicidality) [3–6]. These studies showed good reproducibility with subsequent independent genetic studies [7]. More recently, we have conducted such studies also for pain [8], for stress disorders [9], and for memory/Alzheimer’s Disease [10]. We endeavored to use a similar comprehensive approach to identify more definitive biomarkers for mood disorders, that are transdiagnostic, by studying mood in psychiatric disorders patients. First, we used a longitudinal within-subject design and whole-genome gene expression approach to discover biomarkers which track mood state in subjects who had diametric changes in mood state from low to high, from visit to visit, as measured by a simple visual analog scale that we had previously developed (SMS-7). Second, we prioritized these biomarkers using a convergent functional genomics (CFG) approach encompassing in a comprehensive fashion prior published evidence in the field. Third, we validated the biomarkers in an independent cohort of subjects with clinically severe depression (as measured by Hamilton Depression Scale, (HAMD)) and with clinically severe mania (as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)). Adding the scores from the first three steps into an overall convergent functional evidence (CFE) score, we ended up with 26 top candidate blood gene expression biomarkers that had a CFE score as good as or better than SLC6A4, an empirical finding which we used as a de facto positive control and cutoff. Notably, there was among them an enrichment in genes involved in circadian mechanisms. We further analyzed the biological pathways and networks for the top candidate biomarkers, showing that circadian, neurotrophic, and cell differentiation functions are involved, along with serotonergic and glutamatergic signaling, supporting a view of mood as reflecting energy, activity and growth. Fourth, we tested in independent cohorts of psychiatric patients the ability of each of these 26 top candidate biomarkers to assess state (mood (SMS-7), depression (HAMD), mania (YMRS)), and to predict clinical course (future hospitalizations for depression, future hospitalizations for mania). We conducted our analyses across all patients, as well as personalized by gender and diagnosis, showing increased accuracy with the personalized approach, particularly in women. Again, using SLC6A4 as the cutoff, twelve top biomarkers had the strongest overall evidence for tracking and predicting depression after all four steps: NRG1, DOCK10, GLS, PRPS1, TMEM161B, GLO1, FANCF, HNRNPDL, CD47, OLFM1, SMAD7, and SLC6A4. Of them, six had the strongest overall evidence for tracking and predicting both depression and mania, hence bipolar mood disorders. There were also two biomarkers (RLP3 and SLC6A4) with the strongest overall evidence for mania. These panels of biomarkers have practical implications for distinguishing between depression and bipolar disorder. Next, we evaluated the evidence for our top biomarkers being targets of existing psychiatric drugs, which permits matching patients to medications in a targeted fashion, and the measuring of response to treatment. We also used the biomarker signatures to bioinformatically identify new/repurposed candidate drugs. Top drugs of interest as potential new antidepressants were pindolol, ciprofibrate, pioglitazone and adiphenine, as well as the natural compounds asiaticoside and chlorogenic acid. The last 3 had also been identified by our previous suicidality studies. Finally, we provide an example of how a report to doctors would look for a patient with depression, based on the panel of top biomarkers (12 for depression and bipolar, one for mania), with an objective depression score, risk for future depression, and risk for bipolar switching, as well as personalized lists of targeted prioritized existing psychiatric medications and new potential medications. Overall, our studies provide objective assessments, targeted therapeutics, and monitoring of response to treatment, that enable precision medicine for mood disorders.


Blood biomarkers for memory: toward early detection of risk for Alzheimer disease, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

August 2020

·

438 Reads

·

63 Citations

Molecular Psychiatry

Short-term memory dysfunction is a key early feature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Psychiatric patients may be at higher risk for memory dysfunction and subsequent AD due to the negative effects of stress and depression on the brain. We carried out longitudinal within-subject studies in male and female psychiatric patients to discover blood gene expression biomarkers that track short term memory as measured by the retention measure in the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test. These biomarkers were subsequently prioritized with a convergent functional genomics approach using previous evidence in the field implicating them in AD. The top candidate biomarkers were then tested in an independent cohort for ability to predict state short-term memory, and trait future positive neuropsychological testing for cognitive impairment. The best overall evidence was for a series of new, as well as some previously known genes, which are now newly shown to have functional evidence in humans as blood biomarkers: RAB7A, NPC2, TGFB1, GAP43, ARSB, PER1, GUSB, and MAPT. Additional top blood biomarkers include GSK3B, PTGS2, APOE, BACE1, PSEN1, and TREM2, well known genes implicated in AD by previous brain and genetic studies, in humans and animal models, which serve as reassuring de facto positive controls for our whole-genome gene expression discovery approach. Biological pathway analyses implicate LXR/RXR activation, neuroinflammation, atherosclerosis signaling, and amyloid processing. Co-directionality of expression data provide new mechanistic insights that are consistent with a compensatory/scarring scenario for brain pathological changes. A majority of top biomarkers also have evidence for involvement in other psychiatric disorders, particularly stress, providing a molecular basis for clinical co-morbidity and for stress as an early precipitant/risk factor. Some of them are modulated by existing drugs, such as antidepressants, lithium and omega-3 fatty acids. Other drug and nutraceutical leads were identified through bioinformatic drug repurposing analyses (such as pioglitazone, levonorgestrel, salsolidine, ginkgolide A, and icariin). Our work contributes to the overall pathophysiological understanding of memory disorders and AD. It also opens new avenues for precision medicine- diagnostics (assement of risk) as well as early treatment (pharmacogenomically informed, personalized, and preventive).


Citations (11)


... Fourteen loci (including five novel loci; Table 1, Supplementary Figures 3-4) were associated with one or more strict MDD phenotypes, compared to only one locus previously reported for LifetimeMDD in the unrelated EUR-like subset 20 . Consistent with prior findings, the highest number of GWS loci (48) were identified in the analyses of HelpSeekingDep, likely reflecting its largest sample size. ...

Reference:

Trans-ancestry Genome-Wide Analyses in UK Biobank Yield Novel Risk Loci for Major Depression
Precision medicine for psychotic disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, and pharmacogenomics

Molecular Psychiatry

... Las razones biológicas pueden estar relacionadas con el ciclo circadiano, comenzando a producirse una disminución de la luz a esa hora del día y una menor expresión de los genes del reloj circadiano. 41 En esta muestra de pacientes, la mayoría (79.39%) acudió al servicio de urgencias en los turnos vespertino y nocturno. Esto coincide con lo reportado en la literatura y debe alertarnos como personal de salud, ya que es en estos horarios cuando suele haber menos personal en los servicios o podemos estar menos alertas a identificar estos casos que son una verdadera urgencia. ...

Temporal effects on death by suicide: empirical evidence and possible molecular correlates

Discover Mental Health

... Promising results have been found for depression and, to a lesser extent, anxiety disorders. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Several computational models based on blood biomarkers have been proposed for predicting depressive states. For instance, a study involving 897 subjects affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake suggested the potential for categorizing individuals with high levels of depressive symptoms based on their blood plasma metabolite profiles. ...

Towards precision medicine for anxiety disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

Molecular Psychiatry

... These gene expression studies are complementary to other genetic studies in the field [9][10][11], and in fact we integrate these different lines of work into our approach, as a convergent prioritization second step. We had also developed and tested a 22-item, simple to administer, quantitative risk evaluation and mitigation questionnaire called Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality (CFI-S), that focuses on social determinants and other known risk factors, and does not ask about current suicidal ideation [12,13]. We wanted to expand upon those studies, as a way of deriving future scientific and practical insights, that would move these precision medicine approaches towards widespread utilization in clinical practice. ...

Polyphenic risk score shows robust predictive ability for long-term future suicidality

Discover Mental Health

... Emerging research suggests a potential link between dysregulated OLFM1 expression and a spectrum of neuropsychiatric disorders. These disorders include multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, mania, depressive disorder, Tourette syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [6][7][8]. In the context of AD, the abnormal aggregation of Aβ is recognized as an early pathological hallmark. ...

Precision medicine for mood disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

Molecular Psychiatry

... This is indicated by the lower amplification value, which suggests that a considerable amount of cDNA is present in the sample. Other studies have suggested increased expression of the GUSB gene for certain diseases, such as inflammatory and liver diseases and some types of cancer, and as a biomarker for changes in memory in Alzheimer's disease [36][37][38][39]. ...

Blood biomarkers for memory: toward early detection of risk for Alzheimer disease, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs

Molecular Psychiatry

... The large autophagy pathway is characterized by the combination of doublemembrane autophagosomes with lysosomes and the degradation of their contents [5]. Morphologically, the first step is nucleation, through which cells from isolated doublemembrane structures called autophagy precursors. ...

O45. Blood Biomarkers for Possible Early Detection of Risk for Alzheimer Disease (AD)
  • Citing Article
  • May 2019

Biological Psychiatry

... While prior UKB analyses showed that broad depression outcomes are primarily associated with genomic loci not specific to MDD 17 RTN4 inhibits neurite outgrowth and axon regeneration and plasticity 46 . Notably, high RTN4 expression levels are postulated as a state-level blood biomarker of psychological stress 47 and hallucinations 48 and predict future hospitalizations attributed to these symptoms 47,48 . The other three loci are intronic regions in RAPGEF4, FOXP1, and ZFPM2. ...

Towards precision medicine for stress disorders: diagnostic biomarkers and targeted drugs

Molecular Psychiatry

... Since pain is a neurological process, it has been suggested that the pain level can be defined through biomarkers or imaging signatures resulting from the pain pathway [91]. These markers have a greater predictive value when controlled for gender and diagnosis [92]. Serum pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines have also been under investigation as they are abnormal in patients in chronic pain states [93]. ...

Towards precision medicine for pain: diagnostic biomarkers and repurposed drugs

Molecular Psychiatry

... Additionally, the understanding of the triggers and psychopathology of suicide also varied between professions, with medical interns showing a lower perception of these factors compared to other groups. These differences underscore the need for educational approaches tailored to the professional context to improve mental health training and suicide prevention [10,48,49]. ...

Assessing Risk of Future Suicidality in Emergency Department Patients
  • Citing Article
  • October 2018

Academic Emergency Medicine