From Pharmacogenetics to Pharmacogenomics: The Way toward the Personalization of Antidepressant Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder is the most common psychiatric disorder, worldwide, yet response and remission rates are still unsatisfactory. The identification of genetic predictors of antidepressant (AD) response could provide a promising opportunity to improve current AD efficacy through the personalization of treatment. The major steps and findings along this path are reviewed together with their clinical implications and limitations. METHOD: We systematically reviewed the literature through MEDLINE and Embase database searches, using any word combination of "antidepressant," "gene," "polymorphism," "pharmacogenetics," "genome-wide association study," "GWAS," "response," and "adverse drug reactions." Experimental works and reviews published until March 2012 were collected and compared. RESULTS: Numerous genes pertaining to several functional systems were associated with AD response. The more robust findings were found for the following genes: solute carrier family 6 (neurotransmitter transporter), member 4; serotonin receptor 1A and 2A; brain-derived neurotrophic factor; and catechol-O-methyltransferase. Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) provided many top markers, even if none of them reached genome-wide significance. CONCLUSIONS: AD pharmacogenetics have not produced any knowledge applicable to routine clinical practice yet, as results were mainly inconsistent across studies. Despite this, the rising awareness about methodological deficits of past studies could allow for the identication of more suitable strategies, such as the integration of the GWAS approach with the candidate gene approach, and innovative methodologies, such as pathway analysis and study of depressive endophenotypes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".