Genomewide interaction and enrichment analysis on antidepressant response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomewide association studies (GWASs) on antidepressant efficacy have yielded modest results. A possible reason is that response is influenced by other factors, which possibly interact with genetic variation. We used a GWAS model to predict antidepressant response, by including predictors previously known to affect response, such as quality of life (QoL). We also evaluated the association between genes, previously implicated in gene-environment (G × E) interactions, and response using an enrichment analysis. METHOD: We examined a sample of 1426 depressed patients from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial: 774 responders, 652 non-responders and 418,865 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were analysed. First, in a GWAS model, we investigated whether genetic variations interact with patients' levels of QoL to predict response, after controlling for demographic characteristics, severity and population stratification. Second, we conducted an enrichment analysis exploring whether candidate genes that have emerged from prior G × E interaction studies on depression are associated with treatment response. RESULTS: The GWAS model, with QoL as a moderator, yielded one SNP (rs520210) associated with response in the NEDD4L gene (p = 3.64 × 10⁻⁸). In the Caucasian sample only, we observed a drop in significance for this SNP. The enrichment analysis showed that SNPs within serotonergic genes contained more significant markers that predicted response, compared with a random set of genes in the genome. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to possible target genes, which are proposed for further independent replication. Our enrichment analysis provides further support, in a genomewide context, of the role of serotonergic genes in influencing antidepressant response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".