Genome-Wide Methylation Changes in the Brains of Suicide Completers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gene expression changes have been reported in the brains of suicide completers. More recently, differences in promoter DNA methylation between suicide completers and comparison subjects in specific genes have been associated with these changes in gene expression patterns, implicating DNA methylation alterations as a plausible component of the pathophysiology of suicide. The authors used a genome-wide approach to investigate the extent of DNA methylation alterations in the brains of suicide completers. METHOD: Promoter DNA methylation was profiled using methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) followed by microarray hybridization in hippocampal tissue from 62 men (46 suicide completers and 16 comparison subjects). The correlation between promoter methylation and expression was investigated by comparing the MeDIP data with gene expression profiles generated through mRNA microarray. Methylation differences between groups were validated on neuronal and nonneuronal DNA fractions isolated by fluorescence-assisted cell sorting. RESULTS: The authors identified 366 promoters that were differentially methylated in suicide completers relative to comparison subjects (273 hypermethylated and 93 hypomethylated). Overall, promoter methylation differences were inversely correlated with gene expression differences. Functional annotation analyses revealed an enrichment of differential methylation in the promoters of genes involved, among other functions, in cognitive processes. Validation was performed on the top genes from this category, and these differences were found to occur mainly in the neuronal cell fraction. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest broad reprogramming of promoter DNA methylation patterns in the hippocampus of suicide completers. This may help explain gene expression alterations associated with suicide and possibly behavioral changes increasing suicide risk.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".