MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029447060 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.31040

Association of the SAT1 in/del polymorphism with suicide completion

2009· article· en· W2029447060 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura M. Fiori, Gustavo Turecki

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPolyamine Metabolism and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)HaplotypeSpermidineAllelePsychologyMedicineGeneticsBiologyGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have observed decreased expression of spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase (SAT1) in the brains of suicide completers, and we previously identified a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the promoter region of SAT1 which was associated with suicide completion and SAT1 expression in the brain. We recently characterized the haplotype structure of the SAT1 promoter region and identified an insertion/deletion (in/del) of 15 adenine residues. This variant appears to be a predictor of SAT1 expression, and we were thus interested in determining if the lower expressing deletion allele was found more frequently among suicide completers. To this end, we genotyped the in/del in a sample of 771 French-Canadian males, comprising 326 suicide completers and 445 non-suicide controls. We found no significant difference in the frequencies of the two alleles between suicide completers and controls in the entire sample. However, we observed a significantly higher frequency of the deletion in the depressed suicide completers compared to the depressed non-suicides. These results add support for a role of SAT1 in conferring a risk for suicide completion, in particular in the context of depressive disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric GeneticsSame topicPolyamine Metabolism and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207