Quantitative leukocyte BDNF promoter methylation analysis in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a complex psychiatric phenotype with a high heritability and a multifactorial etiology. Multisite collaborative efforts using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified only a portion of DNA sequence-based risk factors in BD. In addition to predisposing DNA sequence variants, epigenetic misregulation may play an etiological role in BD and account for monozygotic twin discordance, parental origin effects, and fluctuating course of BD. In this study, we investigated DNA methylation of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene in BD. METHODS: Fifty participants with BD were compared to the same number of age- and sex-matched controls for DNA methylation differences at BDNF promoters 3 and 5. DNA methylation reads were obtained using a mass spectrophotometer for 64 cytosine-guanine (CpG) sites in 36 CpG 'units' across three amplicons of BDNF promoters 3 and 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Methylation fractions differed between BD participants and controls for 11 of 36 CpG units. Five CpG units, mostly in promoter 5, remained significant after false discovery rate correction (FDR) (p values ≤ 0.004) with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d ≥ 0.61). Several of the significant CpGs overlapped with or were immediately adjacent to transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) - including two of the FDR-significant CpG units in promoter 5. For the CpGs in promoter 3, there was a positive and significant correlation between age at sample collection and DNA methylation fraction (rho = 0.56, p = 2.8 ×10(-5)) in BD cases, but not in controls. Statistically significant differences in mean methylation fraction at 5/36 CpG units (after FDR), some at or immediately adjacent to TFBSs, suggest possible relevance for the current findings to BD etiopathogenesis. The positive correlation between age and methylation seen in promoter 3 is consistent with age-related decline in BDNF expression previously reported. Future studies should provide more exhaustive epigenetic study of the BDNF locus to better characterize the relationship between BDNF methylation differences and BD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".