Genome-Wide Association Study of Major Recurrent Depression in the U.K. Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies of major depression in twins and families have shown moderate to high heritability, but extensive molecular studies have failed to identify susceptibility genes convincingly. To detect genetic variants contributing to major depression, the authors performed a genome-wide association study using 1,636 cases of depression ascertained in the U.K. and 1,594 comparison subjects screened negative for psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Cases were collected from 1) a case-control study of recurrent depression (the Depression Case Control [DeCC] study; N=1346), 2) an affected sibling pair linkage study of recurrent depression (probands from the Depression Network [DeNT] study; N=332), and 3) a pharmacogenetic study (the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression [GENDEP] study; N=88). Depression cases and comparison subjects were genotyped at Centre National de Génotypage on the Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChip. After applying stringent quality control criteria for missing genotypes, departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and low minor allele frequency, the authors tested for association to depression using logistic regression, correcting for population ancestry. RESULTS: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in BICC1 achieved suggestive evidence for association, which strengthened after imputation of ungenotyped markers, and in analysis of female depression cases. A meta-analysis of U.K. data with previously published results from studies in Munich and Lausanne showed some evidence for association near neuroligin 1 (NLGN1) on chromosome 3, but did not support findings at BICC1. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies several signals for association worthy of further investigation but, as in previous genome-wide studies, suggests that individual gene contributions to depression are likely to have only minor effects, and very large pooled analyses will be required to identify them.
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) | 0.000 | 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".