MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528997020 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.32494

Highly polygenic architecture of antidepressant treatment response: Comparative analysis of SSRI and NRI treatment in an animal model of depression

2016· article· en· W2528997020 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Malki, Maria Grazia Tosto, Héctor Mouriño‐Talín, Sabela Rodríguez‐Lorenzo, Oliver Pain, Irfan Jumhaboy, Tina Liu, Panos Parpas, Stuart Newman, Artem Malykh, Lucia Carboni, Rudolf Uher, Peter McGuffin, Leonard C. Schalkwyk, Kevin Bryson, Mark Herbster

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMedical Research CouncilH. Lundbeck A/SCanada Research ChairsEuropean CommissionEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchKing's College LondonNova Scotia Health Research FoundationGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsEscitalopramAntidepressantComputational biologyVenlafaxineNortriptylineCitalopramMajor depressive disorderFeature selectionMultiple comparisons problemBiologyBioinformaticsComputer scienceMachine learningPharmacologyMathematicsStatisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response to antidepressant (AD) treatment may be a more polygenic trait than previously hypothesized, with many genetic variants interacting in yet unclear ways. In this study we used methods that can automatically learn to detect patterns of statistical regularity from a sparsely distributed signal across hippocampal transcriptome measurements in a large-scale animal pharmacogenomic study to uncover genomic variations associated with AD. The study used four inbred mouse strains of both sexes, two drug treatments, and a control group (escitalopram, nortriptyline, and saline). Multi-class and binary classification using Machine Learning (ML) and regularization algorithms using iterative and univariate feature selection methods, including InfoGain, mRMR, ANOVA, and Chi Square, were used to uncover genomic markers associated with AD response. Relevant genes were selected based on Jaccard distance and carried forward for gene-network analysis. Linear association methods uncovered only one gene associated with drug treatment response. The implementation of ML algorithms, together with feature reduction methods, revealed a set of 204 genes associated with SSRI and 241 genes associated with NRI response. Although only 10% of genes overlapped across the two drugs, network analysis shows that both drugs modulated the CREB pathway, through different molecular mechanisms. Through careful implementation and optimisations, the algorithms detected a weak signal used to predict whether an animal was treated with nortriptyline (77%) or escitalopram (67%) on an independent testing set. The results from this study indicate that the molecular signature of AD treatment may include a much broader range of genomic markers than previously hypothesized, suggesting that response to medication may be as complex as the pathology. The search for biomarkers of antidepressant treatment response could therefore consider a higher number of genetic markers and their interactions. Through predominately different molecular targets and mechanisms of action, the two drugs modulate the same Creb1 pathway which plays a key role in neurotrophic responses and in inflammatory processes. © 2016 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric GeneticsSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207