Epigenetic mechanisms of rapid-acting antidepressants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid-acting antidepressants (RAADs), including dissociative anesthetics, psychedelics, and empathogens, elicit rapid and sustained therapeutic improvements in psychiatric disorders by purportedly modulating neuroplasticity, neurotransmission, and immunity. These outcomes may be mediated by, or result in, an acute and/or sustained entrainment of epigenetic processes, which remodel chromatin structure and alter DNA accessibility to regulate gene expression. METHODS: In this perspective, we present an overview of the known mechanisms, knowledge gaps, and future directions surrounding the epigenetic effects of RAADs, with a focus on the regulation of stress-responsive DNA and brain regions, and on the comparison with conventional antidepressants. MAIN BODY: Preliminary correlative evidence indicates that administration of RAADs is accompanied by epigenetic effects which are similar to those elicited by conventional antidepressants. These include changes in DNA methylation, post-translational modifications of histones, and differential regulation of non-coding RNAs in stress-responsive chromatin areas involved in neurotrophism, neurotransmission, and immunomodulation, in stress-responsive brain regions. Whether these epigenetic changes causally contribute to the therapeutic effects of RAADs, are a consequence thereof, or are unrelated, remains unknown. Moreover, the potential cell type-specificity and mechanisms involved are yet to be fully elucidated. Candidate mechanisms include neuronal activity- and serotonin and Tropomyosine Receptor Kinase B (TRKB) signaling-mediated epigenetic changes, and direct interaction with DNA, histones, or chromatin remodeling complexes. CONCLUSION: Correlative evidence suggests that epigenetic changes induced by RAADs accompany therapeutic and side effects, although causation, mechanisms, and cell type-specificity remain largely unknown. Addressing these research gaps may lead to the development of novel neuroepigenetics-based precision therapeutics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".