Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Epigenetic prediction of major depressive disorder
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Epigenetic prediction of major depressive disorder
Do you wish to request the book?
Epigenetic prediction of major depressive disorder
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Epigenetic prediction of major depressive disorder
2021
Overview
Variation in DNA methylation (DNAm) is associated with lifestyle factors such as smoking and body mass index (BMI) but there has been little research exploring its ability to identify individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD). Using penalised regression on genome-wide CpG methylation, we tested whether DNAm risk scores (MRS), trained on 1223 MDD cases and 1824 controls, could discriminate between cases (n = 363) and controls (n = 1417) in an independent sample, comparing their predictive accuracy to polygenic risk scores (PRS). The MRS explained 1.75% of the variance in MDD (β = 0.338, p = 1.17 × 10−7) and remained associated after adjustment for lifestyle factors (β = 0.219, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.68%). When modelled alongside PRS (β = 0.384, p = 4.69 × 10−9) the MRS remained associated with MDD (β = 0.327, p = 5.66 × 10−7). The MRS was also associated with incident cases of MDD who were well at recruitment but went on to develop MDD at a later assessment (β = 0.193, p = 0.016, R2 = 0.52%). Heritability analyses found additive genetic effects explained 22% of variance in the MRS, with a further 19% explained by pedigree-associated genetic effects and 16% by the shared couple environment. Smoking status was also strongly associated with MRS (β = 0.440, p ≤ 2 × 10−16). After removing smokers from the training set, the MRS strongly associated with BMI (β = 0.053, p = 0.021). We tested the association of MRS with 61 behavioural phenotypes and found that whilst PRS were associated with psychosocial and mental health phenotypes, MRS were more strongly associated with lifestyle and sociodemographic factors. DNAm-based risk scores of MDD significantly discriminated MDD cases from controls in an independent dataset and may represent an archive of exposures to lifestyle factors that are relevant to the prediction of MDD.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
Subject
