Profiling placental DNA methylation associated with maternal SSRI treatment during pregnancy

Amy M. Inkster, Chaini Konwar, Maria S. Peñaherrera, Ursula Brain, Almas Khan, E. Magda Price, Johanna M. Schuetz, Élodie Portales-Casamar, Amber Burt, Carmen J. Marsit, Cathy Vaillancourt, Tim F. Oberlander, Wendy P. Robinson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.21.22276723

ABSTRACT

Background Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), used to treat prenatal maternal depression, have been associated with neurobehavioral disturbances in exposed neonates, though the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. In utero exposure to SSRIs may have an effect on DNA methylation (DNAme) in the human placenta, which is an epigenetic mark that is established during development and is associated with gene expression.

Methods Chorionic villus samples from 64 human placentas were profiled with the Illumina MethylationEPIC BeadChip and clinical assessments of maternal mood were collected at multiple time points during pregnancy. Case distribution was 20 SSRI-exposed cases and 44 SSRI non-exposed cases. Maternal depression using a mean maternal Hamilton Depression score >8 to indicate symptomatic depressed mood (“maternally-depressed”) further classified cases into SSRI-exposed, maternally-depressed (n=14); SSRI-exposed, not maternally-depressed (n=6); SSRI non-exposed, maternally-depressed (n=20); and SSRI non-exposed, not maternally-depressed (n=24). To provide a replication cohort, Illumina 450K DNAme profiles were obtained from 34 additional cases from an independent cohort (n=17 SSRI-exposed, n=17 SSRI non-exposed).

Results No CpGs were differentially methylated at FDR < 0.05 comparing SSRI-exposed to non-exposed placentas, while adjusting for mean maternal Hamilton Depression score, nor comparing SSRI-exposed maternally-depressed to SSRI-non-exposed maternally-depressed cases. At a relaxed threshold of FDR < 0.25, five CpGs were differentially methylated (|Δβ| > 0.03) by SSRI exposure status. Four of these CpGs were covered by the 450K array and were examined in the replication cohort, but none replicated. Amongst SSRI non-exposed cases, no CpGs were differentially methylated (FDR < 0.25) comparing maternally depressed to not depressed cases. In sex-stratified analyses for SSRI-exposed versus non-exposed cases (females n=31; males n=33), three additional CpGs in females, but none in males, were differentially methylated at the relaxed FDR < 0.25 cut-off.

Conclusions We did not observe large-scale alterations of DNAme in placentas exposed to maternal SSRI treatment compared to placentas with no SSRI exposure. We also found no evidence for altered DNAme in maternal depression-exposed versus depression non-exposed placentas. This novel work in a prospectively recruited cohort with clinician-ascertained SSRI exposure and mood assessments would benefit from future replication.

BACKGROUND

As many as 20% of pregnant individuals suffer from mood disorders such as depression during pregnancy, and up to 6% of pregnant individuals are treated with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), based on estimates from several North American and European studies (1–4). Clinical management decisions for treatment of perinatal maternal depression are complex, and in each case the clinician must balance the risks and benefits of treatments (such as psychotherapy or antidepressant medication) with the severity of the depressive symptoms (5). Given the prevalence of maternal depression and SSRI treatment during gestation, much research has been conducted focusing on the fetal effects of both (6,7). Broadly, maternal prenatal depressed mood has been associated with increased risk of preterm birth, growth and developmental delays, and increased postnatal infant stress (8,9). Maternal SSRI treatment has been associated with altered postnatal outcomes including impaired neonatal neurobehavioural adaptation, altered psychomotor test scores, and lower arousal index throughout the newborn period (6,7). The precise mechanisms by which maternal depression or SSRI treatment shape fetal health and development are unclear and difficult to analyze due to confounding of these two factors.

Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, or 5-HT) is a central neurotransmitter and a critical signaling factor in many contexts, including during prenatal neurodevelopment of the fetus (10). Low levels of serotonin in the central nervous system have historically been associated with depressive symptoms in adults (11). Serotonin is synthesized in vivo from the essential amino acid L-tryptophan, by tryptophan hydroxylase enzymes 1 and 2 (TPH-1, TPH-2), and is degraded by monoamine oxidases A and B (MAOA, MAOB) (12,13). SSRIs function to block the serotonin transporter (SERT, also known as 5-HTT (5-hydroxytryptamine transporter)), which inhibits the reabsorption of 5-HT by the presynaptic neurons and thereby increases extracellular serotonin levels in the central nervous system (14). Several aspects of serotonin and SSRI biology are relevant to prenatal development. Notably, serotonin is first expressed early in gestation, when placental TPH-1 and TPH-2 converts maternal L-tryptophan to serotonin de novo (13,15). Over the course of gestation, serotonin is essential to many processes of prenatal development including embryogenesis, placentation, and neurodevelopment (12,16,17). SSRIs readily cross the placenta, leading to fetal drug exposure and altered fetal cardiac autonomic activity, presumably via altered serotonin signaling in the placenta and/or fetus (18,19).

Following prenatal exposure to maternal SSRI treatment, Oberlander et al. previously found altered blood flow to the fetus, evidence for fetal hypoxemia, altered early neurodevelopment, and altered neonatal behavior (6,14,20,21). Prenatal SSRI exposure also tends to be associated with lower fetal-placental weight ratios and fetal vascular malperfusion, indicative of less efficient fetal blood flow to or from the placenta (22). Both of these factors indicate less efficient placental function in association with prenatal SSRI exposure, which may be related to downstream neonatal cognitive outcomes (22); SSRI exposure on the placenta has been previously reported to affect syncytializaton and extravillous trophoblast function, and to affect placental 5-HT levels (23–25). Taken together, the effect of SSRI exposure on pregnancy outcomes suggests an interplay between the placenta and SSRI pharmacobiology, which could occur by a variety of mechanisms.

One such mechanism by which SSRI exposure may impact pregnancy outcomes is via DNA methylation (DNAme), an epigenetic mark involving the addition of a methyl group to the 5’ carbon of a cytosine molecule, usually in the context of cytosine-guanine dinucleotides (CpGs). DNAme is often reflective of alterations in gene expression patterns, and can provide evidence of changes in transcriptional regulation that occurred earlier in development (26). DNAme patterns in the human placenta have been found to vary in association with certain maternal exposures and environments, but are relatively stable once established, serving as a possible record of gene expression patterns and exposures in gestation (27,28). We hypothesized that pregnant individual SSRI treatment would be associated with distinct placental DNAme signatures, given the evidence for placental involvement in SSRI-associated effects on pregnancy outcomes.

In a prospective cohort of 64 placentas with extensive maternal mood assessments during gestation, both with and without SSRI exposure, we investigated the effects of maternal SSRI treatment and maternal depressed mood on placental DNA methylation profiles. We considered the effect of SSRI exposure on placental DNAme as our primary outcome. The secondary outcome considered was the impact of maternal depression, which was investigated among participants not treated with SSRIs. Additionally, given previously reported sex differences in neurodevelopmental and placental outcomes related to maternal stress (29–34), in separate sex-stratified models we also assessed placental DNAme associated with maternal SSRI treatment.

METHODS

Discovery cohort

Participants were recruited as part of a prospective, longitudinal cohort approved by the University of British Columbia/ Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia research ethics board: H12-00733 (34), and written informed consent was obtained from all mothers; all procedures complied with the ethical standards on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. This specific study was additionally approved under certificate H16-02280.

64 pregnant individuals with and without prenatal diagnoses of clinical depression, and with/without SSRI treatment plans were recruited at the British Columbia Women’s Hospital (BCWH) in the 20th week of gestation. SSRI-exposure was defined as treatment with one of fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), or venlafaxine (Effexor) for at least 75 days including the 3rd trimester. Cases were subdivided into four groups: depressed-SSRI-treated, depressed non-SSRI-treated, non-depressed SSRI-treated, and non-depressed non-SSRI-treated. Exclusion criteria were: bipolar illnesses, hypertension, diabetes, current substance abuse, placental insufficiency, multi-fetal pregnancies, infants with congenital brain malformations, intrauterine growth restriction, or preterm birth. For all participants measures of obstetric history, prenatal medication use, and sociodemographic variables were obtained; at recruitment all pregnant individuals received the MINI72 test to screen for DSM-IV Axis I Depression. Maternal mood was assessed at recruitment, 36 weeks of gestation, postnatal day 6, and at 24 months postnatal. The assessment included multiple clinician and patient-rated measures, of which the Hamilton Depression score, a 17-item clinician implemented assessment of the severity of depressive symptoms (35), and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression score (EPDS), a 10-item self-assessment screening tool for depression (36), were analyzed. At birth, clinical information was collected including gestational age at delivery, infant sex assigned at birth, and infant birth weight, the placenta was collected for DNAme studies.

Case distribution was as follows: 20 SSRI-exposed and 44 SSRI non-exposed (Table 1). Cases were additionally categorized into four groups for analysis based on both SSRI exposure and maternal depression status using a mean maternal Hamilton Depression score of >8 to indicate symptomatic depressed mood (“maternally depressed”) as follows: SSRI-exposed, maternally-depressed (n=14); SSRI-exposed without maternal depression (n=6); SSRI non-exposed, maternally depressed (n=20); and SSRI non-exposed without maternal depression (n=24), see Table 2 and Figure 1.

View this table:
Table 1. Demographics of the discovery and replication cohorts by SSRI exposure status.

SSRI refers to selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment during pregnancy. Birthweight Z-scores were calculated using gestational-age and sex-adjusted birthweight curves (39).

View this table:
Table 2. Discovery cohort demographics by SSRI and depression group status.

Maternal depression was categorized using mean maternal Hamilton Depression score, ≤ 8 was categorized as not depressed, > 8 as depressed. SSRI refers to selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment during pregnancy. Birthweight Z scores were calculated using gestational-age and sex-adjusted birthweight curves (39).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Comparisons for analysis of differential DNAme associated with SSRI exposure and maternal depression in the discovery cohort.

(A) The SSRI model investigates SSRI exposure in the full cohort (n=64), comparing SSRI-exposed (n=20) to SSRI non-exposed (n=44) cases, adjusting for mean maternal Hamilton Depression score across gestation. (B) The SSRIs in maternal depression model investigates SSRI exposure in all maternally-depressed cases (mean maternal Hamilton Depression score >8, n=34), this model compares SSRI-exposed, maternally depressed cases (n=14) to SSRI non-exposed, maternally depressed cases (n=20). (C) The maternal depression without SSRIs model investigates the effect of maternal depression in cases not exposed to SSRIs (n=44), this model compares SSRI non-exposed, maternally depressed cases (n=20) to SSRI non-exposed and not maternally depressed cases (n=24).

After delivery, placentas were collected and free floating chorionic villus samples were obtained from 4 distinct cotyledonary sites (1.5-2 cm3) below the surface of the fetal-facing side of each placenta, as previously described (37). DNA was extracted from each of the 4 sites and pooled in equimolar amounts to provide a representative sample of the whole placenta prior to obtaining DNAme profiles. DNAme data for these 64 cases was collected in a single processing batch using the Illumina MethylationEPIC (“EPIC”) array platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA), which profiles >850,000 CpGs genome-wide.

Replication cohort

An independent cohort of 34 cases with (i) known SSRI-exposure status and (ii) pre-collected placental DNAme data were obtained from a subset of the Rhode Island Child Healthy Study (RICHS) (38). Assessments of maternal mood were not available for these cases. DNAme data for these 34 cases were previously collected with the Illumina HumanMethylation450 (“450K”) array platform, and are available on the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository under accession number GSE75248 (38).

Data processing

Processing and normalization of the Illumina EPIC DNAme data for the discovery cohort is described in full in the Supplementary Methods. First, sample sex (XY chromosome complement) and genetic uniqueness were assessed. Next, polymorphic and cross-hybridizing probes were removed from this dataset (41), as were probes with a detection p value of > 0.01 in more than 5% of cases. Subsequently, CpGs with non-variable DNAme in this cohort (n=87,572) were removed from the dataset to decrease multiple test correction burden. Non-variable CpGs were defined as in (42) as CpGs that met both of the following conditions: (i) < 5% range in DNAme beta (β) values between the 10th-90th centile, and (ii) reported as placenta-non-variable in (43). After processing and dasen + noob normalization (44), 659,036 autosomal CpGs in 64 cases plus 8 pairs of technical replicates remained for analysis. The technical replicates were used to estimate an absolute delta beta (|Δβ|) cut-off for subsequent analyses, based on the average root mean squared error of the technical replicate pairs (0.026) and the average standard error of all CpGs in all cases (0.0048). The highest of these values was selected and rounded up, to establish a |Δβ| cut-off of > 0.03 between groups; anything less than |Δβ| = 0.03 could represent technical noise and is unlikely to be biologically meaningful in this cohort. After processing, the replicate pairs were then removed from the cohort and thus excluded from downstream analysis.

Batch correction was performed after the identification of an effect of EPIC array row location on DNAme data using Principal Components Analysis, see Supplementary Figure 1. Prior to batch correction, the distribution of cases across EPIC array rows was confirmed to be independent of our primary outcomes of interest: SSRI status (Fisher test p > 0.05) and mean maternal Hamilton depression score (ANOVA p > 0.05), see Supplementary Figure 2. ComBat was used to correct the remaining categorical effect of the “row” variable, with SSRI exposure (yes/no) and mean maternal Hamilton Depression score (continuous) included as variables of interest in the ComBat model matrix as recommended by the sva package authors (45). Results for batch-corrected analyses were confirmed in non-batch-corrected data to ensure that false signal was not introduced during batch correction, in accordance with the recommendations outlined in (46), see Supplementary Figure 1.

Replication cohort

The raw data for the full 335-sample RICHS cohort was downloaded from GEO (GSE75248) and processed analogously to the discovery cohort: sample sex and genetic uniqueness were checked, data were dasen + noob normalized, and polymorphic and cross-hybridizing probes were removed (41), as were probes with a detection p value of > 0.01 in more than 5% of cases, for a complete description of data processing see Supplementary Methods. The data were then subsetted to 34 cases for which gestational SSRI treatment status was recorded in the medical chart, referring to fluoxetine (Prozac), paxil (Paroxetine), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram (Celexa), or escitalopram (Lexapro) treatment. Replication cohort demographics are presented in Table 1.

Covariate selection

We sought to identify characteristics that could be associated with SSRI exposure in the discovery cohort, and thus should be included as covariates in the discovery cohort linear model. Demographic variables considered include those presented in Table 1 and Table 2; the discovery cohort was well-balanced across all demographic variables by SSRI exposure and maternal depression status. Gestational age, infant sex, and PlaNET ancestry were selected for inclusion as additive in linear modelling analyses as it is known that these factors drive large amounts of DNAme variation in the placenta (40,47). The same variables were selected in the replication cohort (infant sex, gestational age at birth, PlaNET ancestry), with the additional inclusion of type of delivery (vaginal/other), as delivery type differed in frequency by SSRI exposure status in the replication cohort only, see Table 1.

Using tools from the PlaNET R package (48,49), we also estimated additional variables in the discovery cohort from the DNAme data itself: the proportion of six major placental cell types, and placental epigenetic age. Cell type proportions were not significantly associated with either SSRI treatment or mean maternal Hamilton Depression score across gestation (t-test for cell type proportions ∼ SSRI exposed (yes/no), all p values > 0.05; Pearson correlation for mean maternal Hamilton Depression score and each cell type proportion, all p values > 0.05), see Supplementary Figure 3. Accordingly, cell type proportions were not included as covariates in subsequent linear models. Epigenetic age acceleration was calculated as the residual of the Control Placental Clock epigenetic age regressed on gestational age at birth, adjusted for sex, ancestry, and EPIC array row; intrinsic (cell-type independent) epigenetic age acceleration was calculated similarly, with additional adjustment for numeric cell type proportions. Placental epigenetic age was not considered as a possible covariate, but was analyzed separately for associations with SSRI exposure, as previous cord blood studies have reported conflicting relationships between cord blood epigenetic age acceleration and SSRI treatment, so parallel exploration in the placenta was warranted (50,51), see Results Section.

Linear modelling to identify placental DNAme associated with SSRI exposure and maternal depression

To identify differential DNAme associated with both SSRI exposure and exposure to maternal depression in the discovery cohort, three models were explored, see Figure 1. Linear modelling on M values was conducted using limma in R (52,53). In addition to the main effects described subsequently, all models were adjusted for as infant sex, gestational age at birth (in weeks), EPIC array row, and two of three PlaNET ancestry coordinates (40); EPIC array row was included as a covariate according to the recommended implementation of ComBat per the sva package authors (45). In (A) the SSRI model, the full cohort was used for a linear model to assess the effect of SSRI exposure (nexposed = 20 versus nnon-exposed = 44) on placental DNAme, adjusting for mean maternal Hamilton Depression score across gestation. In (B) the SSRIs in maternal depression model, we used only for cases with maternal depression (mean maternal Hamilton Depression score > 8, n=34) and assessed the effect of SSRI exposure (n=14) to SSRI non-exposed cases (n=20). In (C) the maternal depression without SSRIs model, we used only cases without SSRI exposure during gestation (n=44), and assessed the effect of maternal depression alone by comparing SSRI non-exposed, maternally-depressed cases (n=20) to not maternally-depressed cases (n=24). Multiple test correction for all models was performed using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method (54).

For replication analyses, linear models were run only on the CpGs of interest, identified in the discovery cohort models A-C (M values), adjusting for infant sex, gestational age at birth, two of three PlaNET ancestry coordinates, and type of delivery (vaginal/other). CpGs were considered to replicate differential DNAme in association with a particular outcome at a nominal p value < 0.05 in the replication cohort.

RESULTS

SSRI exposure and maternal depression are not associated with widespread alterations in placental DNAme patterns

First, we assessed in separate models whether placental DNAme may be altered in placentas with SSRI exposure or exposure to maternal depression during gestation. In linear models to evaluate differential DNAme associated with SSRI exposure or maternal depression, no CpGs were significantly differentially methylated at the commonly used statistical threshold of FDR < 0.05 in any of the models tested. Plotting FDR against the |Δβ| for all CpG sites tested in the three models demonstrated remarkably few DNAme associations with either SSRI exposure or maternal depression array-wide, see Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Volcano plots for differential DNAme in association with SSRI exposure and categorical depression.

For all plots HamD refers to the mean maternal Hamilton Depression score across gestation for each individual. False discovery rate (FDR) is shown along the Y axis with more significant (lower FDR) values at the top of the plot. Vertical dashed intercepts demarcate |Δβ| = 0.03, a horizontal dashed intercept indicates FDR = 0.05 (A) Volcano plot for the SSRI model, investigating differential DNAme associated with SSRI exposure adjusted for mean maternal HamD score, (n=64). Difference in DNAme (Δβ) is plotted along the X axis and was calculated as Δβ =βSSRI-exposed – βSSRI non-exposed. (B) Volcano plot for the SSRIs in maternal depression model, differential DNAme associated with SSRI exposure in cases with mean maternal HamD score > 8, (n=34). Difference in DNAme (Δβ) is plotted along the X axis and was calculated as Δβ = βSSRI-exposed – βSSRI non-exposed. (C) Volcano plot for the maternal depression without SSRIs model, differential DNAme associated HamD score > 8 across gestation, in SSRI non-exposed cases, (n=44). Difference in DNAme (Δβ) is plotted along the X axis and was calculated as Δβ = βHamilton > 8 – βHamilton ≤ 8.

As the relatively small sample size of the discovery cohort could limit our ability to detect significant between-group DNAme differences, in addition to the standard statistical threshold of FDR < 0.05, we also evaluated CpGs that met more relaxed thresholds of FDR < 0.15 and FDR < 0.25. As these thresholds are associated with increased expected proportions of false positive findings, we have labelled FDR < 0.15 hits “moderate-confidence” and FDR < 0.25 “low-confidence”. For both FDR < 0.15 and FDR < 0.25 thresholds we maintained a minimum effect size threshold of |Δβ| > 0.03.

At these relaxed thresholds, in the SSRI model, investigating DNAme associated with SSRI exposure adjusting for mean maternal Hamilton Depression score, one CpG was differentially methylated at FDR < 0.15, and two CpGs at FDR < 0.25, see Figure 2 and Supplementary Table 1. The one differentially methylated CpG at FDR < 0.15 from the SSRI model (cg12900404) exhibited a Δβ value of +0.11, indicating that this CpG had a higher average DNAme β value in SSRI-exposed placentas. Loosening the threshold to FDR < 0.25, one more CpG was also differentially methylated by SSRI exposure status (cg20877313), and was more highly methylated in SSRI-exposed placentas (Δβ=+0.04). In the SSRIs in maternal depression model, investigating DNAme associated with SSRI exposure in maternally-depressed cases, three CpGs were differentially methylated at the moderate-confidence threshold of FDR < 0.15 (cg12655501, cg26993610, cg14340829). These CpGs all had an average difference in DNAme between SSRI-exposed and SSRI non-exposed cases of |Δβ| > 0.10. In the maternal depression without SSRIs model, investigating DNAme associated with maternal depression in SSRI non-exposed cases, no CpGs showed evidence of maternal depression-associated differential DNAme at any FDR < 0.25. For a description of all CpGs that satisfied the moderate and low-confidence FDR thresholds from the SSRI model and SSRIs in maternal depression model, including test statistics and overlapping genes, see Table 3. For summary statistics of linear modelling from all CpGs tested, see Supplementary Tables 2-4. Boxplots showing average DNAme β values in SSRI-exposed versus SSRI non-exposed cases for the differentially methylated CpGs from the SSRI model and SSRIs in maternal depression model are shown in Figure 3.

View this table:
Table 3. Top CpGs with differential DNAme by SSRI-exposure status.

Linear modelling p value and false discovery rates (FDR) shown, Δβ is difference in DNAme calculated as Δβ = βSSRI-exposed – βSSRI non-exposed. hg19 chromosome (Chr) and coordinates (Position) for each CpG are indicated, as are genes that each CpG overlaps, and whether each CpG is covered by a probe on the 450K DNA methylation array.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Boxplots of differentially methylated CpGs by SSRI exposure.

For all plots, points are colored by SSRI exposure (blue = SSRI non-exposed, dark yellow = SSRI-exposed), and boxplots indicate mean DNAme β value ± one standard deviation. (A) Boxplot of cg12900404, identified in the SSRI model. (B) Boxplot of cg20877313, identified in the SSRI model. (C) Boxplot of cg12655501, identified in the SSRIs in maternal depression model. (D) Boxplot of cg26993610, identified in the SSRIs in maternal depression model. (E) Boxplot of cg14340829, identified in the SSRIs in maternal depression model.

A differentially methylated region (DMR) analysis was also conducted for the SSRI model, to increase power for discovering DNAme-associations by grouping signatures from multiple neighboring CpG sites to reduce the number of statistical comparisons. DMR analysis was only conducted for the SSRI model, to enable utilization of the entire cohort of cases and maximize statistical power.

M values were assessed for being part of DMRs for which average DNAme differed by SSRI exposure status using the DMRcate R package (FDR < 0.25, lambda = 1000, C = 2) (55). Only one DMR was identified with an average DNAme β value that differed by SSRI exposure, this DMR was comprised of two CpGs (cg06762403 and cg14921691) within 70 base pairs of each other on chromosome 12, and this region specifically overlapped the DGKA gene. The average Δβ across the region was +0.06, indicating higher DNAme in SSRI-exposed placentas.

Few placental DNAme differences associated with SSRI exposure in sex-stratified models

As effects of SSRI exposure might differ by sex, we next sought to assess whether unique SSRI-exposure DNAme associations arose in placentas associated with a male infant (n=33, 24% SSRI-exposed) or female infant (n=31, 39% SSRI-exposed) when assessed in sex-stratified models versus analyzing both sexes together in the discovery cohort. Sex-stratified linear models were applied to test for SSRI-exposure associated DNAme, adjusted for mean maternal Hamilton Depression Score, gestational age at birth, EPIC array row, and PlaNET ancestry. At an FDR < 0.25 and |Δβ| > 0.03, no CpGs were differentially methylated by SSRI exposure in male cases. In female cases, at an FDR < 0.25 and |Δβ| > 0.03, three CpGs (cg15849349, cg07481545, and cg03905236) were differentially methylated in association with SSRI exposure (Supplementary Figure 5).

No replication of DNAme signature associated with SSRI exposure in an independent dataset

We intended to assess the reproducibility of the discovery cohort differentially methylated CpGs, which we define as the five CpGs with SSRI-associated differential DNAme identified the SSRI model and SSRIs in maternal depression model at an FDR < 0.25 and a |Δβ| > 0.03 (Table 3), and the two DMR CpGs. As the replication cohort was run on the Illumina 450K array, only four of these seven discovery cohort CpGs could be assessed in the replication cohort (cg14340829, cg20877313, cg06762403, cg14921691). A linear model was applied to the M values from these four CpGs in the replication cohort to test for differential DNAme associated with SSRI exposure adjusting for infant sex, gestational age at birth, mode of delivery, and PlaNET ancestry. None of the discovery cohort CpGs were differentially methylated at a nominal p value < 0.05 in the replication dataset, see Supplementary Figure 6.

Placental epigenetic age acceleration not associated with SSRI exposure or maternal depression

Epigenetic age is a useful dimension-reduction technique to aid in analyzing relationships between global DNAme patterns with a variety of health outcomes. Altered epigenetic age relative to chronological age (termed “epigenetic age acceleration”) has been associated with several negative health outcomes including overall greater burden of disease and higher rates of all-cause mortality (56,57). Epigenetic age acceleration in adult blood has been identified in major depressive disorder (58); cord blood epigenetic age deceleration was also initially reported in maternal depression (50), but appears to be largely related to maternal SSRI treatment rather than depression itself (51).

Using a recently published placental epigenetic clock (49), we calculated epigenetic age acceleration in the discovery cohort cases. We then tested for associations between the two epigenetic age acceleration metrics and either SSRI exposure or mean maternal Hamilton Depression score using linear models. Neither epigenetic age acceleration nor intrinsic epigenetic age acceleration were significantly associated with either SSRI exposure or maternal depression, see Supplementary Figure 7.

Replication of previously reported differential methylation candidates associated with SSRI-exposure and maternal depression in the discovery cohort

A previous study identified 16 CpGs with altered placental DNAme associated with maternal EPDS at FDR < 0.05 (no |Δβ| threshold) (59). EPDS measurements were also collected for our discovery cohort cases, and were significantly linearly related to mean maternal Hamilton Depression scores across gestation, see Supplementary Figure 8. To assess whether these CpGs were also differentially methylated in association with maternal EPDS in the discovery cohort, we ran a linear model on the DNAme M values from these 16 CpGs, adjusting for infant sex, gestational age at birth, ancestry, and EPIC array row. One CpG (cg06670742) satisfied a nominal p value < 0.05 in our cohort, and had higher DNAme in cases with higher mean maternal EPDS scores (FDR < 0.05, Δβ=+0.003). Thus, the differential DNAme of this CpG replicated in our study, however the effect size in our cohort is very small and does not exceed the technical threshold we set of |Δβ| > 0.03 (Figure 4).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Assessment of literature candidates for SSRI and depression-associated DNAme in the discovery cohort.

(A) Scatterplot showing the association between DNAme and maternal Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPS) at cg06670742 which was previously found to b e differentially methylated in association with maternal EPDS score in Tesfaye et al. (2021) (37) and is differentially methylated by SSRI exposure at FDR < 0.05 in our discovery cohort. DNAme β value at this CpG is plotted along the Y axis, mean maternal EPDS score is plotted along the X axis and each point is a case; Δβ per unit increase in EPDS is Δβ=+0.003. (B) Boxplot showing mean DNAme β value ± one standard deviation by SSRI exposure status at cg22159628 in ZNF575, previously found to be differentially methylated in cord blood with antidepressant exposure. Linear modelling p value = 0.6658795, points are colored by SSRI exposure (blue = SSRI non-exposed, dark yellow = SSRI-exposed), n.s. = not significant.

Additionally, Cardenas et al. (2019) reported a differentially methylated CpG in association with maternal antidepressant treatment in a cohort of cord blood samples (60). Though in a different tissue, we sought to evaluate whether this CpG (cg22159528) was also differentially methylated by SSRI exposure status in the placenta. Linear modelling on this CpG did not find a difference in DNAme by SSRI exposure status at this CpG in the gene body of ZNF575 (nominal p value > 0.05), see Figure 4.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we examined genome-wide placental DNAme patterns associated with SSRI exposure or the presence of maternal depression during gestation. Taken together, our results suggest that placental DNAme at CpGs measured by the EPIC array is not extremely sensitive to exposure to SSRI antidepressants, as we found no differentially methylated CpGs that met the standard significance threshold of FDR < 0.05. These results are despite known alterations elicited by SSRIs to maternal gestational serotonin signalling and infant outcomes associated with maternal SSRI treatment during pregnancy.

Maternal SSRI treatment during pregnancy was not associated with a large number of perturbations in the placental DNA methylome in our cohort, as no CpGs met the standard significance threshold of FDR < 0.05 in genome-wide linear models. At more relaxed statistical thresholds, differential DNAme analysis highlighted five CpGs with DNAme levels associated with SSRI exposure. Three of the five differentially methylated CpGs overlapped the following genes, respectively: DOCK10 (CpG not present in replication cohort), GLS2 (CpG did not replicate), and TSPAN2 (CpG not present in replication cohort). DOCK10 encodes the Dopamine Receptor Interacting Protein (61), and was recently found to be one of the twelve most predictive mRNA biomarkers of depression in a gene expression study of adult whole blood; specifically, DOCK10 expression increased in association with a more positive, less depressed mood (62). DOCK10 is also a target of the antidepressant ketamine, which increases DOCK10 expression in association with the drug’s intended outcome of eliciting a more positive mood (62). TSPAN2 encodes Tetraspanin-2, which mediates signal transduction in processes related to cellular growth and development (63); Tspan2 has been reported to be upregulated in the rat hippocampus after chronic exposure to the SSRI fluoxetine (64). We also identified one differentially methylated region in the 5’ untranslated region of DGKA, with higher DNAme in SSRI exposed placentas. DGKA encodes a diacylglycerol kinase that is involved in intracellular signalling (65). DGKA activity was recently reported to be inhibited by Ritanserin, a pharmaceutical serotonin receptor type 2 (5-HTR2) antagonist that is not currently in clinical use (66).

Inherent to studying the impact of SSRI exposure are the concurrent maternal mood disturbances. A limited placental DNAme signature has been associated with maternal mood disorders (59). To our knowledge only Tesfaye et al. (59) have similarly investigated placental DNAme in association with maternal depression, though SSRI or antidepressant use was not reported on or investigated. Of the 16 CpGs they identified as differentially methylated in at least one of six different time points by categorical maternal depression (maternal EPDS > 10), one CpG in the EPS15L1 gene was also differentially methylated in the same direction in our study by mean maternal EPDS score across gestation (FDR < 0.05), though the effect size (Δβ = +0.003 with each unit increase in mean EPDS) was well below our biological |Δβ| threshold of > 0.03, and therefore may not be a biologically meaningful change in DNAme.

To our knowledge, no previous studies have explored epigenome-wide placental DNAme in the context of maternal SSRI treatment. However, cord blood DNAme has been studied in association with maternal antidepressant use (tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs) (60). Cardenas et al. identified a CpG in the gene body of ZNF575 (cg22159528) with lower DNAme in antidepressant-exposed cord blood samples from Project Viva, which replicated in an external cohort (Generation R Study) (60). In our cohort, placental DNAme at this CpG was not associated with SSRI exposure. Although cord blood and placenta are both conceptus-derived tissues relevant to prenatal development and early life, they have unique origins (embryonic versus extraembryonic lineages, respectively) and thus distinct DNAme profiles are expected; lack of replication in placenta may suggest a cord-blood-specific DNAme signature at this CpG in association with SSRI exposure.

In sex-stratified analyses, three CpGs were differentially methylated by SSRI exposure status in females: two in intergenic regions on chromosomes 4 and 6 respectively, and one in the 5’ untranslated region of the SH3GL3 gene. SH3GL3 encodes the Endophilin-A3 protein, which interacts selectively with the Huntingtin protein to promote the formation of polyglutamine-containing protein aggregates (67). Promoter DNA methylation of the SH3GL3 gene was inversely correlated with its expression in human colon cancer cell lines versus matched double knockout cell lines for DNMT1 and DNMT3b (68). Lower DNAme upstream of the promoter of the SH3GL3 gene in SSRI-exposed female placentas may indicate higher expression of this gene relative to the placentas from SSRI non-exposed females, which should be followed up in future work.

Our study has limitations. First, SSRI exposure in the discovery cohort was defined as maternal treatment with any of six different SSRIs during gestation. It is possible that the SSRI types have different effects on placental DNAme, but sample size within each group was too small for analysis by SSRI type. The extent to which SSRI treatment improves maternal depression scores may also be associated with placental DNAme patterns. Additionally, the EPIC array interrogates DNAme at only a small portion of all CpGs in the human genome and is focused on regulatory and genic regions with sparse coverage of non-coding regions and repetitive elements. Further, we have not investigated other epigenetic modifications such as DNA hydroxymethylation or histone modifications, which may be independently associated with SSRI exposure. In the future, higher resolution DNAme analysis, such as with whole genome bisulfite sequencing, and analysis of other types of epigenetic modifications will be of interest. Lastly sample size was relatively small, although this is the largest such cohort available to date, with matched placental DNAme and extensive clinical phenotyping of maternal mood across gestation and detail antidepressant treatment records.

Strengths of our study include deep clinical characterization of participants and a prospective study design, which allowed recruitment to be unbiased by pregnancy outcome, and mitigated selection bias associated with retrospective assembling of data for analysis. Additionally, in this study we measured genome-wide DNAme in an effort to reduce bias that arises from candidate gene or CpG pyrosequencing studies, and utilized the most modern Illumina EPIC platform to capture the highest resolution DNAme information currently afforded by a DNAme microarray. Access to a suitable replication cohort with SSRI exposure information and overlapping SSRI treatment species is another major advantage of this work.

In conclusion, our work shows limited placental DNAme alterations associated with maternal SSRI exposure and agrees with earlier findings of a similarly limited placental DNAme signature of maternal depression. Future work with a larger cohort should help narrow down whether other molecular alterations co-exist with maternal mood disorders or SSRI treatment, such as altered placental gene expression patterns. As larger cohorts with clinical characterization of maternal SSRI treatment and prenatal depressed mood become available, genetic sequence variation, gene expression, and DNA methylation should all be considered, as well as their interactions.

Data Availability

All data produced are available online under the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) accession number GSE203396.

DECLARATIONS

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Participants were recruited as part of a prospective, longitudinal cohort approved by the University of British Columbia Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (UBC C&W REB) (H12-00733 (34)), this sub study was also approved by the same ethics boards (H16-02280).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The raw and preprocessed EPIC array data and corresponding sample metadata supporting the conclusions of this article are available on the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), under the accession number GSE203396.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (1R01HD089713-01). Collection of the Discovery Cohort was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (MOP-5783). WPR receives salary support through an investigatorship award from the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute. AMI is funded by a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Doctoral Scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Authors’ contributions

AMI conducted the analyses and wrote the manuscript, and contributed to sample processing, quality control, and testing. CK conducted a preliminary analysis of the effect of SSRI exposure on an earlier version of this data, and contributed to sample processing, quality control, and testing. MSP is the NIH project manager, curated and organized clinical data, contributed to sample processing, quality control, and testing, and manuscript editing. UB conducted clinical data collection. AK processed and normalized the discovery cohort EPIC array data. EMP and JMS were involved in data management, sample metadata collation and establishment of the RedCap database, and participated in randomization. ÉPC oversaw project administration and data curation of this cohort. AB performed data curation for the RICHS cohort cases, CJM is cohort owner of the RICHS data and organized data curation for this set of cases. CV contributed to the conceptualization and design of this project, and also contributed to funding acquisition. TFO and WPR were responsible for project administration, funding acquisition, and supervision of the SSRI cohort recruitment and the DNAme data generation aims of the project, respectively, and were major contributors in writing and revising the manuscript. TO designed the original study. AMI, CK, MSP, UB, AK, EMP, JMS, ÉPC, CV, TFO, and WPR all participated in experimental design. All authors read, revised, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all cohort owners and collaborators on the “Using ‘omics to build an atlas of placental development and function across pregnancy” (NIH Project). Thank you to Dr. Michael S. Kobor and the BCCHRI Microarray Core Facilities and staff for support with Illumina EPIC DNAme runs. We thank Robinson lab members Ruby Jiang, Giulia F. Del Gobbo, and Desmond Hui for their work in sample processing, quality control, and testing. Thank you to Victor Yuan and Ziqi Liu for pilot data processing for cases from this cohort. Finally, we sincerely thank the pregnant individuals and families that contributed placental samples to this study.

Footnotes

  • ↵* indicates co-senior authors

  • Declarations of interest: none

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Andersson L, Sundström-Poromaa I, Bixo M, Wulff M, Bondestam K, åStröm M. Point prevalence of psychiatric disorders during the second trimester of pregnancy: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul;189(1):148–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.
    Gorman LL, O’Hara MW, Figueiredo B, Hayes S, Jacquemain F, Kammerer MH, et al. Adaptation of the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV disorders for assessing depression in women during pregnancy and post-partum across countries and cultures. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2004 Feb;46:s17–23.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.
    Melville JL, Gavin A, Guo Y, Fan MY, Katon WJ. Depressive disorders during pregnancy: prevalence and risk factors in a large urban sample. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1064–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Tran H, Robb AS. SSRI use during pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 2015 Nov 1;39(7):545–7.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Kim DR, O’Reardon JP, Epperson CN. Guidelines for the Management of Depression During Pregnancy. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2010 Aug;12(4):279–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Hanley GE, Oberlander TF. The effect of perinatal exposures on the infant: Antidepressants and depression. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan 1;28(1):37–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Hanley GE, Brain U, Oberlander TF. Prenatal exposure to serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and childhood behavior. Pediatr Res. 2015 Aug;78(2):174–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Goodman SH, Halperin MS. Perinatal depression as an early stress: Risk for the development of psychopathology in children. In: The Oxford handbook of stress and mental health. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 287–312. (Oxford library of psychology).
  9. 9.↵
    Talge NM, Neal C, Glover V, Early Stress, Translational Research and Prevention Science Network: Fetal and Neonatal Experience on Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Antenatal maternal stress and long-term effects on child neurodevelopment: how and why? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007 Apr;48(3–4):245–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Velasquez J, Goeden N, Bonnin A. Placental serotonin: implications for the developmental effects of SSRIs and maternal depression. Front Cell Neurosci. 2013;7:47.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Albert PR, Benkelfat C, Descarries L. The neurobiology of depression—revisiting the serotonin hypothesis. I. Cellular and molecular mechanisms. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012 Sep 5;367(1601):2378–81.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    St-Pierre J, Laurent L, King S, Vaillancourt C. Effects of prenatal maternal stress on serotonin and fetal development. Placenta. 2016 Dec;48 Suppl 1:S66–71.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Bonnin A, Goeden N, Chen K, Wilson ML, King J, Shih JC, et al. A transient placental source of serotonin for the fetal forebrain. Nature. 2011;472(7343):347–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Rotem-Kohavi N, Oberlander TF. Variations in Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Children with Prenatal SSRI Antidepressant Exposure. Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(12):909–23.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Laurent L, Deroy K, St-Pierre J, Côté F, Sanderson JT, Vaillancourt C. Human placenta expresses both peripheral and neuronal isoform of tryptophan hydroxylase. Biochimie. 2017 Sep 1;140:159–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Karahoda R, Abad C, Horackova H, Kastner P, Zaugg J, Cerveny L, et al. Dynamics of Tryptophan Metabolic Pathways in Human Placenta and Placental-Derived Cells: Effect of Gestation Age and Trophoblast Differentiation. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020 Sep 18;8:574034.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Karahoda R, Robles M, Marushka J, Stranik J, Abad C, Horackova H, et al. Prenatal inflammation as a link between placental expression signature of tryptophan metabolism and preterm birth. Hum Mol Genet. 2021 Jun 24;30(22):2053–67.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Campbell KSJ, Collier AC, Irvine MA, Brain U, Rurak DW, Oberlander TF, et al. Maternal Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants Have Acute Effects on Fetal Heart Rate Variability in Late Gestation. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 16;12:680177.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Laurent L, Huang C, Ernest SR, Berard A, Vaillancourt C, Hales BF. In utero exposure to venlafaxine, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, increases cardiac anomalies and alters placental and heart serotonin signaling in the rat. Birt Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016 Dec;106(12):1044–55.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Oberlander T, Gingrich J, Ansorge M. Sustained Neurobehavioral Effects of Exposure to SSRI Antidepressants During Development: Molecular to Clinical Evidence. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Dec;86(6):672–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Rurak D, Lim K, Sanders A, Brain U, Riggs W, Oberlander TF. Third Trimester Fetal Heart Rate and Doppler Middle Cerebral Artery Blood Flow Velocity Characteristics During Prenatal Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Exposure. Pediatr Res. 2011 Jul;70(1):96–101.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Levy M, Kovo M, Miremberg H, Anchel N, Herman HG, Bar J, et al. Maternal use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) during pregnancy—neonatal outcomes in correlation with placental histopathology. J Perinatol. 2020 Jul;40(7):1017–24.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Clabault H, Flipo D, Guibourdenche J, Fournier T, Sanderson JT, Vaillancourt C. Effects of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on human villous trophoblasts syncytialization. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2018 Jun 15;349:8–20.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Clabault H, Cohen M, Vaillancourt C, Sanderson JT. Effects of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in JEG-3 and HIPEC cell models of the extravillous trophoblast. Placenta. 2018 Dec;72–73:62–73.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Thibeault AAH, de Los Santos YL, Doucet N, Sanderson JT, Vaillancourt C. Serotonin and serotonin reuptake inhibitors alter placental aromatase. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2019 Dec;195:105470.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Dhar GA, Saha S, Mitra P, Nag Chaudhuri R. DNA methylation and regulation of gene expression: Guardian of our health. The Nucleus. 2021 Dec 1;64(3):259–70.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Chatterjee S, Ouidir M, Tekola-Ayele F. Genetic and in utero environmental contributions to DNA methylation variation in placenta. Hum Mol Genet. 2021 Nov 1;30(21):1968–76.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Vlahos A, Mansell T, Saffery R, Novakovic B. Human placental methylome in the interplay of adverse placental health, environmental exposure, and pregnancy outcome. PLOS Genet. 2019 Aug 1;15(8):e1008236.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Clifton VL. Review: Sex and the Human Placenta: Mediating Differential Strategies of Fetal Growth and Survival. Placenta. 2010 Mar 1;31:S33–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.
    Bale TL. Sex differences in prenatal epigenetic programing of stress pathways. Stress. 2011 Jul 1;14(4):348–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.
    Bale TL. The placenta and neurodevelopment: sex differences in prenatal vulnerability. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2016 Dec;18(4):459–64.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.
    Gobinath AR, Workman JL, Chow C, Lieblich SE, Galea LAM. Sex-dependent effects of maternal corticosterone and SSRI treatment on hippocampal neurogenesis across development. Biol Sex Differ. 2017 Jun 2;8:20.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    Sutherland S, Brunwasser SM. Sex Differences in Vulnerability to Prenatal Stress: a Review of the Recent Literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep [Internet]. 2018 Nov [cited 2018 Oct 5];20(11). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11920-018-0961-4
  34. 34.↵
    Campbell KSJ, Williams LJ, Bjornson BH, Weik E, Brain U, Grunau RE, et al. Prenatal antidepressant exposure and sex differences in neonatal corpus callosum microstructure. Dev Psychobiol. 2021 Sep;63(6):e22125.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Rohan KJ, Rough JN, Evans M, Ho SY, Meyerhoff J, Roberts LM, et al. A Protocol for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: Item Scoring Rules, Rater Training, and Outcome Accuracy with Data on its Application in a Clinical Trial. J Affect Disord. 2016 Aug;200:111–8.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Murray D, Cox JL. Screening for depression during pregnancy with the edinburgh depression scale (EDDS). J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1990 Apr 1;8(2):99–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Blair JD, Yuen RKC, Lim BK, McFadden DE, von Dadelszen P, Robinson WP. Widespread DNA hypomethylation at gene enhancer regions in placentas associated with early-onset pre-eclampsia. Mol Hum Reprod. 2013 Oct;19(10):697–708.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Paquette AG, Houseman EA, Green BB, Lesseur C, Armstrong DA, Lester B, et al. Regions of variable DNA methylation in human placenta associated with newborn neurobehavior. Epigenetics. 2016 Jul 1;11(8):603–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph KS, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A new and improved population-based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001 Aug;108(2):E35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Yuan V, Price EM, Del Gobbo G, Mostafavi S, Cox B, Binder AM, et al. Accurate ethnicity prediction from placental DNA methylation data. Epigenetics Chromatin. 2019 Aug 9;12(1):51.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Zhou W, Laird PW, Shen H. Comprehensive characterization, annotation and innovative use of Infinium DNA methylation BeadChip probes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Feb 28;45(4):e22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Edgar RD, Jones MJ, Robinson WP, Kobor MS. An empirically driven data reduction method on the human 450K methylation array to remove tissue specific non-variable CpGs. Clin Epigenetics. 2017 Feb 2;9(1):11.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Dieckmann L, Cruceanu C, Lahti-Pulkkinen M, Lahti J, Kvist T, Laivuori H, et al. Reference-Based Versus Reference-Free Cell Type Estimation In DNA Methylation Studies Using Human Placental Tissue [Internet]. In Review; 2021 Sep [cited 2021 Dec 13]. Available from: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-848651/v1
  44. 44.↵
    Pidsley R Y, Wong CC, Volta M, Lunnon K, Mill J, Schalkwyk LC. A data-driven approach to preprocessing Illumina 450K methylation array data. BMC Genomics. 2013 May 1;14:293.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Leek JT, Johnson WE, Parker HS, Jaffe AE, Storey JD. The sva package for removing batch effects and other unwanted variation in high-throughput experiments. Bioinformatics. 2012 Mar 15;28(6):882–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    Nygaard V, Rødland EA, Hovig E. Methods that remove batch effects while retaining group differences may lead to exaggerated confidence in downstream analyses. Biostatistics. 2016 Jan 1;17(1):29–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Konwar C, Del Gobbo G, Yuan V, Robinson WP. Considerations when processing and interpreting genomics data of the placenta. Placenta. 2019 Sep;84:57–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Yuan V, Hui D, Yin Y, Peñaherrera MS, Beristain AG, Robinson WP. Cell-specific characterization of the placental methylome. BMC Genomics. 2021 Jan 6;22(1):6.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Lee Y, Choufani S, Weksberg R, Wilson SL, Yuan V, Burt A, et al. Placental epigenetic clocks: estimating gestational age using placental DNA methylation levels. Aging. 2019 Jun 24;11(12):4238–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    Suarez A, Lahti J, Czamara D, Lahti-Pulkkinen M, Knight AK, Girchenko P, et al. The Epigenetic Clock at Birth: Associations With Maternal Antenatal Depression and Child Psychiatric Problems. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 May;57(5):321-328.e2.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    McKenna BG, Hendrix CL, Brennan PA, Smith AK, Stowe ZN, Newport DJ, et al. Maternal prenatal depression and epigenetic age deceleration: testing potentially confounding effects of prenatal stress and SSRI use. Epigenetics. 2021 Mar;16(3):327–37.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47–e47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Bass A, Robinson D, Lianoglou S, Nelson E, Storey J, Gatto W. biobroom: Turn Bioconductor objects into tidy data frames. [Internet]. Available from: https://github.com/StoreyLab/biobroom
  54. 54.↵
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Peters TJ, Buckley MJ, Statham AL, Pidsley R, Samaras K, Lord RV, et al. De novo identification of differentially methylated regions in the human genome. 2015;16.
  56. 56.↵
    Gale CR, Marioni RE, Harris SE, Starr JM, Deary IJ. DNA methylation and the epigenetic clock in relation to physical frailty in older people: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936. Clin Epigenetics. 2018 03;10(1):101.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    Han LKM, Aghajani M, Clark SL, Chan RF, Hattab MW, Shabalin AA, et al. Epigenetic Aging in Major Depressive Disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Aug 1;175(8):774–82.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Tesfaye M, Chatterjee S, Zeng X, Joseph P, Tekola-Ayele F. Impact of depression and stress on placental DNA methylation in ethnically diverse pregnant women. Epigenomics. 2021 Sep;13(18):1485–96.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Cardenas A, Faleschini S, Cortes Hidalgo A, Rifas-Shiman SL, Baccarelli AA, DeMeo DL, et al. Prenatal maternal antidepressants, anxiety, and depression and offspring DNA methylation: epigenome-wide associations at birth and persistence into early childhood. Clin Epigenetics. 2019 Mar 29;11(1):56.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    DOCK10 [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2004 – [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/55619.
  62. 62.↵
    Le-Niculescu H, Roseberry K, Gill SS, Levey DF, Phalen PL, Mullen J, et al. Precision medicine for mood disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs. Mol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul;26(7):2776–804.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    TSPAN2 [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2004 – [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/10100.
  64. 64.↵
    Kroeze Y, Peeters D, Boulle F, van den Hove DLA, van Bokhoven H, Zhou H, et al. Long-term consequences of chronic fluoxetine exposure on the expression of myelination-related genes in the rat hippocampus. Transl Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;5(9):e642–e642.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    DGKA [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US), National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2004 – [cited 2022 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/1606.
  66. 66.↵
    Boroda S, Niccum M, Raje V, Purow BW, Harris TE. Dual activities of ritanserin and R59022 as DGKα inhibitors and serotonin receptor antagonists. Biochem Pharmacol. 2017 Jan 1;123:29–39.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Sittler A, Wälter S, Wedemeyer N, Hasenbank R, Scherzinger E, Eickhoff H, et al. SH3GL3 associates with the Huntingtin exon 1 protein and promotes the formation of polygln-containing protein aggregates. Mol Cell. 1998 Oct;2(4):427–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. 68.↵
    Kang JY, Song SH, Yun J, Jeon MS, Cha Y, Lee SH, et al. Identification of Long-Range Epigenetic Silencing on Chromosome 15q25 and Its Clinical Implication in Gastric Cancer. Am J Pathol. 2015 Mar 1;185(3):666–78.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted June 22, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Profiling placental DNA methylation associated with maternal SSRI treatment during pregnancy
Amy M. Inkster, Chaini Konwar, Maria S. Peñaherrera, Ursula Brain, Almas Khan, E. Magda Price, Johanna M. Schuetz, Élodie Portales-Casamar, Amber Burt, Carmen J. Marsit, Cathy Vaillancourt, Tim F. Oberlander, Wendy P. Robinson
medRxiv 2022.06.21.22276723; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.21.22276723
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area