Genome-wide meta-analyses of non-response to antidepressants identify novel loci and potential drugs

Elise Koch, Tuuli Jürgenson, Guðmundur Einarsson, Brittany Mitchell, Arvid Harder, Luis M. García-Marín, Kristi Krebs, Yuhao Lin, Ying Xiong, Estonian Biobank Research Team, Yi Lu, Sara Hägg, Miguel E. Rentería, Sarah E. Medland, Naomi R. Wray, Nicholas G. Martin, Christopher Hübel, Gerome Breen, Thorgeir Thorgeirsson, Hreinn Stefánsson, Kári Stefánsson, Lili Milani, Ole A. Andreassen, Kevin S. O’Connell
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.13.24310361

Abstract

Antidepressants exhibit a considerable variation in efficacy, and increasing evidence suggests that individual genetics contribute to antidepressant treatment response. Here, we combined data on antidepressant non-response measured using rating scales for depressive symptoms, questionnaires of treatment effect, and data from electronic health records, to increase statistical power to detect genomic loci associated with non-response to antidepressants in a total sample of 135,471 individuals prescribed antidepressants. We performed genome-wide association meta-analyses, leave-one-out polygenic prediction, and bioinformatics analyses for genetically informed drug prioritization. We identified two novel loci associated with non-response to antidepressants and showed significant polygenic prediction in independent samples. In addition, we investigated drugs that target proteins likely involved in mechanisms underlying antidepressant non-response, and shortlisted drugs that warrant further replication and validation of their potential to reduce depressive symptoms in individuals who do not respond to first-line antidepressant medications. These results suggest that meta-analyses of GWAS utilizing real-world measures of treatment outcomes can increase sample sizes to improve the discovery of variants associated with non-response to antidepressants.

Introduction

Antidepressants are the first-line pharmacological treatment for depression. Over 10% of the adolescent population uses antidepressant medication, and the rate of antidepressant prescriptions is increasing1, 2. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most used antidepressants3-5, because they are generally better tolerated compared to other antidepressant classes4, 5. However, treatment response to SSRIs and other antidepressants varies considerably between treated individuals, and less than half of individuals with major depression achieve remission of symptoms after initial antidepressant treatment6, 7. It has been shown that individuals who require several antidepressant treatment steps show worse longer-term treatment outcomes7. Although antidepressants are linked to a reduction in depressive symptoms8, they are often ineffective, with only approximately 35% achieving remission after their primary antidepressant treatment6, and approximately 50% achieving remission after completing two treatments of antidepressants7. Antidepressant non-response has been associated with illness severity, more comorbidities, higher antidepressant dose requirements, and higher suicide risk as well as suicide attempts9, 10. Thus, non-response to antidepressants is a major clinical problem, and early identification remains a critical priority in psychiatry research11.

Increasing evidence suggests that genetic variation contributes to antidepressant treatment outcomes11. Discovering genomic variants associated with antidepressant treatment outcomes could facilitate the early identification of individuals who do not respond to first-line treatments to avoid delay in reaching recovery and advance personal treatment. However, although common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are reported to explain 42% of the variance of antidepressant response12, no robustly replicated associations have been detected to date13-17. Moreover, the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) of antidepressant response, measured using depression symptom scores (N=5,218), did not identify any genome-wide significant loci18. Antidepressant response is a polygenic phenotype, requiring larger sample sizes to elucidate the genetic architecture of antidepressant response18. Use of alternative outcome phenotypes such as antidepressant response information obtained from electronic health records (eHR)19 or self-reported questionnaires20 have been used to increase sample sizes. Combining these real-world data sources could provide the sample sizes needed for discovering genetic factors associated with antidepressant treatment outcomes21. In the current study, we integrated GWAS data on antidepressant non-response measured using rating scales for depressive symptoms, questionnaires of treatment effect, and outcome data from eHR, to increase statistical power to detect genomic loci associated with non-response to SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). We identified one novel locus associated with non-response to SSRIs, and one novel locus associated with non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs, as well as a replicable polygenic signal of non-response to SSRIs. Based on bioinformatics analyses, we shortlisted approved drugs that target proteins likely involved in mechanisms underlying antidepressant non-response.

Methods

GWAS sample description

Using questionnaire data about the effectiveness of prescribed antidepressant drugs, we performed GWASs on non-response to SSRIs in the Estonian Biobank (EstBB)22, the Australian Genetics of Depression Study (AGDS)23, the Genetic Links to Anxiety & Depression (GLAD) Study24, and the UK Biobank (UKB)25. Additionally, we performed GWASs on non-response to SNRIs in the EstBB and AGDS cohorts. Utilizing prescription registry data, we defined treatment response and non-response to antidepressants based on antidepressant switching and performed GWASs on non-response to SSRIs and SNRIs in an Icelandic cohort from deCODE Genetics. In all cohorts, treatment response and non-response was defined as a binary measure, see Supplementary Materials for more details about phenotype definitions, antidepressant drugs included, and description of cohorts including genotype information.

Publicly available GWAS summary statistics were obtained from a GWAS on treatment response to antidepressants performed by the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC)18. We used summary statistics from the European sample of the genome-wide analysis of remission after antidepressant treatment (predominantly SSRIs) in individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD). Summary statistics from two GWASs on antidepressant treatment response performed by the 23andMe Research Team from 23andMe, Inc.20, 26 were obtained upon request. In the GWASs from the 23andMe Research Team20, 26, treatment response and non-response to antidepressants was defined according to an antidepressant efficacy survey. We used separate summary statistics for treatment response to SSRIs and SNRIs. All GWAS samples and corresponding numbers of responders and non-responders are summarized in Table 1. All subjects provided written informed consent after receiving a complete description of the respective study.

View this table:
Table 1: GWAS samples included in the GWAS meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs, non-response to SNRIs, and non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs

Genome-wide meta-analyses

Meta-analyses of GWAS summary statistics were conducted using inverse-variance-weighted fixed effects models in METAL27. Separate meta-analyses were performed for non-response to SSRIs, non-response to SNRIs, and non-response to either SSRIs or SNRIs. To investigate if the effects of genome-wide significant SNPs were consistent across the datasets, we performed a heterogeneity test in METAL27. Due to differences in the definition of antidepressant treatment response across GWASs, we also performed sensitivity meta-analyses restricted to samples where treatment response was measured using only questionnaires (EstBB, AGDS, GLAD, UKB, and the GWASs from the 23andMe Research Team20, 26).

Locus definition, variant annotation, and gene mapping

To define genetic loci based on the association summary statistics produced with METAL27, we used Functional Mapping and Annotation of GWAS (FUMA)28 with default settings. Genetic variants with a p-value <5e-8 and with a linkage disequilibrium (LD) r2 <0.6 with each other were defined as independent significant variants. Of these, variants with an LD r2 <0.1 were selected as lead variants. For a given lead variant, the borders of the genomic locus were defined as minimum/maximum positional coordinates over all corresponding candidate variants. Loci that were separated by less than 250 kb were then merged.

To investigate previous phenotype associations, we queried the identified loci in the GWAS catalogue29. SNPs were also queried for known expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs) across multiple tissues using the GTEx portal (GTEx v8)30, as well as in different brain tissues using the BRAINEAC portal31. SNPs were annotated with Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD)32 scores, which predict how deleterious the SNP effect is on protein structure/function, and RegulomeDB33 scores, which predict the likelihood of regulatory functionality of SNPs.

The Open Targets Genetics platform (https://genetics.opentargets.org/)34 was used to map the identified loci to genes. This portal contains functional genomics data from different cell types and tissues retrieved from various repositories and datasets, including data on gene expression, chromatin conformation, and protein abundance that are aggregated to make robust connections between variants and likely causal genes. For each variant-gene prediction, a Variant to Gene (V2G) association score is provided to assign likely causal genes for a given variant. For each locus, we considered the top 3 genes with the highest V2G scores.

Multi-trait conditional and joint analysis, SNP-based heritability, and genetic correlation

To account for the possible effect of major depression, we used multi-trait conditional and joint analysis (mtCOJO)35. We conditioned the effect of SNPs estimated for non-response to antidepressants on those of depression, using summary statistics of a GWAS on depression phenotypes36 including 246,363 cases and 561,190 controls, performed by the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium (PGC), excluding a 23andMe sample. This was done for non-response to SSRIs, non-response to SNRIs, and non-response to either SSRIs or SNRIs. We utilized linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSC)37 to estimate the SNP-based heritability of our meta-analyzed GWAS as well as the GWAS summary statistics produced with mtCOJO. The SNP-based heritability was calculated on the observed scale. As non-response to antidepressants has been previously associated with genetics of other psychiatric traits as well as cognitive traits38, LDSC37 was used to estimate bivariate genetic correlations between antidepressant non-response and various psychiatric and cognitive traits, using summary statistics from the following GWASs: Alzheimer’s disease39, attention deficiency hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)40, autism spectrum disorder41, anxiety disorder42, bipolar disorder43, general cognitive performance44, educational attainment45, intelligence46, insomnia47, depression phenotypes36, mood instability48, neuroticism49, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)50, schizophrenia51, subjective well-being52.

Leave-One-Out Polygenic Scoring

Polygenic scores (PGSs) were constructed based on the association summary statistics produced in the GWAS meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs, excluding each cohort in turn to create independent discovery and target datasets. The target samples were EstBB, UKB, AGDS, and deCODE. In EstBB, the PGS was calculated using the polygenic risk score continuous shrinkage (PRS-cs) approach53 with default options. In UKB and AGDS, PGSs were calculated using SBayesR54. In the deCODE sample, the PGS was calculated using LDPred55. In all four samples, the European sample of the 1000 Genomes Phase III56 was used to adjust for LD. To facilitate the interpretability of the results, PGSs were standardized within each sample (mean=0, SD=1) before statistical analysis. We performed logistic regression analyses to investigate if the PGS is associated with non-response to SSRIs in each of the four target samples. Age, sex, and the first ten principal components for genetic ancestry were included as covariates. Meta-analyses of results from the four cohorts were performed using the R-package metaplus57 with standard normal random effect. We also weighted the samples based on effective sample size, using the metafor58 R-package.

Genetically informed drug prioritization

To estimate gene associations, we used GSA-MiXeR59, a novel gene-set analysis (GSA) tool that estimates fold enrichment and identifies gene-sets with greater biological specificity compared to standard GSA approaches59. We ran GSA-MiXeR for the summary statistics produced in the GWAS meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs, SNRIs, and SSRIs/SNRIs. From the outputs, we chose genes with a positive MiXeR AIC value and an enrichment value of >10. All genes identified from GSA-MiXeR59 as well as Open Targets Genetics34 were then studied within networks of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) of gene products, using the latest version of the human protein interactome from the Barabási lab60, consisting of 18,217 unique proteins (nodes) interconnected by 329,506 PPIs after removing self-loops.

As most approved drugs do not target disease-associated proteins but bind to proteins in their network vicinity61, we defined a network not only including the genes identified from GSA-MiXeR59 and Open Targets Genetics34, but also genes in their immediate network proximity. To define antidepressant non-response networks (one for non-response to SSRIs, one for non-response to SNRIs, and one for non-response to SSRIs or SNRIs), we used the method network propagation62-64, implemented in the Cytoscape65 application Diffusion64. Genes identified from GSA-MiXeR59 and Open Targets Genetics34 were used as input query genes, and the top 1% of proteins from the diffusion output were included in the antidepressant non-response network. The Drug Gene Interaction Database (DGIdb, (https://www.dgidb.org/) v.5.0.6 (04/04/2024)66 was used to identify drug-gene interactions between approved drugs and genes in the three antidepressant non-response networks. Gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed to test for enrichment of drug-gene interactions within our networks.

For the drugs interacting with genes in our networks, we retrieved drug-induced gene expression data (drug versus no drug) from the Connectivity Map (CMap) 202067, 68, extracted from the Phase 2 data release of the Library of Integrated Cellular Signatures (LINCS) using the cmapR package69 in R version 4.3.1. As low drug concentrations in CMap have been shown to reduce the quality of the data70, we selected the highest concentration per drug.

We also performed transcriptome-wide association studies using S-PrediXcan71 to impute the genetically regulated gene expression using summary statistics produced in the GWAS meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs, SNRIs, and SSRIs/SNRIs as input. Gene expression was imputed using high-performance gene expression prediction models trained using elastic net regression (downloaded from http://predictdb.org) trained on gene expression data from whole blood as well as 13 brain expression data sets from GTEx (version 8)72, 73 and covariance matrices calculated from 503 individuals with European ancestry from the 1000 Genomes project56. For gene expression in brain, S-MultiXcan74 was used to combine the S-PrediXcan results across the 13 brain tissues (more details in Supplementary Methods).

To evaluate if the drugs interacting with genes in our networks could change the predicted expression levels associated with antidepressant non-response (whether these drugs down-regulate genes up-regulated in antidepressant non-response or vice versa), the Spearman correlation ρ between the drug-induced gene expression perturbations and the predicted expression in drug target genes within the antidepressant non-response networks was calculated for each drug (separately for non-response to SSRIs, SNRIs, and SSRIs/SNRIs), where negative correlation coefficients indicate that the drug could reverse gene expression changes associated with antidepressant non-response.

Results

GWAS meta-analyses

From the meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs, including a total of 114,324 individuals (19,606 non-responders and 94,718 responders), we identified one novel genome-wide significant locus (rs1106260 T/C; chr9: 138,111,032-138,136,174; OR = 1.0502; SE = 0.009; p-value = 3.55e-08). Another locus was found to be nominally significant (rs4884091 A/G; chr13: 78,971,895-79,003,053; OR = 1.0602, SE = 0.011, p-value = 6.38e-08). No genome-wide significant loci were identified from the meta-analysis of non-response to SNRIs, including 21,147 individuals (5,649 non-responders and 15,498 responders). However, one locus was nominally significant (rs10104815 T/C; chr8: 136,780,782-136,869,414; OR = 0.9213; p-value = 6.62e-08). From the meta-analysis of non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs, including a total of 135,471 individuals (25,255 non-responders and 110,216 responders), we identified one novel genome-wide significant locus (rs60847828 T/C; chr16: 8,460,781-8,490,789; OR = 1.0844; SE = 0.014; p-value = 1.18e-08), and one locus that was nominally significant (rs11677238 T/G; chr2: 114,336,733-114,512,514; OR = 1.0439; SE = 0.008; p-value = 5.424e-08). Manhattan plots from the three meta-analyses are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Manhattan plot showing genome-wide association results of the GWAS meta-analysis on non-response to SSRIs (blue), SNRIs (green), and SSRIs or SNRIs (pink). Genome-wide significant lead SNPs are encircled in black.

Quantile-quantile plots are shown in Figure S1. SNPs at the two genome-wide significant loci show no evidence of heterogeneity (p<5e-8), indicating that the effect is consistent across datasets (Table S1, Figures S2-3). When restricting the meta-analyses to samples where treatment response was measured using only questionnaires, similar results were obtained albeit the associations were no longer significant (p>5e-8) (Figure S4-5). All loci achieving genome-wide or nominally significance (p<1e-5) are reported in Tables S2-7.

Investigation of the genome-wide significant loci (rs1106260 and rs60847828) in the GWAS catalogue29 showed no previous associations. Functional annotation of rs1106260 and rs60847828 using FUMA28 does not suggest these SNPs to be deleterious (CADD scores <12.37) or likely to have regulatory functionality (RegulomeDB scores = 5-7). The top three genes with the highest V2G score for the identified locus for non-response to SSRIs (rs1106260) were OLFM1, MRPS2, and PIERCE1, of which the nearest gene is OLFM1 (distance = 168,906 bp, downstream gene variant). No significant associations were found in the GTEx portal (GTEx v8)30 for the lead SNP (rs1106260). Additional assessment of the lead SNP (rs1106260) and gene expression of OLFM1, MRPS2, and PIERCE1 in the BRAINEAC database31 showed significant associations between rs1106260 and gene expression of OLFM1 in the medulla (p=0.015) and temporal cortex (p=0.005). The top three genes for the identified locus for non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs (rs60847828) were TMEM114, METTL22, and ABAT, of which the nearest gene is TMEM114 (distance = 154,116 bp, intergenic variant). The lead SNP (rs60847828) was neither found in the GTEx portal (GTEx v8)30 nor in the BRAINEAC database31.

The locus that was nominally significant associated with SSRI non-response (rs4884091) has been previously associated with SSRI non-response in the GWAS from the 23andMe Team20. The top three genes with the highest V2G score for this locus were OBI1, POU4F1, and EDNRB, of which POU4F1 is the nearest gene (260,067 bp, intron variant). One gene was mapped to the locus that was nominally significant associated with SNRI non-response (rs10104815), KHDRBS3 (339,483 bp, intergenic variant), and this locus has been previously associated with non-response to SNRIs in the GWAS from the 23andMe Team20. The top three genes for the locus that was nominally significant associated with SSRI/SNRI non-response (rs11677238) were SLC35F5, RABL2A, and PAX8, of which the nearest gene is RABL2A (40,168 bp, upstream gene variant).

Multi-trait conditional and joint analysis, SNP-based heritability, and genetic correlations

After conditioning on depression, the identified loci were still significantly associated with non-response to antidepressants (Table S8-10). SNP-based heritability estimates for all meta-analyses were in the range 0.019-0.028 and are reported in Table S11. Genetic correlation analyses show positive associations between non-response to antidepressants and most psychiatric traits, and negative associations with cognitive traits and subjective well-being (Figure 2, Table S12-14). Similar results were obtained using the meta-analyses restricted to questionnaire data (Figure S6-8, Table S15-17) and non-response to antidepressants conditioned on depression (Figure S6-8, Table S18-20).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Genetic correlation between non-response to antidepressants and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), attention deficiency hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder (BD), cognitive performance (COG), educational attainment (EDU), insomnia, intelligence, depression phenotypes, mood instability (MOOD), neuroticism, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia (SCZ), subjective well-being (SWB). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Polygenic prediction of non-response to SSRIs

Meta-analysis of leave-one-out PGS analyses using SSRI non-response GWAS results in four samples showed a significant association with non-response to SSRIs (OR=1.016, CI=1.005-1.039, p-value=0.029), shown in Figure 3. However, in two out of the four samples, the PGS was not significantly associated with SSRI non-response (Table S21). Similar results were obtained when the samples were weighted based on effective sample size (OR=1.03, CI=1.00-1.05, p-value=0.025) (Figure S9).

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Forest plots showing the results from leave-one-out polygenic prediction of non-response to SSRIs in four independent cohorts, as well as meta-analyzed across these cohorts. Effects are reported as odds ratios (95% confidence interval).

Genetically informed drug prioritization

From GSA-MiXeR, all genes with a positive AIC value and an enrichment score >10 can be found in Table S22 (non-response to SSRIs, N=65), Table S23 (non-response to SNRIs, N=108), and Table S24 (non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs, N=76). The genes included in the three networks and the corresponding diffusion output values as well as their node degrees can be found in Table S25 (SSRIs, N=252), Table S26 (SNRIs, N=287), and Table S27 (SSRIs/SNRIs, N=260).

Drug target genes in the SSRI non-response network were most significantly (p<5e-4) enriched for targets of the synthetic cannabinoid nabilone, and the target genes in the SSRI/SNRI non-response network were most significantly (p<5e-4) enriched for targets of bremelanotide, a drug developed to treat sexual dysfunction. However, after correction for the total number of drug-gene interactions (N=2,896), the enrichments remained non-significant (FDR>0.05). The drug target genes in the SNRI non-response network were significantly (FDR<0.05) enriched for several GABA receptor agonists (Table S28-30).

In the SSRI non-response network (Figure S10), six drugs (letrozole, clozapine, vandetanib, decamethonium, paclitaxel, budesonide) showed significant (p<0.05) opposite gene expression perturbations in drug (drug-induced expression) versus SSRI non-response-associated expression in drug target genes in brain tissue. For blood, eight drugs (temazepam, acetazolamide, chlordiazepoxide, ethionamide, amisulpride, rimonabant, clonazepam, fluorouracil) showed significant opposite gene expression (Table S31-S34). In the SNRI non-response network (Figure S11), two drugs (selegiline and norethindrone) showed significant (p<0.05) opposite gene expression perturbations in brain, and 2 drugs (dexamethasone and kinetin) in blood (Table S35-38). In the SSRI/SNRI non-response network (Figure S12), the drug simvastatin showed significant (p<0.05) opposite gene expression perturbations in brain, and the drug ascorbic acid showed significant opposite gene expression in blood (Table S39-42). However, after correction for multiple correlation analyses (number of drugs), all correlations remained non-significant (FDR>0.05). Figure S13 summarizes the steps undertaken to identify drugs that could potentially address antidepressant non-response (more details in Supplementary Results), and the top drugs are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4:
Figure 4:

Top drugs identified based on gene-set enrichment analyses and drug-induced versus antidepressant non-response-associated gene expression, and their protein interaction partners in the SSRI non-response network (A), the SNRI non-response network (B), and SSRI/SNRI non-response network (C). Nodes refer to genes or drugs, and edges refer to gene-drug interactions or gene-gene interactions through identified protein-protein interactions between gene products (proteins).

Discussion

In the present study, we identified two novel genome-wide significant loci associated with antidepressant non-response and showed that a polygenic score derived from our results predicted non-response to SSRIs in independent cohorts. By meta-analyzing real-world pharmacogenomic information on antidepressant non-response based on clinically assessed symptom scores, self-reported treatment outcomes, and data from eHR, this study represents the largest genetic investigation of non-response to antidepressants to date.

For the locus associated with non-response to SSRIs (rs1106260), the gene with the highest V2G score is OLFM1, which is also the nearest gene. The glycoprotein olfactomedin 1 (OLFM1) is highly expressed in the brain and participates in neural progenitor maintenance, cell death in brain, optic nerve arborization, and axonal growth75, 76. As OLFM1 plays a role in neuronal development, it has previously been suggested as a candidate gene for neuropsychiatric disorders77. In a study aiming to identify biomarkers for mood disorders, OLFM1 showed strong evidence for predicting both depression and mania and was suggested as a target gene to treat depression78. One of the genes mapped to the identified locus for non-response to SSRIs/SNRIs (rs60847828) was ABAT. Variants within the GABA transaminase (ABAT) gene region have been associated with altered processing of somatosensory stimuli, indicating ABAT as a potential vulnerability marker for affective disorders79. Furthermore, it has been suggested that variants within ABAT affect valproic acid response80. Increasing evidence indicates that dysfunction of GABA, as well as glutamate systems contributes to depression-related behavior, and that ketamine’s antidepressant effects are related to its effect on glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons81, 82. Interestingly, our SNRI non-response network includes several GABA receptor genes, and we shortlist several drugs acting on the GABA system. These GABA receptor agonists may counteract the GABAergic deficits in depression83. We also shortlist several drugs with anti-inflammatory actions. A growing body of evidence supports an association between depression and inflammatory processes, and clinical trials have indicated antidepressant treatment effects for anti-inflammatory agents, both as add-on treatment and as monotherapy84. Our SSRI network includes CNR1 and CNR2, the genes encoding the two main cannabinoid receptors, which are the primary targets for endogenous and exogenous cannabinoids. Studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system may be involved in the aetiology of depression and that targeting this system has the potential to relieve depressive symptoms85. However, the evidence that cannabinoids improve depressive disorders is weak and studies examining the effects of cannabinoids on mental disorders are needed85, 86.

Individual differences in pharmacological treatment response can often be attributed to genetic variability in cytochrome P450 genes (CYP450). In our antidepressant non-response GWASs as well as previous GWASs on antidepressant non-response, no association with CYP450 genes was detected. However, our SNRI network includes CYP17A1 and CYP2B6, both identified from network propagation that prioritizes genes with biological and functional similarity to the input genes. Genetic variation in CYP2B6 influences the metabolism of several SSRIs and SNRIs87. Guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) highlight the impact of CYP2B6, and HTR2A genotypes, among others, on antidepressant dosing, efficacy, and tolerability87. The pharmacodynamic gene HTR2A (serotonin-2A receptor) is included in our SSRI non-response network, also identified from network propagation.

We show an association between genetic liability of psychiatric disorders and non-response to antidepressants, which is in line with clinical studies88. We also identified a significant association between genetic propensity for cognitive phenotypes and improved antidepressant response. Similar genetic correlations have been shown in the previous GWAS on antidepressant response from the PGC18 as well as in a study investigating the genetic and clinical characteristics of treatment-resistant depression38. The strongest negative genetic correlations with non-response to antidepressants were observed for ADHD. This may indicate that phenotypic misspecification could underlie non-response to antidepressants. In fact, undetected ADHD has been associated with lack of response to SSRIs in MDD cases89. In adults, ADHD may be undiagnosed, and ADHD symptoms are often mistaken for those of their psychiatric comorbidities90.

Some limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. We combine various samples with differences in the assessment of treatment non-response, which introduces heterogeneity. Moreover, our study could potentially include individuals who were treated with antidepressants for conditions other than depression, especially in the sample where eHR were used to define non-response based on switching as proxy phenotype. Heterogeneity could also be introduced by differences in dosing, treatment duration, and co-treatment with other drugs. However, we performed heterogeneity tests and restricted our meta-analyses to samples where non-response was measured using only similar questionnaires, and these sensitivity analyses showed that the results were consistent across samples. It should also be noted that the individuals in our samples are of European ancestry, and our results may therefore not be directly translatable to other ethnicities.

In conclusion, these results suggest that meta-analyses of GWAS utilizing real-world measures of treatment outcomes can increase sample sizes to improve the discovery of variants associated with non-response to antidepressants.

Data Availability

Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Author contributions

EK, OAA, and KSO conceived the study and were involved in study design. EK, TJ, GE, BM, AH, LMGM, KK, YL, YX, and KSO conducted analyses. EK drafted the initial manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation and editing of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Andreassen reported grants from Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, South-East Regional Health Authority, Research Council of Norway, and European Union’s Horizon 2020 during the conduct of the study; personal fees from cortechs.ai (stock options), Lundbeck (speaker’s honorarium), and Sunovion (speaker’s honorarium) and Janssen (speaker’s honorarium) outside the submitted work.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research participants and employees of 23andMe, Inc. for making this work possible. This work was partly performed on the TSD (Tjeneste for Sensitive Data) facilities, owned by the University of Oslo, operated and developed by the TSD service group at the University of Oslo, IT-Department (USIT). Computations were also performed on resources provided by UNINETT Sigma2—the National Infrastructure for High Performance Computing and Data Storage in Norway (NS9666S). Computations of the UKB data were enabled by resources in project sens2017519 provided by the National Academic Infrastructure for Supercomputing in Sweden (NAISS) at UPPMAX, funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2022-06725. We gratefully acknowledge support from the Research Council of Norway (RCN) (296030, 223273, and 334920) and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH 5R01MH124839-02). This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 964874 (REALMENT), as well as from the US NIMH (grant R01 MH123724) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2021 research project Psych-STRATA (EU HORIZON-HLTH-2021, grant 101057454). The AGDS was primarily funded by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia grant 1086683, with additional funding from MRFF1200644 and MRFF2024891. BLM and SEM were supported by Australian NHMRC Investigator grants (APP2017176 and APP1172917 respectively). YL was supported by the European Research Council grant (grant agreement No: 101042183) and the Swedish Research Council grant (2021-02615_VR). MER thanks the support of the Rebecca L Cooper Medical Research Foundation through an Al & Val Rosenstrauss Fellowship (F20231230). GB, TH, and YL declare that this study represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of all South London and Maudsley NIHR BioResource volunteers within the National NIHR BioResource and thank the South London and Maudsley BioResource staff for their help with volunteer recruitment.

Footnotes

  • ↵# The Estonian Biobank Research Team includes Andres Metspalu, Tõnu Esko, Reedik Mägi, Mari Nelis, and Georgi Hudjashov

References

  1. 1.↵
    Iacobucci G. NHS prescribed record number of antidepressants last year. BMJ 2019; 364: 1508.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Pratt LA, Brody DJ, Gu Q. Antidepressant Use Among Persons Aged 12 and Over: United States, 2011–2014. NCHS Data Brief 2017; 283: 1–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Smith AJ, Sketris I, Cooke C, Gardner D, Kisely S, Tett SE. A comparison of antidepressant use in Nova Scotia, Canada and Australia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17(7): 697–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Jannini TB, Lorenzo GD, Bianciardi E, Niolu C, Toscano M, Ciocca G et al. Off-label Uses of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). Curr Neuropharmacol 2022; 20(4): 693–712.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Anderson HD, Pace WD, Libby AM, West DR, Valuck RJ. Rates of 5 common antidepressant side effects among new adult and adolescent cases of depression: a retrospective US claims study. Clin Ther 2012; 34(1): 113–123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Trivedi M, Rush A, Wisniewski S, Nierenberg AA, Warden D, Ritz L et al. Evaluation of Outcomes With Citalopram for Depression Using Measurement-Based Care in STAR*D: Implications for Clinical Practice. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 28–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Rush A, Trivedi B, Wisniewski S, Nierenberg AA, Stewart J, Warden D et al. Acute and Longer-Term Outcomes in Depressed Outpatients Requiring One or Several Treatment Steps: A STAR*D Report. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1905–1917.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y et al. Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 21 Antidepressant Drugs for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ) 2018; 16(4): 420–429.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Amital D, Fostick L, Silberman A, Beckman M, Spivak B. Serious life events among resistant and non-resistant MDD patients. J Affect Disord 2008; 110(3): 260–264.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    De Carlo V, Calati R, Serretti A. Socio-demographic and clinical predictors of nonresponse/non-remission in treatment resistant depressed patients: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res 2016; 240: 421–430.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Fabbri C, Corponi F, Souery D, Kasper S, Montgomery S, Zohar J et al. The Genetics of Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Critical Review and Future Perspectives. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2019; 22(2): 93–104.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Tansey KE, Guipponi M, Hu X, Domenici E, Lewis G, Malafosse A et al. Contribution of common genetic variants to antidepressant response. Biol Psychiatry 2013; 73(7): 679–682.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    GENDEP, MARS, STAR*D. Common Genetic Variation and Antidepressant Efficacy in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Three Genome-Wide Pharmacogenetic Studies. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170(2): 207–217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.
    Biernacka JM, Sangkuhl K, Jenkins G, Whaley RM, Barman P, Batzler A et al. The International SSRI Pharmacogenomics Consortium (ISPC): a genome-wide association study of antidepressant treatment response. Transl Psychiatry 2015; 5: e553.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.
    Fabbri C, Kasper S, Kautzky A, Bartova L, Dold M, Zohar J et al. Genome-wide association study of treatment-resistance in depression and meta-analysis of three independent samples. Br J Psychiatry 2019; 214(1): 36–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.
    Tansey KE, Guipponi M, Perroud N, Bondolfi G, Domenici E, Evans D et al. Genetic predictors of response to serotonergic and noradrenergic antidepressants in major depressive disorder: a genome-wide analysis of individual-level data and a meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2012; 9(10): e1001326.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Fabbri C, Tansey KE, Perlis RH, Hauser J, Henigsberg N, Maier W et al. New insights into the pharmacogenomics of antidepressant response from the GENDEP and STAR*D studies: rare variant analysis and high-density imputation. Pharmacogenomics J 2018; 18(3): 413–421.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, Ripke S, Marshe VS, Adams MJ et al. Identifying the Common Genetic Basis of Antidepressant Response. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci 2022; 2(2): 115–126.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Wigmore EM, Hafferty JD, Hall LS, Howard DM, Clarke TK, Fabbri C et al. Genome-wide association study of antidepressant treatment resistance in a population-based cohort using health service prescription data and meta-analysis with GENDEP. Pharmacogenomics J 2020; 20(2): 329–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Li QS, Tian C, Hinds D, andMe Research T. Genome-wide association studies of antidepressant class response and treatment-resistant depression. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10(1): 360.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Koch E, Pardiñas AF, O’Connell KS, Selvaggi P, Collados JC, Babic A et al. How real-world data can facilitate the development of precision medicine treatment in psychiatry. Biological Psychiatry 2024.
  22. 22.↵
    Leitsalu L, Haller T, Esko T, Tammesoo ML, Alavere H, Snieder H et al. Cohort Profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu. Int J Epidemiol 2015; 44(4): 1137–1147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Byrne EM, Kirk KM, Medland SE, McGrath JJ, Colodro-Conde L, Parker R et al. Cohort profile: the Australian genetics of depression study. BMJ Open 2020; 10(5): e032580.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Davies MR, Kalsi G, Armour C, Jones IR, McIntosh AM, Smith DJ et al. The Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression (GLAD) Study: Online recruitment into the largest recontactable study of depression and anxiety. Behav Res Ther 2019; 123: 103503.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med 2015; 12(3): e1001779.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Li QS, Tian C, Seabrook GR, Drevets WC, Narayan VA. Analysis of 23andMe antidepressant efficacy survey data: implication of circadian rhythm and neuroplasticity in bupropion response. Transl Psychiatry 2016; 6(9): e889.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Willer CJ, Li Y, Abecasis GR. METAL: fast and efficient meta-analysis of genomewide association scans. Bioinformatics 2010; 26(17): 2190–2191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Watanabe K, Taskesen E, van Bochoven A, Posthuma D. Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA. Nature communications 2017; 8(1): 1826.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Buniello A, MacArthur JAL, Cerezo M, Harris LW, Hayhurst J, Malangone C et al. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. Nucleic acids research 2019; 47(D1): D1005–D1012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Consortium G. Human genomics. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) pilot analysis: multitissue gene regulation in humans. Science 2015; 348(6235): 648–660.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Hernandez DG, Nalls MA, Moore M, Chong S, Dillman A, Trabzuni D et al. Integration of GWAS SNPs and tissue specific expression profiling reveal discrete eQTLs for human traits in blood and brain. Neurobiology of disease 2012; 47(1): 20–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Kircher M, Witten DM, Jain P, O’Roak BJ, Cooper GM, Shendure J. A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat Genet 2014; 46(3): 310–315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Boyle AP, Hong EL, Hariharan M, Cheng Y, Schaub MA, Kasowski M et al. Annotation of functional variation in personal genomes using RegulomeDB. Genome Res 2012; 22(9): 1790–1797.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    Ghoussaini M, Mountjoy E, Carmona M, Peat G, Schmidt EM, Hercules A et al. Open Targets Genetics: systematic identification of trait-associated genes using large-scale genetics and functional genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49(D1): D1311–D1320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Zhu Z, Zheng Z, Zhang F, Wu Y, Trzaskowski M, Maier R et al. Causal associations between risk factors and common diseases inferred from GWAS summary data. Nat Commun 2018; 9(1): 224.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Howard DM, Adams MJ, Shirali M, Clarke TK, Marioni RE, Davies G et al. Genome-wide association study of depression phenotypes in UK Biobank identifies variants in excitatory synaptic pathways. Nat Commun 2018; 9(1): 1470.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Bulik-Sullivan BK, Loh PR, Finucane HK, Ripke S, Yang J, Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics C et al. LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 2015; 47(3): 291–295.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Fabbri C, Hagenaars SP, John C, Williams AT, Shrine N, Moles L et al. Genetic and clinical characteristics of treatment-resistant depression using primary care records in two UK cohorts. Mol Psychiatry 2021; 26(7): 3363–3373.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Wightman DP, Jansen IE, Savage JE, Shadrin AA, Bahrami S, Holland D et al. A genome-wide association study with 1,126,563 individuals identifies new risk loci for Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Genet 2021; 53(9): 1276–1282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Demontis D, Walters GB, Athanasiadis G, Walters R, Therrien K, Nielsen TT et al. Genome-wide analyses of ADHD identify 27 risk loci, refine the genetic architecture and implicate several cognitive domains. Nat Genet 2023; 55(2): 198–208.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Grove J, Ripke S, Als TD, Mattheisen M, Walters RK, Won H et al. Identification of common genetic risk variants for autism spectrum disorder. Nat Genet 2019; 51(3): 431–444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Purves KL, Coleman JRI, Meier SM, Rayner C, Davis KAS, Cheesman R et al. A major role for common genetic variation in anxiety disorders. Mol Psychiatry 2020; 25(12): 3292–3303.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Mullins N, Forstner AJ, O’Connell KS, Coombes B, Coleman JRI, Qiao Z et al. Genome-wide association study of more than 40,000 bipolar disorder cases provides new insights into the underlying biology. Nat Genet 2021; 53(6): 817–829.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M et al. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat Genet 2018; 50(8): 1112–1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Okbay A, Wu Y, Wang N, Jayashankar H, Bennett M, Nehzati SM et al. Polygenic prediction of educational attainment within and between families from genome-wide association analyses in 3 million individuals. Nat Genet 2022; 54(4): 437–449.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Savage JE, Jansen PR, Stringer S, Watanabe K, Bryois J, de Leeuw CA et al. Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence. Nat Genet 2018; 50(7): 912–919.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Jansen PR, Watanabe K, Stringer S, Skene N, Bryois J, Hammerschlag AR et al. Genome-wide analysis of insomnia in 1,331,010 individuals identifies new risk loci and functional pathways. Nat Genet 2019; 51(3): 394–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Ward J, Tunbridge EM, Sandor C, Lyall LM, Ferguson A, Strawbridge RJ et al. The genomic basis of mood instability: identification of 46 loci in 363,705 UK Biobank participants, genetic correlation with psychiatric disorders, and association with gene expression and function. Mol Psychiatry 2020; 25(11): 3091–3099.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Nagel M, Jansen PR, Stringer S, Watanabe K, de Leeuw CA, Bryois J et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. Nat Genet 2018; 50(7): 920–927.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Gelernter J, Sun N, Polimanti R, Pietrzak R, Levey DF, Bryois J et al. Genome-wide association study of post-traumatic stress disorder reexperiencing symptoms in >165,000 US veterans. Nat Neurosci 2019; 22(9): 1394–1401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    Trubetskoy V, Pardinas AF, Qi T, Panagiotaropoulou G, Awasthi S, Bigdeli TB et al. Mapping genomic loci implicates genes and synaptic biology in schizophrenia. Nature 2022; 604(7906): 502–508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Okbay A, Baselmans BM, De Neve JE, Turley P, Nivard MG, Fontana MA et al. Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses. Nat Genet 2016; 48(6): 624–633.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Ge T, Chen CY, Ni Y, Feng YA, Smoller JW. Polygenic prediction via Bayesian regression and continuous shrinkage priors. Nat Commun 2019; 10(1): 1776.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Lloyd-Jones LR, Zeng J, Sidorenko J, Yengo L, Moser G, Kemper KE et al. Improved polygenic prediction by Bayesian multiple regression on summary statistics. Nat Commun 2019; 10(1): 5086.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Vilhjalmsson BJ, Yang J, Finucane HK, Gusev A, Lindstrom S, Ripke S et al. Modeling Linkage Disequilibrium Increases Accuracy of Polygenic Risk Scores. American journal of human genetics 2015; 97(4): 576–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015; 526(7571): 68–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Beath K. metaplus: An R Package for the Analysis of Robust Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. R Journal 2016; 8: 5–16.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010; 36(3): 1 – 48.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Frei O, Hindley G, Shadrin AA, van der Meer D, Akdeniz BC, Cheng W et al. Improved functional mapping with GSA-MiXeR implicates biologically specific gene-sets and estimates enrichment magnitude. medRxiv 2022.
  60. 60.↵
    Morselli Gysi D, Barabasi AL. Noncoding RNAs improve the predictive power of network medicine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2023; 120(45): e2301342120.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Yildirim MA, Goh KI, Cusick ME, Barabasi AL, Vidal M. Drug-target network. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25(10): 1119–1126.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    Köhler S, Bauer S, Horn D, Robinson PN. Walking the interactome for prioritization of candidate disease genes. American journal of human genetics 2008; 82(4): 949–958.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.
    Vanunu O, Magger O, Ruppin E, Shlomi T, Sharan R. Associating genes and protein complexes with disease via network propagation. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6(1): e1000641.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Carlin DE, Demchak B, Pratt D, Sage E, Ideker T. Network propagation in the cytoscape cyberinfrastructure. PLoS Comput Biol 2017; 13(10): e1005598.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 2003; 13(11): 2498–2504.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    Cannon M, Stevenson J, Stahl K, Basu R, Coffman A, Kiwala S et al. DGIdb 5.0: rebuilding the drug-gene interaction database for precision medicine and drug discovery platforms. Nucleic Acids Res 2024; 52(D1): D1227–D1235.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, Modell JW, Blat IC, Wrobel MJ et al. The Connectivity Map: Using Gene-Expression Signatures to Connect Small Molecules, Genes, and Disease. Science 2006; 313: 1929–1935.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    Subramanian A, Narayan R, Corsello SM, Peck DD, Natoli TE, Lu X et al. A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform and the First 1,000,000 Profiles. Cell 2017; 171(6): 1437–1452 e1417.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Enache OM, Lahr DL, Natoli TE, Litichevskiy L, Wadden D, Flynn C et al. The GCTx format and cmapPy, R, M, J packages: resources for optimized storage and integrated traversal of annotated dense matrices. Bioinformatics 2019; 35(8): 1427–1429.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Lim N, Pavlidis P. Evaluation of connectivity map shows limited reproducibility in drug repositioning. Sci Rep 2021; 11(1): 17624.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Barbeira AN, Dickinson SP, Bonazzola R, Zheng J, Wheeler HE, Torres JM et al. Exploring the phenotypic consequences of tissue specific gene expression variation inferred from GWAS summary statistics. Nat Commun 2018; 9(1): 1825.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    Barbeira AN, Bonazzola R, Gamazon ER, Liang Y, Park Y, Kim-Hellmuth S et al. Exploiting the GTEx resources to decipher the mechanisms at GWAS loci. Genome Biol 2021; 22(1): 49.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Consortium GT. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. Nat Genet 2013; 45(6): 580–585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    Barbeira AN, Pividori M, Zheng J, Wheeler HE, Nicolae DL, Im HK. Integrating predicted transcriptome from multiple tissues improves association detection. PLoS Genet 2019; 15(1): e1007889.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    Nakaya N, Sultana A, Lee HS, Tomarev SI. Olfactomedin 1 interacts with the Nogo A receptor complex to regulate axon growth. J Biol Chem 2012; 287(44): 37171–37184.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    Nakaya N, Sultana A, Tomarev SI. Impaired AMPA receptor trafficking by a double knockout of zebrafish olfactomedin1a/b. J Neurochem 2017; 143(6): 635–644.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.↵
    Bertelsen B, Melchior L, Jensen LR, Groth C, Nazaryan L, Debes NM et al. A t(3;9)(q25.1;q34.3) translocation leading to OLFM1 fusion transcripts in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, OCD and ADHD. Psychiatry Res 2015; 225(3): 268–275.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    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; 26(7): 2776–2804.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    Wegerer M, Adena S, Pfennig A, Czamara D, Sailer U, Bettecken T et al. Variants within the GABA transaminase (ABAT) gene region are associated with somatosensory evoked EEG potentials in families at high risk for affective disorders. Psychol Med 2013; 43(6): 1207–1217.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    Li X, Zhang J, Wu X, Yan H, Zhang Y, He RH et al. Polymorphisms of ABAT, SCN2A and ALDH5A1 may affect valproic acid responses in the treatment of epilepsy in Chinese. Pharmacogenomics 2016; 17(18): 2007–2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    Lener MS, Niciu MJ, Ballard ED, Park M, Park LT, Nugent AC et al. Glutamate and Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid Systems in the Pathophysiology of Major Depression and Antidepressant Response to Ketamine. Biol Psychiatry 2017; 81(10): 886–897.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    Duman RS, Sanacora G, Krystal JH. Altered Connectivity in Depression: GABA and Glutamate Neurotransmitter Deficits and Reversal by Novel Treatments. Neuron 2019; 102(1): 75–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    Luscher B, Shen Q, Sahir N. The GABAergic deficit hypothesis of major depressive disorder. Mol Psychiatry 2011; 16(4): 383–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  84. 84.↵
    Marwaha S, Palmer E, Suppes T, Cons E, Young AH, Upthegrove R. Novel and emerging treatments for major depression. Lancet 2023; 401(10371): 141–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    Bright U, Akirav I. Modulation of Endocannabinoid System Components in Depression: Pre-Clinical and Clinical Evidence. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23(10).
  86. 86.↵
    Hasbi A, Madras BK, George SR. Endocannabinoid System and Exogenous Cannabinoids in Depression and Anxiety: A Review. Brain Sci 2023; 13(2).
  87. 87.↵
    Bousman CA, Stevenson JM, Ramsey LB, Sangkuhl K, Hicks JK, Strawn JR et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, SLC6A4, and HTR2A Genotypes and Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2023; 114(1): 51–68.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    Perlman K, Benrimoh D, Israel S, Rollins C, Brown E, Tunteng JF et al. A systematic meta-review of predictors of antidepressant treatment outcome in major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2019; 243: 503–515.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    Sternat T, Fotinos K, Fine A, Epstein I, Katzman MA. Low hedonic tone and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: risk factors for treatment resistance in depressed adults. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2018; 14: 2379–2387.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    Ginsberg Y, Quintero J, Anand E, Casillas M, Upadhyaya HP. Underdiagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult patients: a review of the literature. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2014; 16(3).
Back to top
Posted July 15, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Genome-wide meta-analyses of non-response to antidepressants identify novel loci and potential drugs
Elise Koch, Tuuli Jürgenson, Guðmundur Einarsson, Brittany Mitchell, Arvid Harder, Luis M. García-Marín, Kristi Krebs, Yuhao Lin, Ying Xiong, Estonian Biobank Research Team, Yi Lu, Sara Hägg, Miguel E. Rentería, Sarah E. Medland, Naomi R. Wray, Nicholas G. Martin, Christopher Hübel, Gerome Breen, Thorgeir Thorgeirsson, Hreinn Stefánsson, Kári Stefánsson, Lili Milani, Ole A. Andreassen, Kevin S. O’Connell
medRxiv 2024.07.13.24310361; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.13.24310361
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area