Back

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

Koch, E.; Jurgenson, T.; Einarsson, G.; Mitchell, B.; Harder, A.; Garcia-Marin, L. M.; Krebs, K.; Lin, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Research Team, E. B.; Lu, Y.; Hagg, S.; Renteria, M. E.; Medland, S. E.; Wray, N. R.; Martin, N. G.; Huebel, C.; Breen, G.; Thorgeirsson, T.; Stefansson, H.; Stefansson, K.; Milani, L.; Andreassen, O. A.; O'Connell, K. S.

2024-07-15 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.07.13.24310361 medRxiv
Show 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.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.