The Institute for Behavioral Genetics (Border, Johnson, Evans, Smolen, Keller), the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience (Border, Berley, Keller), the Department of Applied Mathematics (Border), and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Evans), University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder; the Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (Johnson); the Department of Genetics and Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Sullivan); and the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm (Sullivan).
Am J Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;176(5):376-387. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
Interest in candidate gene and candidate gene-by-environment interaction hypotheses regarding major depressive disorder remains strong despite controversy surrounding the validity of previous findings. In response to this controversy, the present investigation empirically identified 18 candidate genes for depression that have been studied 10 or more times and examined evidence for their relevance to depression phenotypes.
Utilizing data from large population-based and case-control samples (Ns ranging from 62,138 to 443,264 across subsamples), the authors conducted a series of preregistered analyses examining candidate gene polymorphism main effects, polymorphism-by-environment interactions, and gene-level effects across a number of operational definitions of depression (e.g., lifetime diagnosis, current severity, episode recurrence) and environmental moderators (e.g., sexual or physical abuse during childhood, socioeconomic adversity).
No clear evidence was found for any candidate gene polymorphism associations with depression phenotypes or any polymorphism-by-environment moderator effects. As a set, depression candidate genes were no more associated with depression phenotypes than noncandidate genes. The authors demonstrate that phenotypic measurement error is unlikely to account for these null findings.
The study results do not support previous depression candidate gene findings, in which large genetic effects are frequently reported in samples orders of magnitude smaller than those examined here. Instead, the results suggest that early hypotheses about depression candidate genes were incorrect and that the large number of associations reported in the depression candidate gene literature are likely to be false positives.
尽管先前研究结果的有效性存在争议,但人们对候选基因和候选基因-环境相互作用假说在重度抑郁症方面的兴趣仍然很强。针对这一争议,本研究通过实证方法确定了 18 个候选基因,这些基因已经被研究了 10 次或更多次,并检验了它们与抑郁表型相关性的证据。
利用来自大型基于人群和病例对照样本的数据(各亚组的样本量从 62138 到 443264 不等),作者进行了一系列预先注册的分析,考察了候选基因多态性主效应、多态性-环境相互作用以及多个抑郁操作定义(例如,终生诊断、当前严重程度、发作复发)和环境调节剂(例如,儿童时期的性或身体虐待、社会经济逆境)上的基因水平效应。
没有明确的证据表明候选基因多态性与抑郁表型或任何多态性-环境调节效应有关。作为一个整体,抑郁候选基因与抑郁表型的相关性并不比非候选基因更强。作者表明,表型测量误差不太可能解释这些无效发现。
研究结果不支持先前的抑郁候选基因发现,即在比这里研究的样本小几个数量级的样本中,经常报告出较大的遗传效应。相反,研究结果表明,早期关于抑郁候选基因的假设是不正确的,而且在抑郁候选基因文献中报告的大量关联很可能是假阳性。