Cited by 33Treatment of Major DepressionEpigenetics and DNA MethylationNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Moving pharmacoepigenetics tools for depression toward clinical use

Open access
Hack, Laura M., Fries, Gabriel R., Eyre, Harris A., Bousman, Chad A., Singh, Ajeet B., Quevedo, Joao, John, Vineeth P., Baune, Bernhard T. +1 more·2019·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and over half of patients do not achieve symptom remission following an initial antidepressant course. Despite evidence implicating a strong genetic basis for the pathophysiology of MDD, there are no adequately validated biomarkers of treatment response routinely used in clinical practice. Pharmacoepigenetics is an emerging field that has the potential to combine both genetic and environmental information into treatment selection and further the goal of precision psychiatry. However, this field is in its infancy compared to the more established pharmacogenetics approaches.Methods We prepared a narrative review using literature searches of studies in English pertaining to pharmacoepigenetics and treatment of depressive disorders conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychINFO, and Ovid Medicine from inception through January 2019. We reviewed studies of DNA methylation and histone modifications in both humans and animal models of depression.Results Emerging evidence from human and animal work suggests a key role for epigenetic marks, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, in the prediction of antidepressant response. The challenges of heterogeneity of patient characteristics and loci studied as well as lack of replication that have impacted the field of pharmacogenetics also pose challenges to the development of pharmacoepigenetic tools. Additionally, given the tissue specific nature of epigenetic marks as well as their susceptibility to change in response to environmental factors and aging, pharmacoepigenetic tools face additional challenges to their development.Limitations This is a narrative and not systematic review of the literature on the pharmacoepigenetics of antidepressant response. We highlight key studies pertaining to pharmacoepigenetics and treatment of depressive disorders in humans and depressive-like behaviors in animal models, regardless of sample size or methodology. While we discuss DNA methylation and histone modifications, we do not cover microRNAs, which have been reviewed elsewhere recently.Conclusions Utilization of genome-wide approaches and reproducible epigenetic assays, careful selection of the tissue assessed, and integration of genetic and clinical information into pharmacoepigenetic tools will improve the likelihood of developing clinically useful tests.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2019.02.009

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Papakostas GI, 2008 Tolerability of modern antidepressants. J Clin Psychiatry 69 Suppl E1, 8– 13. 18494538

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hack, L. M., Fries, G. R., Eyre, H. A., Bousman, C. A., Singh, A. B., Quevedo, J., John, V. P., Baune, B. T., & Dunlop, B. W.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Texas Medical Center (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Hack, Laura M.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
249
Pages
336-346
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914765414
Cited by
33
References
107
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R25MH101079)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
pharmacoepigenetics, major depressive disorder, antidepressant response, DNA methylation, histone modifications, epigenetic biomarkers, precision psychiatry, animal models of depression, clinical translation
MeSH terms
Animals, Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Pharmacogenetics, DNA Methylation, MicroRNAs, Precision Medicine, Epigenomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review