Poor replication of candidate genes for major depressive disorder using genome-wide association data
Open accessAbstract
Data from the Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN) genome-wide association study (GWAS) in major depressive disorder (MDD) were used to explore previously reported candidate gene and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations in MDD. A systematic literature search of candidate genes associated with MDD in case-control studies was performed before the results of the GAIN MDD study became available. Measured and imputed candidate SNPs and genes were tested in the GAIN MDD study encompassing 1738 cases and 1802 controls. Imputation was used to increase the number of SNPs from the GWAS and to improve coverage of SNPs in the candidate genes selected. Tests were carried out for individual SNPs and the entire gene using different statistical approaches, with permutation analysis as the final arbiter. In all, 78 papers reporting on 57 genes were identified, from which 92 SNPs could be mapped. In the GAIN MDD study, two SNPs were associated with MDD: C5orf20 (rs12520799; P=0.038; odds ratio (OR) AT=1.10, 95% CI 0.95-1.29; OR TT=1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.47) and NPY (rs16139; P=0.034; OR C allele=0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97), constituting a direct replication of previously identified SNPs. At the gene level, TNF (rs76917; OR T=1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.63; P=0.0034) was identified as the only gene for which the association with MDD remained significant after correction for multiple testing. For SLC6A2 (norepinephrine transporter (NET)) significantly more SNPs (19 out of 100; P=0.039) than expected were associated while accounting for the linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure. Thus, we found support for involvement in MDD for only four genes. However, given the number of candidate SNPs and genes that were tested, even these significant may well be false positives. The poor replication may point to publication bias and false-positive findings in previous candidate gene studies, and may also be related to heterogeneity of the MDD phenotype as well as contextual genetic or environmental factors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Human genome-wide association studies have largely failed to identify reproducible gene loci that contribute significantly to major depressive disorder.
“Supporting this notion, human genome-wide association studies have largely failed to identify reproducible gene loci that contribute significantly to the disease.”
From Epigenetic mechanisms of major depression: Targeting neuronal plasticity (2018) · cites this paper as [5]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 103 · Cited by 309
- Authors
- Bosker, F. J., Hartman, C. A., Nolte, I. M., Prins, B. P., Terpstra, P., Posthuma, D., van Veen, T., Willemsen, G., DeRijk, R. H., de Geus, E. J., Hoogendijk, W. J., Sullivan, P. F., Penninx, B. W., Boomsma, D. I., Snieder, H., & Nolen, W. A.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bosker, F J
- ORCID
- Venue
- Molecular Psychiatry
- Published
- 2010-03-30
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 516-532
- ISSN
- 1359-4184 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5578
- OpenAlex
- W2131533686
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 14.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, candidate genes, single nucleotide polymorphisms, replication failure, genetic association, neuropeptide Y, TNF-α, norepinephrine transporter, publication bias, false positives, linkage disequilibrium, imputation, permutation analysis, case-control study
- MeSH terms
- Major Depressive Disorder, Gene Frequency, Genotype, Humans, Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neuropeptide Y, Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, Linkage Disequilibrium, Odds Ratio, Computational Biology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, PubMed, Norepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins, Genome-Wide Association Study
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