Cited by 91Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderEpigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Large epigenome-wide association study of childhood ADHD identifies peripheral DNA methylation associated with disease and polygenic risk burden

Open access
Mooney, Michael A., Ryabinin, Peter, Wilmot, Beth, Bhatt, Priya, Mill, Jonathan, Nigg, Joel T.·2020·Translational Psychiatry

Abstract

Epigenetic variation in peripheral tissues is being widely studied as a molecular biomarker of complex disease and disease-related exposures. To date, few studies have examined differences in DNA methylation associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In this study, we profiled genetic and methylomic variation across the genome in saliva samples from children (age 7-12 years) with clinically established ADHD (N = 391) and nonpsychiatric controls (N = 213). We tested for differentially methylated positions (DMPs) associated with both ADHD diagnosis and ADHD polygenic risk score, by using linear regression models including smoking, medication effects, and other potential confounders in our statistical models. Our results support previously reported associations between ADHD and DNA methylation levels at sites annotated to VIPR2, and identify several novel disease-associated DMPs (p < 1e-5), although none of them were genome-wide significant. The two top-ranked, ADHD-associated DMPs (cg17478313 annotated to SLC7A8 and cg21609804 annotated to MARK2) are also significantly associated with nearby SNPs (p = 1.2e-46 and p = 2.07e-59), providing evidence that disease-associated DMPs are under genetic control. We also report a genome-wide significant association between ADHD polygenic risk and variable DNA methylation at a site annotated to the promoter of GART and SON (p = 6.71E-8). Finally, we show that ADHD-associated SNPs colocalize with SNPs associated with methylation levels in saliva. This is the first large-scale study of DNA methylation in children with ADHD. Our results represent novel epigenetic biomarkers for ADHD that may be useful for patient stratification, reinforce the importance of genetic effects on DNA methylation, and provide plausible molecular mechanisms for ADHD risk variants.

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 · 10.1038/s41398-020-0710-4

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Some studies link neurodevelopmental risk for ADHD to differences in SLC6A4 methylation patterns although these findings are mixed.

    “Some studies link neurodevelopmental risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to differences in SLC6A4 methylation patterns although these findings are mixed”

    From The clinical use of epigenetics in psychiatry: a narrative review of epigenetic mechanisms, key candidate genes, and precision psychiatry (2025) · cites this paper as [108]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes small candidate-gene studies of ADHD methylation, and the References list a study of SLC6A4 methylation in children with ADHD. The cited paper does not say that findings specifically for SLC6A4 are mixed or establish that its methylation differences indicate neurodevelopmental risk; its own reported ADHD-associated sites are in other genes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mooney, M. A., Ryabinin, P., Wilmot, B., Bhatt, P., Mill, J., & Nigg, J. T.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Nigg, Joel T.
Venue
Translational Psychiatry
Published
2020-01-21
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
8-8
ISSN
2158-3188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001853670
Cited by
91
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 4
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Royal Devon and Exeter Research Repository (Royal Devon and Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH099064)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood ADHD, DNA methylation, saliva, polygenic risk score, differentially methylated positions, VIPR2, SLC7A8, MARK2, GART, sons, epigenetic biomarkers
MeSH terms
Epigenome, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, DNA Methylation, Multifactorial Inheritance, 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