Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic Association Studies of Suicidal Behavior: A Review of the Past 10 Years, Progress, Limitations, and Future Directions

Open access
Mirkovic, Bojan, Laurent, Claudine, Podlipski, Marc-Antoine, Frebourg, Thierry, Cohen, David, Gerardin, Priscille·2016·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Suicidal behaviors (SBs), which range from suicidal ideation to suicide attempts and completed suicide, represent a fatal dimension of mental ill-health. The involvement of genetic risk factors in SB is supported by family, twin, and adoption studies. The aim of this paper is to review recent genetic association studies in SBs including (i) case-control studies, (ii) family-based association studies, and (iii) genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Various studies on genetic associations have tended to suggest that a number of genes [e.g., tryptophan hydroxylase, serotonin receptors and transporters, or brain-derived neurotrophic factors (BDNFs)] are linked to SBs, but these findings are not consistently supported by the results obtained. Although the candidate-gene approach is useful, it is hampered by the present state of knowledge concerning the pathophysiology of diseases. Interpretations of GWAS results are mostly hindered by a lack of annotation describing the functions of most variation throughout the genome. Association studies have addressed a wide range of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in numerous genes. We have included 104 such studies, of which 10 are family-based association studies and 11 are GWAS. Numerous meta-analyses of case-control studies have shown significant associations of SB with variants in the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT or SLC6A4) and the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 gene (TPH1), but others report contradictory results. The gene encoding BDNF and its receptor (NTRK2) are also promising candidates. Only two of the GWAS showed any significant associations. Several pathways are mentioned in an attempt to understand the lack of reproducibility and the disappointing results. Consequently, we review and discuss here the following aspects: (i) sample characteristics and confounding factors; (ii) statistical limits; (iii) gene-gene interactions; (iv) gene, environment, and by time interactions; and (v) technological and theoretical limits.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00158

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Mirkovic, B., Laurent, C., Podlipski, M.-A., Frebourg, T., Cohen, D., & Gerardin, P.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2016-09-23
Volume
7
Pages
158-158
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2523104094
Cited by
168
References
28
FWCI
27.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genetic Association Studies of Suicidal Behavior: A Review of the Past 10 Years, Progress, Limitations, and Future Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00158
The paper
Mirkovic, B., Laurent, C., Podlipski, M.-A., Frebourg, T., Cohen, D., & Gerardin, P. (2016). Genetic Association Studies of Suicidal Behavior: A Review of the Past 10 Years, Progress, Limitations, and Future Directions. Frontiers in Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00158

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.