TY - JOUR
T1 - No support for historical candidate gene or candidate gene-by-interaction hypotheses for major depression across multiple large samples
AU - Border, Richard
AU - Johnson, Emma C.
AU - Evans, Luke M.
AU - Smolen, Andrew
AU - Berley, Noah
AU - Sullivan, Patrick F.
AU - Keller, Matthew C.
N1 - Funding Information:
Mr. Border was supported by NIMH grant T32 MH016880 and the Institute for Behavioral Genetics. Dr. Sullivan was supported by NIMH grant U01 MH109528 and the Swedish Research Council (D0886501). Drs. Evans and Keller were supported by NIMH grant 2RO1 MH100141 and the Institute for Behavioral Genetics. This research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under application numbers 1665, 16651, and 24795. This work utilized the RMACC Summit supercomputer, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (awards ACI-1532235 and ACI-1532236), the University of Colorado Boulder, and Colorado State University. The Summit supercomputer is a joint effort of the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University. The authors thank SURFsara (www.surfsara.nl) for support in using the Lisa Compute Cluster. They also thank the research participants of the PGC and UK Biobank, and the employees of 23andMe for their contribution to this study. Dr. Sullivan has received grant support from Lundbeck, served on advisory committees for Lundbeck and Pfizer, received consulting fees from Element Genomics, and received speaking fees from Roche; his spouse has received grant support from and served on a scientific advisory board for Shire and receives royalties from Pearson and Walker. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/5
Y1 - 2019/5
N2 - Objective: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
AB - Objective: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065510660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881
DO - 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881
M3 - Article
C2 - 30845820
AN - SCOPUS:85065510660
VL - 176
SP - 376
EP - 387
JO - American Journal of Psychiatry
JF - American Journal of Psychiatry
SN - 0002-953X
IS - 5
ER -