| Literature DB >> 26010658 |
Jeffrey A Gross1, Alexandre Bureau2, Jordie Croteau2, Hanga Galfalvy3, Maria A Oquendo4, Fatemeh Haghighi3, Chantal Mérette2, Ina Giegling5, Colin Hodgkinson6, David Goldman6, Dan Rujescu5, J John Mann4, Gustavo Turecki1.
Abstract
Suicide and suicide attempts are complex behaviors that result from the interaction of different factors, including genetic variants that increase the predisposition to suicidal behaviors. Copy number variations (CNVs) are deletions or duplications of a segment of DNA usually larger than one kilobase. These structural genetic changes, although quite rare, have been associated with genetic liability to mental disorders, such as autism, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. No genome-wide level studies have been published investigating the potential role of CNVs in suicidal behaviors. Based on single-nucleotide polymorphism array data, we followed the Penn-CNV standards to detect CNVs in 1,608 subjects, comprising 475 suicide and suicide attempt cases and 1,133 controls. Although the initial algorithms determined the presence of CNVs on chromosomes 6 and 12 in seven and eight cases, respectively, compared with none of the controls, visual inspection of the raw data did not support this finding. Furthermore we were unable to validate these findings by CNV-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction. Additionally, rare CNV burden analysis did not find an association between the frequency or length of rare CNVs and suicidal behavior in our sample population. Although our findings suggest CNVs do not play an important role in the etiology of suicidal behaviors, they are not inconsistent with the strong evidence from the literature suggesting that other genetic variants account for a portion of the total phenotypic variability in suicidal behavior.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26010658 PMCID: PMC4444178 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128369
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic information on subjects.
| Mean Age (years) | Sex (M/F) | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Alive | 37.1 | 452/551 |
| Dead | 49.8 | 103/27 |
|
|
|
|
| Suicide Attempters | 42.7 | 79/120 |
| Suicide Completers | 45.6 | 204/72 |
Table 1 shows the mean ages and the ratio of males (M) to females (F) for all 1608 subjects used in the CNV analyses, separated by phenotype.
Power calculations for global CNV detection.
| Frequency | Odds Ratio | Power |
|---|---|---|
| 0.01 | 2.0 | 0.37 |
| 0.01 | 2.5 | 0.60 |
| 0.05 | 1.5 | 0.45 |
| 0.05 | 2.0 | 0.90 |
| 0.10 | 1.4 | 0.52 |
| 0.10 | 1.5 | 0.69 |
| 0.20 | 1.2 | 0.29 |
| 0.20 | 1.3 | 0.52 |
Table 2 shows the combinations of frequencies and odds ratios that were selected based on the principle that highly deleterious mutations, being those with high odds ratios, are more likely to be selected out of a population. As such, their frequencies would tend to remain low. Similarly, less deleterious mutations are likely to become more frequent in a given population.
Fig 1Distribution of CNV calls per subject.
The figure represents a histogram with the frequency of CNV calls, with at least 30 probes, per subject.
CNV burden analyses using multiple parameters.
| Total | p value | OR | Power | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0.1% | 1,363 | 0.18 | 1.07 | 0.53 |
| ≤ 0.5% | 3,134 | 1.0 | 1.01 | 0.02 |
| ≤ 1.0% | 3,987 | 1.0 | 1.02 | 0.13 |
|
| ||||
| ≥ 100kb | 3,289 | 1.0 | 1.03 | 0.10 |
| ≥ 200kb | 1,251 | 1.0 | 1.09 | 0.19 |
| ≥ 500kb | 192 | 0.91 | 0.746 | 0.20 |
Table 3 shows the effect of CNV burden based on the frequencies or sizes of the CNVs.
ap values are Bonferroni corrected
bOR: Odds Ratios for each additional CNV
Fig 2Validation of CNV call from SNP-array data does not confirm the presence of a CNV on Chromosomes 6 and 12.
Seven (chromosome 6) or eight (chromosome 12) cases (grey) and eight controls (black) were probed with a TaqMan Copy Number Assay to determine the presence of a CNV. This probe was normalized to the RNase P endogenous control. Data shown represents the calculated copy number ± the copy number range, as determined by CopyCaller 2.0.