Kelly M Bakulski1, Alycia Halladay2, Valerie W Hu3, Jonathan Mill4, M Daniele Fallin5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Autism Science Foundation, New York City, New York, USA; Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. 3. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 4. University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Wendy Klag Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence has linked neuropsychiatric disorders with epigenetic marks as either a biomarker of disease, biomarker of exposure, or mechanism of disease processes. Neuropsychiatric epidemiologic studies using either target brain tissue or surrogate blood tissue each have methodological challenges and distinct advantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Brain tissue studies are challenged by small sample sizes of cases and controls, incomplete phenotyping, post-mortem timing, and cellular heterogeneity, but the use of a primary disease relevant tissue is critical. Blood-based studies have access to much larger sample sizes and more replication opportunities, as well as the potential for longitudinal measurements, both prior to onset and during the course of treatments. Yet, blood studies also are challenged by cell-type heterogeneity, and many question the validity of using peripheral tissues as a brain biomarker. Emerging evidence suggests that these limitations to blood-based epigenetic studies are surmountable, but confirmation in target tissue remains important. SUMMARY: Epigenetic mechanisms have the potential to help elucidate biology connecting experiential risk factors with neuropsychiatric disease manifestation. Cross-tissue studies as well as advanced epidemiologic methods should be employed to more effectively conduct neuropsychiatric epigenetic research.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence has linked neuropsychiatric disorders with epigenetic marks as either a biomarker of disease, biomarker of exposure, or mechanism of disease processes. Neuropsychiatric epidemiologic studies using either target brain tissue or surrogate blood tissue each have methodological challenges and distinct advantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Brain tissue studies are challenged by small sample sizes of cases and controls, incomplete phenotyping, post-mortem timing, and cellular heterogeneity, but the use of a primary disease relevant tissue is critical. Blood-based studies have access to much larger sample sizes and more replication opportunities, as well as the potential for longitudinal measurements, both prior to onset and during the course of treatments. Yet, blood studies also are challenged by cell-type heterogeneity, and many question the validity of using peripheral tissues as a brain biomarker. Emerging evidence suggests that these limitations to blood-based epigenetic studies are surmountable, but confirmation in target tissue remains important. SUMMARY: Epigenetic mechanisms have the potential to help elucidate biology connecting experiential risk factors with neuropsychiatric disease manifestation. Cross-tissue studies as well as advanced epidemiologic methods should be employed to more effectively conduct neuropsychiatric epigenetic research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood; DNA methylation; Epigenetics; Neuropsychiatric disorders; Tissue
Authors: Erin R Ewald; Gary S Wand; Fayaz Seifuddin; Xiaoju Yang; Kellie L Tamashiro; James B Potash; Peter Zandi; Richard S Lee Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Jennifer A Rusiecki; Celia Byrne; Zygmunt Galdzicki; Vasantha Srikantan; Ligong Chen; Matthew Poulin; Liying Yan; Andrea Baccarelli Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: E R Gamazon; J A Badner; L Cheng; C Zhang; D Zhang; N J Cox; E S Gershon; J R Kelsoe; T A Greenwood; C M Nievergelt; C Chen; R McKinney; P D Shilling; N J Schork; E N Smith; C S Bloss; J I Nurnberger; H J Edenberg; T Foroud; D L Koller; W A Scheftner; W Coryell; J Rice; W B Lawson; E A Nwulia; M Hipolito; W Byerley; F J McMahon; T G Schulze; W H Berrettini; J B Potash; P P Zandi; P B Mahon; M G McInnis; S Zöllner; P Zhang; D W Craig; S Szelinger; T B Barrett; C Liu Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Sarah J Marzi; Emma L Meaburn; Emma L Dempster; Katie Lunnon; Jose L Paya-Cano; Rebecca G Smith; Manuela Volta; Claire Troakes; Leonard C Schalkwyk; Jonathan Mill Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Anshul Kundaje; Wouter Meuleman; Jason Ernst; Misha Bilenky; Angela Yen; Alireza Heravi-Moussavi; Pouya Kheradpour; Zhizhuo Zhang; Jianrong Wang; Michael J Ziller; Viren Amin; John W Whitaker; Matthew D Schultz; Lucas D Ward; Abhishek Sarkar; Gerald Quon; Richard S Sandstrom; Matthew L Eaton; Yi-Chieh Wu; Andreas R Pfenning; Xinchen Wang; Melina Claussnitzer; Yaping Liu; Cristian Coarfa; R Alan Harris; Noam Shoresh; Charles B Epstein; Elizabeta Gjoneska; Danny Leung; Wei Xie; R David Hawkins; Ryan Lister; Chibo Hong; Philippe Gascard; Andrew J Mungall; Richard Moore; Eric Chuah; Angela Tam; Theresa K Canfield; R Scott Hansen; Rajinder Kaul; Peter J Sabo; Mukul S Bansal; Annaick Carles; Jesse R Dixon; Kai-How Farh; Soheil Feizi; Rosa Karlic; Ah-Ram Kim; Ashwinikumar Kulkarni; Daofeng Li; Rebecca Lowdon; GiNell Elliott; Tim R Mercer; Shane J Neph; Vitor Onuchic; Paz Polak; Nisha Rajagopal; Pradipta Ray; Richard C Sallari; Kyle T Siebenthall; Nicholas A Sinnott-Armstrong; Michael Stevens; Robert E Thurman; Jie Wu; Bo Zhang; Xin Zhou; Arthur E Beaudet; Laurie A Boyer; Philip L De Jager; Peggy J Farnham; Susan J Fisher; David Haussler; Steven J M Jones; Wei Li; Marco A Marra; Michael T McManus; Shamil Sunyaev; James A Thomson; Thea D Tlsty; Li-Huei Tsai; Wei Wang; Robert A Waterland; Michael Q Zhang; Lisa H Chadwick; Bradley E Bernstein; Joseph F Costello; Joseph R Ecker; Martin Hirst; Alexander Meissner; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Bing Ren; John A Stamatoyannopoulos; Ting Wang; Manolis Kellis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Peter D Fransquet; Paul Lacaze; Richard Saffery; John McNeil; Robyn Woods; Joanne Ryan Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: José Luis García-Giménez; Marta Seco-Cervera; Trygve O Tollefsbol; Carlos Romá-Mateo; Lorena Peiró-Chova; Pablo Lapunzina; Federico V Pallardó Journal: Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 6.250
Authors: Christine A Rygiel; Jaclyn M Goodrich; Maritsa Solano-González; Adriana Mercado-García; Howard Hu; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Karen E Peterson; Dana C Dolinoy Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 11.035