H M van Loo1, C D Van Borkulo2, R E Peterson3, E I Fried2, S H Aggen4, D Borsboom2, K S Kendler5. 1. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen The Netherlands. Electronic address: h.van.loo@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 5. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic risk and environmental adversity-both important risk factors for major depression (MD)-are thought to differentially impact on depressive symptom types and associations. Does heterogeneity in these risk factors result in different depressive symptom networks in patients with MD? METHODS: A clinical sample of 5784 Han Chinese women with recurrent MD were interviewed about their depressive symptoms during their lifetime worst episode of MD. The cases were classified into subgroups based on their genetic risk for MD (family history, polygenic risk score, early age at onset) and severe adversity (childhood sexual abuse, stressful life events). Differences in MD symptom network structure were statistically examined for these subgroups using permutation-based network comparison tests. RESULTS: Although significant differences in symptom endorsement rates were seen in 18.8% of group comparisons, associations between depressive symptoms were similar across the different subgroups of genetic and environmental risk. Network comparison tests showed no significant differences in network strength, structure, or specific edges (P-value > 0.05) and correlations between edges were strong (0.60-0.71). LIMITATIONS: This study analyzed depressive symptoms retrospectively reported by severely depressed women using novel statistical methods. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether similar findings hold in prospective longitudinal data, less severely depressed patients, and men. CONCLUSIONS: Similar depressive symptom networks for MD patients with a higher or lower genetic or environmental risk suggest that differences in these etiological influences may produce similar symptom networks downstream for severely depressed women.
BACKGROUND: Genetic risk and environmental adversity-both important risk factors for major depression (MD)-are thought to differentially impact on depressive symptom types and associations. Does heterogeneity in these risk factors result in different depressive symptom networks in patients with MD? METHODS: A clinical sample of 5784 Han Chinese women with recurrent MD were interviewed about their depressive symptoms during their lifetime worst episode of MD. The cases were classified into subgroups based on their genetic risk for MD (family history, polygenic risk score, early age at onset) and severe adversity (childhood sexual abuse, stressful life events). Differences in MD symptom network structure were statistically examined for these subgroups using permutation-based network comparison tests. RESULTS: Although significant differences in symptom endorsement rates were seen in 18.8% of group comparisons, associations between depressive symptoms were similar across the different subgroups of genetic and environmental risk. Network comparison tests showed no significant differences in network strength, structure, or specific edges (P-value > 0.05) and correlations between edges were strong (0.60-0.71). LIMITATIONS: This study analyzed depressive symptoms retrospectively reported by severely depressed women using novel statistical methods. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether similar findings hold in prospective longitudinal data, less severely depressed patients, and men. CONCLUSIONS: Similar depressive symptom networks for MD patients with a higher or lower genetic or environmental risk suggest that differences in these etiological influences may produce similar symptom networks downstream for severely depressed women.
Authors: Eiko I Fried; Claudia D van Borkulo; Sacha Epskamp; Robert A Schoevers; Francis Tuerlinckx; Denny Borsboom Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2016-01-28
Authors: Shaun Purcell; Benjamin Neale; Kathe Todd-Brown; Lori Thomas; Manuel A R Ferreira; David Bender; Julian Maller; Pamela Sklar; Paul I W de Bakker; Mark J Daly; Pak C Sham Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Judith Verduijn; Yuri Milaneschi; Wouter J Peyrot; Jouke Jan Hottenga; Abdel Abdellaoui; Eco J C de Geus; Johannes H Smit; Gerome Breen; Cathryn M Lewis; Dorret I Boomsma; Aartjan T F Beekman; Brenda W J H Penninx Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Robert A Power; Katherine E Tansey; Henriette Nørmølle Buttenschøn; Sarah Cohen-Woods; Tim Bigdeli; Lynsey S Hall; Zoltán Kutalik; S Hong Lee; Stephan Ripke; Stacy Steinberg; Alexander Teumer; Alexander Viktorin; Naomi R Wray; Volker Arolt; Bernard T Baune; Dorret I Boomsma; Anders D Børglum; Enda M Byrne; Enrique Castelao; Nick Craddock; Ian W Craig; Udo Dannlowski; Ian J Deary; Franziska Degenhardt; Andreas J Forstner; Scott D Gordon; Hans J Grabe; Jakob Grove; Steven P Hamilton; Caroline Hayward; Andrew C Heath; Lynne J Hocking; Georg Homuth; Jouke J Hottenga; Stefan Kloiber; Jesper Krogh; Mikael Landén; Maren Lang; Douglas F Levinson; Paul Lichtenstein; Susanne Lucae; Donald J MacIntyre; Pamela Madden; Patrik K E Magnusson; Nicholas G Martin; Andrew M McIntosh; Christel M Middeldorp; Yuri Milaneschi; Grant W Montgomery; Ole Mors; Bertram Müller-Myhsok; Dale R Nyholt; Hogni Oskarsson; Michael J Owen; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Brenda W J H Penninx; Michele L Pergadia; David J Porteous; James B Potash; Martin Preisig; Margarita Rivera; Jianxin Shi; Stanley I Shyn; Engilbert Sigurdsson; Johannes H Smit; Blair H Smith; Hreinn Stefansson; Kari Stefansson; Jana Strohmaier; Patrick F Sullivan; Pippa Thomson; Thorgeir E Thorgeirsson; Sandra Van der Auwera; Myrna M Weissman; Gerome Breen; Cathryn M Lewis Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Stijn de Vos; Klaas J Wardenaar; Elisabeth H Bos; Ernst C Wit; Mara E J Bouwmans; Peter de Jonge Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liliana Garcia-Mondragon; Deniz Konac; Joanne B Newbury; Katherine S Young; Alex Ing; Anna E Fürtjes; Edward D Barker Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Grant L Iverson; Payton J Jones; Justin E Karr; Bruce Maxwell; Ross Zafonte; Paul D Berkner; Richard J McNally Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Eleonore D van Sprang; Dominique F Maciejewski; Yuri Milaneschi; Bernet M Elzinga; Aartjan T F Beekman; Catharina A Hartman; Albert M van Hemert; Brenda W J H Penninx Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 7.723