Brenda Cabrera1,2, Nancy Monroy-Jaramillo3, Gabriel Rodrigo Fries4, Roberto Cuauhtemoc Mendoza-Morales5, Fernando García-Dolores5, Alejandra Mendoza-Larios5, Carlos Diaz-Otañez5, Consuelo Walss-Bass4, David Colin Glahn6,7, Patricia Ostrosky-Wegman8, Cristobal Fresno9, Humberto Nicolini1. 1. Genomics of Psychiatric and Neurodegenerative Diseases Laboratory, National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN), Mexico City, Mexico. 2. PECEM, Faculty of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 3. Department of Genetics, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City, Mexico. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Institute of Forensic Sciences (INCIFO), Mexico City, Mexico. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 7. Olin Neuropsychiatric Research Center, Institute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. 8. Biomedical Research Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 9. Computational Genomics Department, National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN), Mexico City, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Although individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) are at high risk of committing suicide, most studies of postmortem gene expression exclude subjects with SUD due to the potential confounding effect of drugs in the transcriptome. Thus, little is known about the gene expression profile in suicides with SUD. The identification of altered biological processes in suicides with SUD is crucial in the comprehension of the interaction between both pathologies. METHODS: We evaluated the gene expression profile in the dorsolateral prefrontal area of suicides and nonsuicides with and without SUD by microarrays. RESULTS: We identified 222 differentially expressed genes, predominately enriched in cell proliferation in the comparison between suicides with and without SUD. When comparing the transcriptome of suicides with SUD to nonsuicides with SUD, we identified 550 differentially expressed genes, mainly enriched in oxidative phosphorylation. Differentially expressed genes (1,417) between suicides and nonsuicides without SUD were detected. Most of them were related to mitochondrial function. CONCLUSION: Interaction between suicide and SUD seems to influence the expression of genes involved in glial proliferation and glutamatergic neurotransmission. These results highlight, for the first time, that suicides with SUD have a gene expression profile distinct from that of subjects with only one of these disorders.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Although individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) are at high risk of committing suicide, most studies of postmortem gene expression exclude subjects with SUD due to the potential confounding effect of drugs in the transcriptome. Thus, little is known about the gene expression profile in suicides with SUD. The identification of altered biological processes in suicides with SUD is crucial in the comprehension of the interaction between both pathologies. METHODS: We evaluated the gene expression profile in the dorsolateral prefrontal area of suicides and nonsuicides with and without SUD by microarrays. RESULTS: We identified 222 differentially expressed genes, predominately enriched in cell proliferation in the comparison between suicides with and without SUD. When comparing the transcriptome of suicides with SUD to nonsuicides with SUD, we identified 550 differentially expressed genes, mainly enriched in oxidative phosphorylation. Differentially expressed genes (1,417) between suicides and nonsuicides without SUD were detected. Most of them were related to mitochondrial function. CONCLUSION: Interaction between suicide and SUD seems to influence the expression of genes involved in glial proliferation and glutamatergic neurotransmission. These results highlight, for the first time, that suicides with SUD have a gene expression profile distinct from that of subjects with only one of these disorders.
Authors: Cary D Austin; David A Lawrence; Andrew A Peden; Eugene E Varfolomeev; Klara Totpal; Ann M De Mazière; Judith Klumperman; David Arnott; Victoria Pham; Richard H Scheller; Avi Ashkenazi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-06-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: José Javier Miguel-Hidalgo; Jinrong Wei; Michael Andrew; James C Overholser; George Jurjus; Craig A Stockmeier; Grazyna Rajkowska Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2002-12-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: P V Choudary; M Molnar; S J Evans; H Tomita; J Z Li; M P Vawter; R M Myers; W E Bunney; H Akil; S J Watson; E G Jones Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Douglas A Hosack; Glynn Dennis; Brad T Sherman; H Clifford Lane; Richard A Lempicki Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2003-09-11 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Marta Krzyżanowska; Krzysztof Rębała; Johann Steiner; Michał Kaliszan; Dorota Pieśniak; Karol Karnecki; Marek Wiergowski; Ralf Brisch; Katharina Braun; Zbigniew Jankowski; Monika Kosmowska; Joanna Chociej; Tomasz Gos Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Min Ji Kim; Misol Do; Dohyun Han; Minsoo Son; Dongyoon Shin; Injoon Yeo; Young Hyun Yun; Seong Ho Yoo; Hyung Jin Choi; Daun Shin; Sang Jin Rhee; Yong Min Ahn; Youngsoo Kim Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: A Costanza; A Amerio; A Aguglia; G Serafini; M Amore; R Hasler; J Ambrosetti; G Bondolfi; G Sampogna; I Berardelli; A Fiorillo; M Pompili; K D Nguyen Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 9.052