| Literature DB >> 32967293 |
Franc Casanova Ferrer1,2, María Pascual3,4, Marta R Hidalgo1, Pablo Malmierca-Merlo1,5, Consuelo Guerri4, Francisco García-García1,6.
Abstract
The abuse of alcohol, one of the most popular psychoactive substances, can cause several pathological and psychological consequences, including alcohol use disorder (AUD). An impaired ability to stop or control alcohol intake despite adverse health or social consequences characterize AUD. While AUDs predominantly occur in men, growing evidence suggests the existence of distinct cognitive and biological consequences of alcohol dependence in women. The molecular and physiological mechanisms participating in these differential effects remain unknown. Transcriptomic technology permits the detection of the biological mechanisms responsible for such sex-based differences, which supports the subsequent development of novel personalized therapeutics to treat AUD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of transcriptomics studies regarding alcohol dependence in humans with representation from both sexes. For each study, we processed and analyzed transcriptomic data to obtain a functional profile of pathways and biological functions and then integrated the resulting data by meta-analysis to characterize any sex-based transcriptomic differences associated with AUD. Global results of the transcriptomic analysis revealed the association of decreased tissue regeneration, embryo malformations, altered intracellular transport, and increased rate of RNA and protein replacement with female AUD patients. Meanwhile, our analysis indicated that increased inflammatory response and blood pressure and a reduction in DNA repair capabilities are associated with male AUD patients. In summary, our functional meta-analysis of transcriptomic studies provides evidence for differential biological mechanisms of AUD patients of differing sex.Entities:
Keywords: alcohol use disorders; functional profiling; meta-analysis; sex characteristics; transcriptomics
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32967293 PMCID: PMC7564639 DOI: 10.3390/genes11091106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1(a) Data-analysis workflow. (b) Principal Component Analysis plot in the GSE44456 study. (c) Clustering. (d) A forest plot of the GO:1900391, showing the LOR (log odds ratio) of each study and the global result. (e) Funnel plot of the GO:2001028; dots in the white area indicates the absence of bias and heterogeneity.
Figure 2Flow diagram of the systematic review and selection of studies for meta-analysis according to PRISMA statement guidelines.
Studies selected for analysis after the systematic review. GEO (Gene Expression Omnibus) accession number, platform used, number of samples, sample tissue and citation number are included.
| GEO Accession | Platform | Number of Samples | Sample Tissue | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSE44456 1 | GPL6244 Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array | 39 | Hippocampus | McClintick, J. et al. [ |
| GSE49376 2 | GPL10904 Illumina HumanHT-12 V4.0 expression beadchip | 48 | Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex | Xu, H. et al. [ |
| GSE52553 3 | GPL570 Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array | 42 | Immortalized lymphoblasts from blood samples | McClintick, J. et al. [ |
| GSE59206 4 | GPL10558 Illumina HumanHT-12 V4.0 expression beadchip | 22 | Whole blood | Beech, R. et al. [ |
1https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE44456. 2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE49376. 3https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE52553. 4https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE59206.
Figure 3Distribution of samples by sex and addiction status in each of the studies analyzed.
Number of significant GO terms and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways in each study after applying GSEA. Positive and negative LOR represent overrepresentation in women with AUD and men with AUD, respectively.
| GO Terms | KEGG Pathways | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies | Positive LOR | Negative LOR | Positive LOR | Negative LOR |
| GSE44456 1 | 1208 | 703 | 39 | 25 |
| GSE49376 2 | 449 | 802 | 16 | 25 |
| GSE52553 3 | 7 | 66 | 0 | 2 |
| GSE59206 4 | 113 | 14 | 5 | 0 |
1https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE44456. 2https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE49376. 3https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE52553. 4https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE59206.
Figure 4UpSet plots showing the number of common and specific GO functions in women (a) and men (b).
Number of significant GO terms and KEGG pathways resulting from each meta-analysis. Positive and negative LOR represent overrepresentation in female and male AUD patients, respectively.
| Ontology/Database | Positive LOR | Negative LOR |
|---|---|---|
| Biological Processes | 134 | 151 |
| Cellular Components | 73 | 23 |
| Molecular Functions | 55 | 24 |
| KEGG pathways | 5 | 1 |
Figure 5Differential Functional Profiling by Sex. The dot plot shows the functional groups with the greatest differential activity between the sexes. Each dot represents a biological function. Size indicates the number of genes involved in that function and color associated with the level of significance.