| Literature DB >> 34531495 |
Samuel Carleial1, Daniel Nätt2, Eva Unternährer3,4, Thomas Elbert3,5, Katy Robjant5, Sarah Wilker5,6, Vanja Vukojevic7, Iris-Tatjana Kolassa5,8, Anja C Zeller3,5, Anke Koebach3,5.
Abstract
The aftermath of traumatization lives on in the neural and epigenetic traces creating a momentum of affliction in the psychological and social realm. Can psychotherapy reorganise these memories through changes in DNA methylation signatures? Using a randomised controlled parallel group design, we examined methylome-wide changes in saliva samples of 84 female former child soldiers from Eastern DR Congo before and six months after Narrative Exposure Therapy. Treatment predicted differentially methylated positions (DMPs) related to ALCAM, RIPOR2, AFAP1 and MOCOS. In addition, treatment associations overlapped at gene level with baseline clinical and social outcomes. Treatment related DMPs are involved in memory formation-the key agent in trauma focused treatments-and enriched for molecular pathways commonly affected by trauma related disorders. Results were partially replicated in an independent sample of 53 female former child soldiers from Northern Uganda. Our results suggest a molecular impact of psychological treatment in women with war-related childhood trauma.Trial registration: Addressing Heightened Levels of Aggression in Traumatized Offenders With Psychotherapeutic Means (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02992561, 14/12/2016).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34531495 PMCID: PMC8445994 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98067-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Violin plots showing individual observations of discovery sample. (a) Mean DNAm observed over all estimates (average Beta value) of probes used in EWAS. (b) Mean reported age and mean epigenetic ages. Points represent study participants. Colors represent treatment condition (TAU vs. NET). Assessment time refers to baseline (BL) and 6 month follow-up (FU6). Asterisks mark significant t-test comparisons (***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01).
Summary statistics of the discovery and replication samples.
| Discovery sample | Replication sample | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAU | NET | NET | |||||||||
| N = | n = 42 | n = 42 | n = 53 | ||||||||
| Reported age | 18 (1.8) | 18 (2) | 34 (9.1) | ||||||||
| Trauma perpetrated | 14 (4.9) | 15 (4.7) | 16 (5.2) | ||||||||
| Trauma experienced | 15 (1.7) | 15 (1.9) | 34 (5.7) | ||||||||
Sample size, reported age, nr. of traumatic events (perpetrated and experienced), epigenetic age, DNAm (Beta), and sumscores for PTSD (PSS-I), depression (PHQ-9), appetitive aggression (AAS), current violent behaviour (CVB), feelings of guilt (AAGS) and social acknowledgement (SAQ) are shown. Except for sample size, all values are reported as means with standard deviations in parentheses. Cohen’s d effect sizes are reported with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval in square brackets.
BL: baseline; FU4,6,10: follow-ups after 4, 6 and 10 months from baseline, respectively; *PDS Scale was used for replication sample; † HSCL Scale was used for replication sample; ‡sumscores of AAGS are scaled; n.a.: not available.
Figure 2Significant associations between treatment condition and DNAm change. Mean DNAm (%) as a function of assessment time at discovery and replication sample (colour coded) for the four CpGs that significantly had an association between treatment effect and DNAm. Dots represent group means and bars show standard errors. Note that samples had different follow-up assessment times (FU4,6,10; numbers represent months) after baseline (BL). Replication sample does not support findings statistically in discovery sample.
Figure 3Intersection plot of genes associated with outcomes and treatment. On the left, intersections are shown as two or more circles connected by lines, whereas single associations are shown as isolated circles at the bottom. On the right, horizontal bars show the total number of intersections and single associations. Intersections with treatment are additionally specified with gene symbols. Treatment is marked in orange. Association sample sizes derive from each of the top 0.1% DMPs identified after EWAS (n = 305 per association).
Figure 4Scheme of study methodology. From top to bottom, diagram shows the four main steps of data analysis, after preliminary data collection and processing. Step 1: epigenome-wide association analysis to identify biomarkers for clinical and social outcomes considering baseline data only. Treatment association considered DNAm change accounting for baseline and follow-up data. Step 2: extraction of CpGs and genes from identified associations and test for intersections. Step 3: gene-ontology and gene-network analysis was conducted for those associations where treatment and other outcomes had overlapping results to infer relevant body functions. Step 4: replication of results in an independent sample using linear models and observing directionality and intensity of methylation change.