Gui Xiao1,2, Qingnan He3, Li Liu1,2, Tingting Zhang1,2, Mengjia Zhou1,2, Xingxing Li1,2, Yijun Chen4, Yanyi Chen4, Chunxiang Qin5,6. 1. Department of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. Xiangya Nursing School, Central South University, Changsha, China. 3. The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 4. Xiangya Medicine School, Central South University, Changsha, China. 5. Department of Health Management, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. Chunxiangqin@csu.edu.cn. 6. Xiangya Nursing School, Central South University, Changsha, China. Chunxiangqin@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although anxiety disorders are one of the most prevalent mental disorders, their underlying biological mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated. In recent years, genetically determined metabolites (GDMs) have been used to reveal the biological mechanisms of mental disorders. However, this strategy has not been applied to anxiety disorders. Herein, we explored the causality of GDMs on anxiety disorders through Mendelian randomization study, with the overarching goal of unraveling the biological mechanisms. METHODS: A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was implemented to assess the causality of GDMs on anxiety disorders. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 486 metabolites was used as the exposure, whereas four different GWAS datasets of anxiety disorders were the outcomes. Notably, all datasets were acquired from publicly available databases. A genetic instrumental variable (IV) was used to explore the causality between the metabolite and anxiety disorders for each metabolite. The MR Steiger filtering method was implemented to examine the causality between metabolites and anxiety disorders. The standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was first used for the causality analysis, followed by three additional MR methods (the MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO (pleiotropy residual sum and outlier) methods) for sensitivity analyses in MR analysis. MR-Egger intercept, and Cochran's Q statistical analysis were used to evaluate possible heterogeneity and pleiotropy. Bonferroni correction was used to determine the causative association features (P < 1.03 × 10-4). Furthermore, metabolic pathways analysis was performed using the web-based MetaboAnalyst 5.0 software. All statistical analysis were performed in R software. The STROBE-MR checklist for the reporting of MR studies was used in this study. RESULTS: In MR analysis, 85 significant causative relationship GDMs were identified. Among them, 11 metabolites were overlapped in the four different datasets of anxiety disorders. Bonferroni correction showing1-linoleoylglycerophosphoethanolamine (ORfixed-effect IVW = 1.04; 95% CI 1.021-1.06; Pfixed-effect IVW = 4.3 × 10-5) was the most reliable causal metabolite. Our results were robust even without a single SNP because of a "leave-one-out" analysis. The MR-Egger intercept test indicated that genetic pleiotropy had no effect on the results (intercept = - 0.0013, SE = 0.0006, P = 0.06). No heterogeneity was detected by Cochran's Q test (MR-Egger. Q = 7.68, P = 0.742; IVW. Q = 12.12, P = 0.436). A directionality test conducted by MR Steiger confirmed our estimation of potential causal direction (P < 0.001). In addition, two significant pathways, the "primary bile acid biosynthesis" pathway (P = 0.008) and the "valine, leucine, and isoleucine biosynthesis" pathway (P = 0.03), were identified through metabolic pathway analysis. CONCLUSION: This study provides new insights into the causal effects of GDMs on anxiety disorders by integrating genomics and metabolomics. The metabolites that drive anxiety disorders may be suited to serve as biomarkers and also will help to unravel the biological mechanisms of anxiety disorders.
BACKGROUND: Although anxiety disorders are one of the most prevalent mental disorders, their underlying biological mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated. In recent years, genetically determined metabolites (GDMs) have been used to reveal the biological mechanisms of mental disorders. However, this strategy has not been applied to anxiety disorders. Herein, we explored the causality of GDMs on anxiety disorders through Mendelian randomization study, with the overarching goal of unraveling the biological mechanisms. METHODS: A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was implemented to assess the causality of GDMs on anxiety disorders. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 486 metabolites was used as the exposure, whereas four different GWAS datasets of anxiety disorders were the outcomes. Notably, all datasets were acquired from publicly available databases. A genetic instrumental variable (IV) was used to explore the causality between the metabolite and anxiety disorders for each metabolite. The MR Steiger filtering method was implemented to examine the causality between metabolites and anxiety disorders. The standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was first used for the causality analysis, followed by three additional MR methods (the MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO (pleiotropy residual sum and outlier) methods) for sensitivity analyses in MR analysis. MR-Egger intercept, and Cochran's Q statistical analysis were used to evaluate possible heterogeneity and pleiotropy. Bonferroni correction was used to determine the causative association features (P < 1.03 × 10-4). Furthermore, metabolic pathways analysis was performed using the web-based MetaboAnalyst 5.0 software. All statistical analysis were performed in R software. The STROBE-MR checklist for the reporting of MR studies was used in this study. RESULTS: In MR analysis, 85 significant causative relationship GDMs were identified. Among them, 11 metabolites were overlapped in the four different datasets of anxiety disorders. Bonferroni correction showing1-linoleoylglycerophosphoethanolamine (ORfixed-effect IVW = 1.04; 95% CI 1.021-1.06; Pfixed-effect IVW = 4.3 × 10-5) was the most reliable causal metabolite. Our results were robust even without a single SNP because of a "leave-one-out" analysis. The MR-Egger intercept test indicated that genetic pleiotropy had no effect on the results (intercept = - 0.0013, SE = 0.0006, P = 0.06). No heterogeneity was detected by Cochran's Q test (MR-Egger. Q = 7.68, P = 0.742; IVW. Q = 12.12, P = 0.436). A directionality test conducted by MR Steiger confirmed our estimation of potential causal direction (P < 0.001). In addition, two significant pathways, the "primary bile acid biosynthesis" pathway (P = 0.008) and the "valine, leucine, and isoleucine biosynthesis" pathway (P = 0.03), were identified through metabolic pathway analysis. CONCLUSION: This study provides new insights into the causal effects of GDMs on anxiety disorders by integrating genomics and metabolomics. The metabolites that drive anxiety disorders may be suited to serve as biomarkers and also will help to unravel the biological mechanisms of anxiety disorders.
Authors: So-Youn Shin; Ann-Kristin Petersen; Nicole Soranzo; Christian Gieger; Karsten Suhre; Robert P Mohney; David Meredith; Brigitte Wägele; Elisabeth Altmaier; Panos Deloukas; Jeanette Erdmann; Elin Grundberg; Christopher J Hammond; Martin Hrabé de Angelis; Gabi Kastenmüller; Anna Köttgen; Florian Kronenberg; Massimo Mangino; Christa Meisinger; Thomas Meitinger; Hans-Werner Mewes; Michael V Milburn; Cornelia Prehn; Johannes Raffler; Janina S Ried; Werner Römisch-Margl; Nilesh J Samani; Kerrin S Small; H-Erich Wichmann; Guangju Zhai; Thomas Illig; Tim D Spector; Jerzy Adamski Journal: Nature Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Inês Laíns; Mari Gantner; Salome Murinello; Jessica A Lasky-Su; Joan W Miller; Martin Friedlander; Deeba Husain Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Veronika W Skrivankova; Rebecca C Richmond; Benjamin A R Woolf; James Yarmolinsky; Neil M Davies; Sonja A Swanson; Tyler J VanderWeele; Julian P T Higgins; Nicholas J Timpson; Niki Dimou; Claudia Langenberg; Robert M Golub; Elizabeth W Loder; Valentina Gallo; Anne Tybjaerg-Hansen; George Davey Smith; Matthias Egger; J Brent Richards Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy Jewison; Yilu Su; Fatemeh Miri Disfany; Yongjie Liang; Craig Knox; Adam Maciejewski; Jenna Poelzer; Jessica Huynh; You Zhou; David Arndt; Yannick Djoumbou; Yifeng Liu; Lu Deng; An Chi Guo; Beomsoo Han; Allison Pon; Michael Wilson; Shahrzad Rafatnia; Philip Liu; David S Wishart Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Inge A T van de Luitgaarden; Sabine van Oort; Emma J Bouman; Linda J Schoonmade; Ilse C Schrieks; Diederick E Grobbee; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Susanna C Larsson; Stephen Burgess; Adriana J van Ballegooijen; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Joline W J Beulens Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2021-08-22 Impact factor: 12.434