Dataset Information

Transcriptomic Studies of Antidepressant Action in Rodent Models of Depression: A First Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Antidepressants (ADs) are, for now, the best everyday treatment we have for moderate to severe major depressive episodes (MDEs). ADs are among the most prescribed drugs in the Western Hemisphere; however, the trial-and-error prescription strategy and side-effects leave a lot to be desired. More than 60% of patients suffering from major depression fail to respond to the first AD they are prescribed. For those who respond, full response is only observed after several weeks of treatment. In addition, there are no biomarkers that could help with therapeutic decisions; meanwhile, this is already true in cancer and other fields of medicine. For years, many investigators have been working to decipher the underlying mechanisms of AD response. Here, we provide the first systematic review of animal models. We thoroughly searched all the studies involving rodents, profiling transcriptomic alterations consecutive to AD treatment in naïve animals or in animals subjected to stress-induced models of depression. We have been confronted by an important heterogeneity regarding the drugs and the experimental settings. Thus, we perform a meta-analysis of the AD signature of fluoxetine (FLX) in the hippocampus, the most studied target. Among genes and pathways consistently modulated across species, we identify both old players of AD action and novel transcriptional biomarker candidates that warrant further investigation. We discuss the most prominent transcripts (immediate early genes and activity-dependent synaptic plasticity pathways). We also stress the need for systematic studies of AD action in animal models that span across sex, peripheral and central tissues, and pharmacological classes.

SUBMITTER: Ibrahim EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9654684 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcriptomic Studies of Antidepressant Action in Rodent Models of Depression: A First Meta-Analysis.

Ibrahim El Chérif EC Gorgievski Victor V Ortiz-Teba Pilar P Belzeaux Raoul R Turecki Gustavo G Sibille Etienne E Charbonnier Guillaume G Tzavara Eleni T ET

International journal of molecular sciences 20221104 21

Antidepressants (ADs) are, for now, the best everyday treatment we have for moderate to severe major depressive episodes (MDEs). ADs are among the most prescribed drugs in the Western Hemisphere; however, the trial-and-error prescription strategy and side-effects leave a lot to be desired. More than 60% of patients suffering from major depression fail to respond to the first AD they are prescribed. For those who respond, full response is only observed after several weeks of treatment. In additio ...[more]

PMID: 36362329

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnimal models are critical tools in the study of psychiatric disorders; however, none of the current models fully reflect human stress-related disorders, even though most of the knowledge about the mechanisms of depression comes from animal studies. Animal studies are useful in pharmacological research, whereby we can obtain results that translate into patient treatment by controlling environmental factors, especially in behavioural research. The authors systematically reviewed this issue since medical databases provide access to many primary studies.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on 25 primary studies. The studies were identified in databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (December 2022) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established at the beginning of the research and published in the form of a protocol, following the PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration methodology for secondary studies and CAMARADES (CAMARADES Berlin, QUEST-BIH Charité) for secondary studies on animals. Forest plot analyses were performed (data presented as Mean Difference, Random Model, Inverse Variance), Risk of Bias assessment (Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) evaluation), quality assessment of included studies (Animal research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE)), and a range of data from source publications were compiled in tabular form. The study analysed the popularity of both animal depression models (ADM) and rat strains used in pharmacological research to test the efficacy of antidepressant drugs based on the immobility time (IT) factor (Forced Swimming Test). The study examined selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, namely fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, and escitalopram. Additionally, the study addressed issues concerning the "data availability statement" because precise IT data analysis was impossible in the case of 212 papers.ResultsOur data confirm that the Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress (CUMS) model is the most popular and versatile model used in preclinical depression research, while the two most popular rat strains were Wistar and Sprague-Dawley. The quality of included papers based on the ARRIVE assessment showed a ratio value equal to 0.63, meaning that studies were of intermediate overall quality. The Risk of Bias assessment based on the SYRCLE tool revealed a high risk related to the blinding and the random outcome assessment. In the meta-analysis, the results indicate that all analysed drugs demonstrated efficacy in reducing IT, and the most analysed drug was fluoxetine (confirmed based on 17 studies (19 models)). The analysis of the efficacy of ADMs showed that the most effective models were CUMS, Flinders Sensitive Line (genetic model), Social Isolation, Restraint Stress, and Low-dose Lipopolysaccharide (pharmacological model). Only 2.35% (5 out of 212) of corresponding authors responded to our data request.ConclusionsThe study highlights the dominance of the CUMS model and the Wistar and Sprague-Dawley rat strains in preclinical depression research, affirming the efficacy of SSRIs, particularly fluoxetine, in reducing IT. The findings underscore the need for better data availability and methodological improvements despite intermediate overall study quality and notable bias risks. Enhanced transparency and rigorous assessment standards are essential for advancing the reliability of animal models in depression research.

Project description:The subjective measures used to study mood disorders in humans cannot be replicated in animals; however, the increasing application of objective neuropsychological methods provides opportunities to develop translational animal tasks. Here we describe a novel behavioral approach, which has enabled us to investigate similar affective biases in rodents. In our affective bias test (ABT), rats encounter two independent positive experiences--the association between food reward and specific digging substrate--during discrimination learning sessions. These are performed on separate days under either neutral conditions or during a pharmacological or affective state manipulation. Affective bias is then quantified using a preference test where both previously rewarded substrates are presented together and the rat's choices recorded. The absolute value of the experience is kept consistent and all other factors are counterbalanced so that any bias at recall can be attributed to treatment. Replicating previous findings from studies in healthy volunteers, we observe significant positive affective biases following acute treatment with typical (fluoxetine, citalopram, reboxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine) and atypical antidepressants (agomelatine, mirtazapine), and significant negative affective biases following treatment with drugs associated with inducing negative affective states in humans (FG7142, rimonabant, 13-cis retinoic acid). We also observed that acute psychosocial stress and environmental enrichment induce significant negative and positive affective biases, respectively, and provide evidence that these affective biases involve memory consolidation. The positive and negative affective biases induced in our test also mirror the antidepressant and pro-depressant effects of these drugs in patients suggesting our test has both translational and predictive validity. Our results suggest that cognitive affective biases could contribute to drug- or stress-induced mood changes in people and support the hypothesis that a cognitive neuropsychological mechanism contributes to antidepressant drug efficacy.

Project description:ContextAntidepressant medications represent the best established treatment for major depressive disorder, but there is little evidence that they have a specific pharmacological effect relative to pill placebo for patients with less severe depression.ObjectiveTo estimate the relative benefit of medication vs placebo across a wide range of initial symptom severity in patients diagnosed with depression.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1980 through March 2009, along with references from meta-analyses and reviews.Study selectionRandomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of major or minor depressive disorder were selected. Studies were included if their authors provided the requisite original data, they comprised adult outpatients, they included a medication vs placebo comparison for at least 6 weeks, they did not exclude patients on the basis of a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Data from 6 studies (718 patients) were included.Data extractionIndividual patient-level data were obtained from study authors.ResultsMedication vs placebo differences varied substantially as a function of baseline severity. Among patients with HDRS scores below 23, Cohen d effect sizes for the difference between medication and placebo were estimated to be less than 0.20 (a standard definition of a small effect). Estimates of the magnitude of the superiority of medication over placebo increased with increases in baseline depression severity and crossed the threshold defined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for a clinically significant difference at a baseline HDRS score of 25.ConclusionsThe magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms. For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial.

Project description:BackgroundSpinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a neuromuscular disorder that leads to weakness in the muscles due to degeneration of motor neurons. Mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene leads to the deficiency of SMN protein that causes SMA. The molecular alterations associated with SMA extends across the transcriptome and proteome. Although several studies have examined the transcriptomic profile of SMA, the difference in experimental settings across these studies highlight the need for a comparative meta-analysis to better understand these differences.Methods and dataWe conducted a systematic comparative meta-analysis of publicly available gene expression data from six selected studies to elucidate variations in the transcriptomic landscape across different experimental conditions, including tissue types and mouse models. We used both microarray and RNA-seq datasets, retrieved from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and ArrayExpress (AE). Methods included normalization, differential expression analysis, gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA), network reconstruction and co-expression analysis.ResultsDifferential expression analysis revealed varying numbers of differentially expressed genes ranging between zero and 1,655 across the selected studies. Notably, the Metallothionein gene Mt2 was common in several of the eight comparisons. This highlights its role in oxidative stress and detoxification. Additionally, genes such as Hspb1, St14 and Sult1a1 were among the top ten differentially expressed genes in more than one comparison. The Snrpa1 gene, involved in pre-mRNA splicing, was upregulated in the spinal cord and has a strong correlation with other differentially expressed genes from other comparisons in our network reconstruction analysis. Gene-set enrichment analysis identified significant GO terms such as contractile fibers and myosin complexes in more than one comparison which highlights its significant role in SMA.ConclusionsOur comparative meta-analysis identified only few genes and pathways that were consistently dysregulated in SMA across different tissues and experimental settings. Conversely, many genes and pathways appeared to play a tissue-specific role in SMA. In comparison with the original studies, reproducibility was rather weak.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review published and unpublished efficacy studies of agomelatine in people with depression.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesLiterature search (Pubmed, Embase, Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory file for agomelatine, manufacturers of agomelatine (Servier).Eligibility criteriaDouble blind randomised placebo and comparator controlled trials of agomelatine in depression with standard depression rating scales.Data synthesisStudies were pooled by using a random effects model with DerSimonian and Laird weights for comparisons with placebo and comparator antidepressant. The primary efficacy measure (change in rating scale score) was summarised with standardised mean difference (SMD; a measure of effect size) and secondary outcome measures with relative risks. All results were presented with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was explored by visual inspection of funnel plots and by the I(2) statistic. Moderators of effect were explored by meta-regression.ResultsWe identified 20 trials with 7460 participants meeting inclusion criteria (11 in the published literature, four from the European Medicines Agency file, and five from the manufacturer). Almost all studies used the 17 item Hamilton depression rating scale (score 0-50). Agomelatine was significantly more effective than placebo with an effect size (SMD) of 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.35) and relative risk of response 1.25 (1.11 to 1.4). Compared with other antidepressants, agomelatine showed equal efficacy (SMD 0.00, -0.09 to 0.10). Significant heterogeneity was uncovered in most analyses, though risk of bias was low. Published studies were more likely than unpublished studies to have results that suggested advantages for agomelatine.ConclusionsAgomelatine is an effective antidepressant with similar efficacy to standard antidepressants. Published trials generally had more favourable results than unpublished studies.

Dataset Information

Transcriptomic Studies of Antidepressant Action in Rodent Models of Depression: A First Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Transcriptomic Studies of Antidepressant Action in Rodent Models of Depression: A First Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets