Precision medicine for psychotic disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, and pharmacogenomics.

Psychosis occurs inside the brain, but may have external manifestations (peripheral molecular biomarkers, behaviors) that can be objectively and quantitatively measured. Blood biomarkers that track core psychotic manifestations such as hallucinations and delusions could provide a window into the biology of psychosis, as well as help with diagnosis and treatment. We endeavored to identify objective blood gene expression biomarkers for hallucinations and delusions, using a stepwise discovery, prioritization, validation, and testing in independent cohorts design. We were successful in identifying biomarkers that were predictive of high hallucinations and of high delusions states, and of future psychiatric hospitalizations related to them, more so when personalized by gender and diagnosis. Top biomarkers for hallucinations that survived discovery, prioritization, validation and testing include PPP3CB, DLG1, ENPP2, ZEB2, and RTN4. Top biomarkers for delusions include AUTS2, MACROD2, NR4A2, PDE4D, PDP1, and RORA. The top biological pathways uncovered by our work are glutamatergic synapse for hallucinations, as well as Rap1 signaling for delusions. Some of the biomarkers are targets of existing drugs, of potential utility in pharmacogenomics approaches (matching patients to medications, monitoring response to treatment). The top biomarkers gene expression signatures through bioinformatic analyses suggested a prioritization of existing medications such as clozapine and risperidone, as well as of lithium, fluoxetine, valproate, and the nutraceuticals omega-3 fatty acids and magnesium. Finally, we provide an example of how a personalized laboratory report for doctors would look. Overall, our work provides advances for the improved diagnosis and treatment for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Towards precision medicine for anxiety disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs.

Anxiety disorders are increasingly prevalent, affect people's ability to do things, and decrease quality of life. Due to lack of objective tests, they are underdiagnosed and sub-optimally treated, resulting in adverse life events and/or addictions. We endeavored to discover blood biomarkers for anxiety, using a four-step approach. First, we used a longitudinal within-subject design in individuals with psychiatric disorders to discover blood gene expression changes between self-reported low anxiety and high anxiety states. Second, we prioritized the list of candidate biomarkers with a Convergent Functional Genomics approach using other evidence in the field. Third, we validated our top biomarkers from discovery and prioritization in an independent cohort of psychiatric subjects with clinically severe anxiety. Fourth, we tested these candidate biomarkers for clinical utility, i.e. ability to predict anxiety severity state, and future clinical worsening (hospitalizations with anxiety as a contributory cause), in another independent cohort of psychiatric subjects. We showed increased accuracy of individual biomarkers with a personalized approach, by gender and diagnosis, particularly in women. The biomarkers with the best overall evidence were GAD1, NTRK3, ADRA2A, FZD10, GRK4, and SLC6A4. Finally, we identified which of our biomarkers are targets of existing drugs (such as a valproate, omega-3 fatty acids, fluoxetine, lithium, sertraline, benzodiazepines, and ketamine), and thus can be used to match patients to medications and measure response to treatment. We also used our biomarker gene expression signature to identify drugs that could be repurposed for treating anxiety, such as estradiol, pirenperone, loperamide, and disopyramide. Given the detrimental impact of untreated anxiety, the current lack of objective measures to guide treatment, and the addiction potential of existing benzodiazepines-based anxiety medications, there is a urgent need for more precise and personalized approaches like the one we developed.

Precision medicine for mood disorders: objective assessment, risk prediction, pharmacogenomics, and repurposed drugs.

Mood disorders (depression, bipolar disorders) are prevalent and disabling. They are also highly co-morbid with other psychiatric disorders. Currently there are no objective measures, such as blood tests, used in clinical practice, and available treatments do not work in everybody. The development of blood tests, as well as matching of patients with existing and new treatments, in a precise, personalized and preventive fashion, would make a significant difference at an individual and societal level. Early pilot studies by us to discover blood biomarkers for mood state were promising [1], and validated by others [2]. Recent work by us has identified blood gene expression biomarkers that track suicidality, a tragic behavioral outcome of mood disorders, using powerful longitudinal within-subject designs, validated them in suicide completers, and tested them in independent cohorts for ability to assess state (suicidal ideation), and ability to predict trait (future hospitalizations for suicidality) [3-6]. These studies showed good reproducibility with subsequent independent genetic studies [7]. More recently, we have conducted such studies also for pain [8], for stress disorders [9], and for memory/Alzheimer's Disease [10]. We endeavored to use a similar comprehensive approach to identify more definitive biomarkers for mood disorders, that are transdiagnostic, by studying mood in psychiatric disorders patients. First, we used a longitudinal within-subject design and whole-genome gene expression approach to discover biomarkers which track mood state in subjects who had diametric changes in mood state from low to high, from visit to visit, as measured by a simple visual analog scale that we had previously developed (SMS-7). Second, we prioritized these biomarkers using a convergent functional genomics (CFG) approach encompassing in a comprehensive fashion prior published evidence in the field. Third, we validated the biomarkers in an independent cohort of subjects with clinically severe depression (as measured by Hamilton Depression Scale, (HAMD)) and with clinically severe mania (as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)). Adding the scores from the first three steps into an overall convergent functional evidence (CFE) score, we ended up with 26 top candidate blood gene expression biomarkers that had a CFE score as good as or better than SLC6A4, an empirical finding which we used as a de facto positive control and cutoff. Notably, there was among them an enrichment in genes involved in circadian mechanisms. We further analyzed the biological pathways and networks for the top candidate biomarkers, showing that circadian, neurotrophic, and cell differentiation functions are involved, along with serotonergic and glutamatergic signaling, supporting a view of mood as reflecting energy, activity and growth. Fourth, we tested in independent cohorts of psychiatric patients the ability of each of these 26 top candidate biomarkers to assess state (mood (SMS-7), depression (HAMD), mania (YMRS)), and to predict clinical course (future hospitalizations for depression, future hospitalizations for mania). We conducted our analyses across all patients, as well as personalized by gender and diagnosis, showing increased accuracy with the personalized approach, particularly in women. Again, using SLC6A4 as the cutoff, twelve top biomarkers had the strongest overall evidence for tracking and predicting depression after all four steps: NRG1, DOCK10, GLS, PRPS1, TMEM161B, GLO1, FANCF, HNRNPDL, CD47, OLFM1, SMAD7, and SLC6A4. Of them, six had the strongest overall evidence for tracking and predicting both depression and mania, hence bipolar mood disorders. There were also two biomarkers (RLP3 and SLC6A4) with the strongest overall evidence for mania. These panels of biomarkers have practical implications for distinguishing between depression and bipolar disorder. Next, we evaluated the evidence for our top biomarkers being targets of existing psychiatric drugs, which permits matching patients to medications in a targeted fashion, and the measuring of response to treatment. We also used the biomarker signatures to bioinformatically identify new/repurposed candidate drugs. Top drugs of interest as potential new antidepressants were pindolol, ciprofibrate, pioglitazone and adiphenine, as well as the natural compounds asiaticoside and chlorogenic acid. The last 3 had also been identified by our previous suicidality studies. Finally, we provide an example of how a report to doctors would look for a patient with depression, based on the panel of top biomarkers (12 for depression and bipolar, one for mania), with an objective depression score, risk for future depression, and risk for bipolar switching, as well as personalized lists of targeted prioritized existing psychiatric medications and new potential medications. Overall, our studies provide objective assessments, targeted therapeutics, and monitoring of response to treatment, that enable precision medicine for mood disorders.

Towards understanding and predicting suicidality in women: biomarkers and clinical risk assessment.

Women are under-represented in research on suicidality to date. Although women have a lower rate of suicide completion than men, due in part to the less-violent methods used, they have a higher rate of suicide attempts. Our group has previously identified genomic (blood gene expression biomarkers) and clinical information (apps) predictors for suicidality in men. We now describe pilot studies in women. We used a powerful within-participant discovery approach to identify genes that change in expression between no suicidal ideation (no SI) and high suicidal ideation (high SI) states (n=12 participants out of a cohort of 51 women psychiatric participants followed longitudinally, with diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia). We then used a Convergent Functional Genomics (CFG) approach to prioritize the candidate biomarkers identified in the discovery step by using all the prior evidence in the field. Next, we validated for suicidal behavior the top-ranked biomarkers for SI, in a demographically matched cohort of women suicide completers from the coroner's office (n=6), by assessing which markers were stepwise changed from no SI to high SI to suicide completers. We then tested the 50 biomarkers that survived Bonferroni correction in the validation step, as well as top increased and decreased biomarkers from the discovery and prioritization steps, in a completely independent test cohort of women psychiatric disorder participants for prediction of SI (n=33) and in a future follow-up cohort of psychiatric disorder participants for prediction of psychiatric hospitalizations due to suicidality (n=24). Additionally, we examined how two clinical instruments in the form of apps, Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality (CFI-S) and Simplified Affective State Scale (SASS), previously tested in men, perform in women. The top CFI-S item distinguishing high SI from no SI states was the chronic stress of social isolation. We then showed how the clinical information apps combined with the 50 validated biomarkers into a broad predictor (UP-Suicide), our apriori primary end point, predicts suicidality in women. UP-Suicide had a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of 82% for predicting SI and an AUC of 78% for predicting future hospitalizations for suicidality. Some of the individual components of the UP-Suicide showed even better results. SASS had an AUC of 81% for predicting SI, CFI-S had an AUC of 84% and the combination of the two apps had an AUC of 87%. The top biomarker from our sequential discovery, prioritization and validation steps, BCL2, predicted future hospitalizations due to suicidality with an AUC of 89%, and the panel of 50 validated biomarkers (BioM-50) predicted future hospitalizations due to suicidality with an AUC of 94%. The best overall single blood biomarker for predictions was PIK3C3 with an AUC of 65% for SI and an AUC of 90% for future hospitalizations. Finally, we sought to understand the biology of the biomarkers. BCL2 and GSK3B, the top CFG scoring validated biomarkers, as well as PIK3C3, have anti-apoptotic and neurotrophic effects, are decreased in expression in suicidality and are known targets of the anti-suicidal mood stabilizer drug lithium, which increases their expression and/or activity. Circadian clock genes were overrepresented among the top markers. Notably, PER1, increased in expression in suicidality, had an AUC of 84% for predicting future hospitalizations, and CSNK1A1, decreased in expression, had an AUC of 96% for predicting future hospitalizations. Circadian clock abnormalities are related to mood disorder, and sleep abnormalities have been implicated in suicide. Docosahexaenoic acid signaling was one of the top biological pathways overrepresented in validated biomarkers, which is of interest given the potential therapeutic and prophylactic benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. Some of the top biomarkers from the current work in women showed co-directionality of change in expression with our previous work in men, whereas others had changes in opposite directions, underlying the issue of biological context and differences in suicidality between the two genders. With this study, we begin to shed much needed light in the area of female suicidality, identify useful objective predictors and help understand gender commonalities and differences. During the conduct of the study, one participant committed suicide. In retrospect, when the analyses were completed, her UP-Suicide risk prediction score was at the 100 percentile of all participants tested.

Understanding and predicting suicidality using a combined genomic and clinical risk assessment approach.

Worldwide, one person dies every 40 seconds by suicide, a potentially preventable tragedy. A limiting step in our ability to intervene is the lack of objective, reliable predictors. We have previously provided proof of principle for the use of blood gene expression biomarkers to predict future hospitalizations due to suicidality, in male bipolar disorder participants. We now generalize the discovery, prioritization, validation, and testing of such markers across major psychiatric disorders (bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia) in male participants, to understand commonalities and differences. We used a powerful within-participant discovery approach to identify genes that change in expression between no suicidal ideation and high suicidal ideation states (n=37 participants out of a cohort of 217 psychiatric participants followed longitudinally). We then used a convergent functional genomics (CFG) approach with existing prior evidence in the field to prioritize the candidate biomarkers identified in the discovery step. Next, we validated the top biomarkers from the prioritization step for relevance to suicidal behavior, in a demographically matched cohort of suicide completers from the coroner's office (n=26). The biomarkers for suicidal ideation only are enriched for genes involved in neuronal connectivity and schizophrenia, the biomarkers also validated for suicidal behavior are enriched for genes involved in neuronal activity and mood. The 76 biomarkers that survived Bonferroni correction after validation for suicidal behavior map to biological pathways involved in immune and inflammatory response, mTOR signaling and growth factor regulation. mTOR signaling is necessary for the effects of the rapid-acting antidepressant agent ketamine, providing a novel biological rationale for its possible use in treating acute suicidality. Similarly, MAOB, a target of antidepressant inhibitors, was one of the increased biomarkers for suicidality. We also identified other potential therapeutic targets or biomarkers for drugs known to mitigate suicidality, such as omega-3 fatty acids, lithium and clozapine. Overall, 14% of the top candidate biomarkers also had evidence for involvement in psychological stress response, and 19% for involvement in programmed cell death/cellular suicide (apoptosis). It may be that in the face of adversity (stress), death mechanisms are turned on at a cellular (apoptosis) and organismal level. Finally, we tested the top increased and decreased biomarkers from the discovery for suicidal ideation (CADM1, CLIP4, DTNA, KIF2C), prioritization with CFG for prior evidence (SAT1, SKA2, SLC4A4), and validation for behavior in suicide completers (IL6, MBP, JUN, KLHDC3) steps in a completely independent test cohort of psychiatric participants for prediction of suicidal ideation (n=108), and in a future follow-up cohort of psychiatric participants (n=157) for prediction of psychiatric hospitalizations due to suicidality. The best individual biomarker across psychiatric diagnoses for predicting suicidal ideation was SLC4A4, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) of 72%. For bipolar disorder in particular, SLC4A4 predicted suicidal ideation with an AUC of 93%, and future hospitalizations with an AUC of 70%. SLC4A4 is involved in brain extracellular space pH regulation. Brain pH has been implicated in the pathophysiology of acute panic attacks. We also describe two new clinical information apps, one for affective state (simplified affective state scale, SASS) and one for suicide risk factors (Convergent Functional Information for Suicide, CFI-S), and how well they predict suicidal ideation across psychiatric diagnoses (AUC of 85% for SASS, AUC of 89% for CFI-S). We hypothesized a priori, based on our previous work, that the integration of the top biomarkers and the clinical information into a universal predictive measure (UP-Suicide) would show broad-spectrum predictive ability across psychiatric diagnoses. Indeed, the UP-Suicide was able to predict suicidal ideation across psychiatric diagnoses with an AUC of 92%. For bipolar disorder, it predicted suicidal ideation with an AUC of 98%, and future hospitalizations with an AUC of 94%. Of note, both types of tests we developed (blood biomarkers and clinical information apps) do not require asking the individual assessed if they have thoughts of suicide, as individuals who are truly suicidal often do not share that information with clinicians. We propose that the widespread use of such risk prediction tests as part of routine or targeted healthcare assessments will lead to early disease interception followed by preventive lifestyle modifications and proactive treatment.