Abstract
Lithium (Li) is one of the most effective drugs for treating bipolar disorder (BD), however, there is presently no way to predict response to guide treatment. The aim of this study is to identify functional genes and pathways that distinguish BD Li responders (LR) from BD Li non-responders (NR). An initial Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder study (PGBD) GWAS of lithium response did not provide any significant results. As a result, we then employed network-based integrative analysis of transcriptomic and genomic data. In transcriptomic study of iPSC-derived neurons, 41 significantly differentially expressed (DE) genes were identified in LR vs NR regardless of lithium exposure. In the PGBD, post-GWAS gene prioritization using the GWA- boosting (GWAB) approach identified 1119 candidate genes. Following DE-derived network propagation, there was a highly significant overlap of genes between the top 500- and top 2000-proximal gene networks and the GWAB gene list (Phypergeometric=1.28E- 09 and 4.10E-18, respectively). Functional enrichment analyses of the top 500 proximal network genes identified focal adhesion and the extracellular matrix (ECM) as the most significant functions. Our findings suggest that the difference between LR and NR was a much greater effect than that of lithium. The direct impact of dysregulation of focal adhesion on axon guidance and neuronal circuits could underpin mechanisms of response to lithium, as well as underlying BD. It also highlights the power of integrative multi-omics analysis of transcriptomic and genomic profiling to gain molecular insights into lithium response in BD.
Introduction
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a major psychiatric disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of mania and depression, and a high risk of suicide. Approximately 50% of BD patients suffer psychosis, and, if left untreated, up to about 17% will complete suicide1. Though effective treatments exist, little is understood regarding etiology to guide clinical drug selection or drug design.
Lithium (Li) is the first and remains the best mood stabilizing medication for BD2, 3. The mechanism of action of lithium has been studied for over six decades and multiple effects on cellular signaling processes have been identified such as: regulation of GSK3/Akt, G proteins and PKA signaling, inositol turnover, neuronal excitability (via Na+-K+ ATPase), or neurotransmitters4. Lithium is clinically effective in treating both mania and depression, but primarily used for prophylaxis. Approximately 30% of patients with BD enjoy a very robust response to lithium with almost complete elimination of symptoms5, 6. However, after onset, most patients go through multiple medication trials often over several years during which time they suffer and are at risk for suicide1. Many who would be excellent lithium responders never receive a trial of lithium. For these reasons, there is a great need for a predictor of lithium response to guide clinicians in prescribing lithium. Genetics may provide such a predictor as lithium responders have been shown to have a stronger family history of both BD and lithium responsiveness5.
One of the challenges of pharmacogenomics is the labor-intensive task of phenotyping. The gold standard for assessing drug response is the prospective clinical trial, but sample sizes for such studies are orders of magnitude smaller (500 vs 50 000) than those currently successful for genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Furthermore, there are few GWAS focusing on lithium response, most suffering from lack of power or failure in replication7. Though more data is being accumulated8–14, GWAS has so far not had the power to consistently detect reproducible genes.
Human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) provide an alternative and complementary approach to identifying genes and mechanisms of lithium response. It is a revolutionary set of methods enabling access to living neurons from specific individuals and in part overcoming a major hurdle in neuropsychiatric research, the inability to readily access living brain tissue15. iPSC methods are now being developed to derive a variety of specific neurons which in turn can model diseases and drug response16, 17. For instance, we have previously demonstrated a differential response to lithium in vitro between iPSC neurons derived from lithium responders vs non- responders18, 19. These data are consistent with the notion that there are two different BD sub-populations with different pathophysiologies defined by lithium response5.
Network-based analysis is a powerful bioinformatic approach that employs the fundamental connectivity of gene networks and genetic data to derive models of disease or drug response. Such network models may implicate biological functions associated with complex traits and presumably serve specific cellular processes20.
Network-based methods require comprehensive information but have been shown to produce promising insights in studies of various diseases, including psychiatric disorders21, 22. Recently, network construction has advanced by integrating multiple sources of data, (e.g., genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic) that, in turn, improves performance23, 24. Therefore, a multi-omics network-based approach can be employed in psychiatric research for efficiently uncovering the mechanisms of complex traits and the goal of precision psychiatry25, 26.
The mechanisms underlying differential response to lithium in BD remain elusive. In this study, we aim to identify genes associated with lithium response in BD by combining genetic data from a GWAS of lithium response and data from a transcriptome study of iPSC-derived neurons challenged in vitro with lithium. The idea behind this integrative analysis is to improve our power to detect genes for lithium response by combining two different independent sources of data and examining the overlap in derived networks.
To our knowledge, this is the first integrative analysis of multi-omics data for lithium response. Here, we describe the results of combining data between a GWAS for lithium response and 41 differentially expressed genes that were identified in iPSC- derived BD neurons from responders (LR) and non-responders (NR). GWAS genes showed a highly significant overlap with the expression-derived network. The functional enrichment analyses identified focal adhesion and the extracellular matrix (ECM) as the most significant biological functions.
Methods
The methods are summarized here and detailed in Supplemental Methods. The overall study design is illustrated in Figure 1a.
All subjects provided written informed consent according to their institution’s approved procedures. Subjects for the GWAS were recruited as part of two studies of lithium response and BD: the multi-site Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder (PGBD) study, and an identical study of veterans recruited from Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VA). The PGBD and veteran studies had a relapse prevention design where subjects were followed prospectively for up to 2.5 years12. All subjects had diagnoses confirmed using the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS)27 and all were of European American (EA) ancestry.
Subjects for the iPSC studies were selected from the PGBD/VA and Halifax samples. The Halifax sample from Dalhouise University was assessed retrospectively using the Alda scale28. Both responders and non-responders were selected from the ends of the distribution of response, either time in study (PGBD/VA sample) or Alda score (Halifax sample). Control (CT) subjects were recruited by advertising and screened for psychiatric diagnoses using the DIGS.
GWAS was conducted using the Illumina Human Psychchip on the Illumina Infinium platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Genotypes were called using Genome Studio (Illumina). The GWAS analysis employed the “entered_maintenance” phenotype, representing stabilization on lithium monotherapy after 4 months. Analysis began with quality control (QC), followed by alignment and imputation. Association testing used logistic regression in PLINK29 with age, sex and three population principal component covariates.
Following the initial analysis of all single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), GWAS results were analyzed using Versatile Gene-Based Association (VEGAS) test30, which obtained a single empirical P-value for each gene. The Genome-Wide Association Boosting (GWAB) algorithm31 was employed in order to use network information to rank order genes.
Skin (PGBD/VA) or blood (Halifax) samples were obtained, and either fibroblasts or lymphoblasts, respectively were reprogrammed to iPSCs and differentiated to prox1+ hippocampal dentate gyrus glutamatergic granule cells (DG) as described previously18 and in Supplemental Methods. The six PGBD/VA bipolar and four control cell lines used in this study were identical to the cells reprogrammed as reported previously18. The six bipolar subjects in the Halifax sample are also identical to those previously reported19. Evidence of pluripotency, normal karyotypes and neural induction has also been previously reported for these lines.
iPSC-derived DG-like neurons from both clinically validated lithium responders and non-responders were treated in culture both with and without lithium. Cells were treated for one week at 1 mM, a clinically effective blood concentration. RNA- sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed on all samples. Ribo-depleted libraries were constructed and cDNA was sequenced as paired ends on an Illumina HiSeq 2500. QC and RNA-seq analysis are detailed in Supplemental Methods. Validation of selected genes was performed using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR (RT- qPCR).
Initial functional analysis of gene expression was conducted using WebGestalt32 and g:Prolifer33. Network propagation was used to identify the network regions proximal to the RNA-seq differentially expressed genes20. A hypergeometric test was used to test for over-representation of the GWAB genes in the RNA-seq network. Clusters were derived using the Louvain graph-based clustering algorithm34 and functional analysis of the derived clusters was performed using ToppGene35 and g:Profiler33.
Results
Subjects
For the GWAS, out of total 728 enrolled subjects, 256 were selected based on completeness of data, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and EA ancestry. Characteristics of the selected GWAS subjects are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. NR were significantly more likely to have rapid cycling illness. For the RNA-seq study, overall, there were no significant demographic or clinical differences between LR, NR, and CT groups selected for generation of iPSC-derived neurons (Supplementary Table 2).
GWAS analysis yielded no significant results
As shown in Supplementary Figure 1, no SNP was genome-wide significant. The quantile-quantile plot is consistent with inadequate power. A gene-based VEGAS analysis showed similarly negative results (Supplementary Table 3).
RNA-seq analysis
Overall, a total of 13 691 genes were expressed and included in downstream analyses. Filtering out low expression transcripts and using a trimmed mean of M- values transformation successfully normalized the expression levels (Supplementary Figure 2). We applied two analysis strategies: ‘within-group’ and ‘across-group’ in the RNA-seq analysis, described in detail in Supplemental Methods.
The largest difference in gene expression was between LR and NR without lithium
For the within-group analysis, gene expression in neurons treated with lithium (Li+) was compared to those without lithium (Li-). Employing a significance threshold of P-value <0.05 and log2fold-change ≥|1|, 14 genes showed nominal significance, but none were significant (Benjamini and Hochberg (B-H) q ≤0.20) after multiple testing correction (Figure 1b; Supplementary Figure 3a; Supplementary Table 4). Therefore, lithium had a limited effect on gene expression.
For the across-group analysis, we examined the differential expression of genes between groups of neurons exposed to the same treatment condition. Six comparisons were made: LR vs NR, LR vs CT, and NR vs CT each with (Li+) and without lithium (Li-) (Supplementary Figure 3b; Supplementary Tables 5, 6). Using the same significance criteria, a total of 45 genes (43 protein-coding) from all six comparisons were significantly differentially expressed (P <0.05, log2fold-change ≥|1|, and B-H q ≤0.20; ‘DE’ genes; Figure 1b). About half of the DE genes (25 of 45) were expressed in more than one comparison, suggesting genetic heterogeneity with small genetic effects across the comparisons. The majority of DE genes (43 of 45, 41 protein-coding) were found in LR vs NR comparisons (Figures 1c, d). Specifically, out of the 43 genes, the most was 37 DE genes in Li-.LR vs Li-.NR; next was 28 DE genes in Li+.LR vs Li+.NR. Moreover, 22 out of 43 genes (51.16%) were common to LR vs NR between the two treatments. Note that the direction of changes in expression of all 45 DE genes were similar among each comparison regardless of the treatment conditions. No interaction effect was significant (Supplementary Figure 3c; Supplementary Table 7). The entire list and detailed differential expression of 45 DE genes are shown in Supplementary Table 8.
RT-qPCR validation of selected differential expressed genes
RT-qPCR was performed for technical validation of four selected genes (HEY1, KLF10, POU3F1, and PTP4A3) from the 41 protein-coding DE genes in LR vs NR comparisons. These four genes were selected because they were identified in our previous gene expression study of lithium response36. RT-qPCR quantification correlated well with RNA-seq for the four genes examined (Figure 1e; Supplementary Figure 4).
There was a highly significant overlap of genes between GWAB and DE-derived networks
Using standard GWAS analytic methods, we failed to identify genes significantly associated with lithium response in BD not only in SNP-based but also in gene-based analysis.
In order to prioritize potential candidate genes in the GWAS dataset, we first used a gene-based VEGAS to conduct analysis of the GWAS data. A total of 1180 genes were identified in the top 5% of the VEGAS-prioritized genes, including three genes (APCDD1, DSP, and PTP4A3) shared with the 41 protein-coding DE gene list. We then employed GWAB to boost the GWAS results and obtain prioritized genes utilizing network information31. GWAB reprioritizes GWAS genes by boosting “not quite significant” genes that are near other more significant genes in the network. This method reprioritizes genes but does not provide an association statistic for each gene, nor does it provide weights for edges indicating the functional interaction of genes. We identified a total of 1119 genes in the top 5% of the GWAB-prioritized gene list, including four genes (FLNC, LEF1, MBP, and PRKD1) that were shared with the DE gene list (n=41). The top 5% prioritized genes obtained by VEGAS and GWAB are listed in Supplementary Table 9.
We performed network propagation of 41 DE genes using the GIANT brain interactome database37 to construct a 500-proximal gene network with 25 020 edges (Figures 2a-c). We further boosted the network to a 2000-proximal gene network with 157 688 edges (Figure 2d). Out of 41 DE genes, 34 were present in both networks. For the GWAB-prioritized genes, 73 and 241 were detected in the top 500- and top 2000- gene networks, respectively. For the VEGAS-prioritized genes, 36 and 118 were detected in the top 500- and top 2000-gene networks, respectively. The details and genes included in the two networks are presented in Supplementary Table 10.
Next, we examined the significance of the gene overlap between the DE-derived top 500- or top 2000-proximal gene networks and the 1119 GWAB-prioritized genes. This overlap was striking and highly significant (hypergeometric P=1.28E-09 for the top 500 network genes; 4.10E-18 for the top 2000 network genes). In contrast, the overlap between the DE-derived gene networks and 1180 VEGAS-prioritized genes showed nominal significance (hypergeometric P=0.006 for the top 500 network genes; 0.007 for the top 2000 network genes) (Figure 2a; Supplementary Table 11). The highly significant overlap from independent data sources suggests convergence on valid common biological functions.
Focal adhesion and the extracellular matrix were the most enriched biological functions
To gain the biological insights into the 41 DE genes, we initially explored the functional enrichment of the 41 gene set using the WebGestalt32 and g:Profiler33 analysis tools. The results in Supplementary Figure 5 show that the highest ranked functions were related to ‘focal adhesion’ (KEGG; WebGestalt) and the ‘extracellular matrix’ (REACTOME; g:Profiler). However, no significant enrichment (P <0.05 with B-H FDR <1.0E-05) was observed in either test.
We further evaluated the functional enrichment of the genes in the top 500-gene network proximal to the 41 DE gene seed set. Cluster enrichment analysis of the top 500 proximal network genes identified three clusters (Figure 2e) with 189 enriched terms (B-H q <0.05, range=0.0498-1.01E08), comprising clusters 0, 1, and 2, with 82, 67, and 40 functional terms, respectively. The enrichment for each of the three clusters, including the top 10 terms and gene contribution are summarized in Figure 3. The details of each functional term for each cluster are described in Supplementary Figure 6 and Supplementary Tables 12-14.
Overall, cluster 0 had the most enriched terms. Strikingly, almost all of the top 10 enriched terms in cluster 0 involved in the ECM, including the term with the greatest enrichment—‘extracellular matrix’ (GO:0031012; B-H q=1.01E-08), suggesting that cluster 0 mainly represented an ECM-related subnetwork. Whereas, the top ranked terms in cluster 1, such as G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) signaling and neuronal transmission, yielded subnetworks relevant to neuronal systems. The greatest enrichment in cluster 1 was ‘GPCR downstream signaling’ (REAC:R-HSA-388396; B-H q=1.57E-04). In contrast, most of the enriched terms in cluster 2 were related to tissue- specific functions, but not strongly significant. Only one term (HPA:007010_22, cerebellum; Purkinje cells; B-H q=0.04) was related to neurons. The greatest enrichment in cluster 2 (B-H q=0.0054) included ‘soft tissue 1; fibroblasts’ (HPA:047030_22) and ‘breast; myoepithelial cells’ (HPA:004030_22). Thus, the major findings of cluster analysis implicate the ECM in lithium response.
The KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of the top 500 proximal network genes revealed a total of 37 KEGG pathways that were significantly enriched (B-H q <0.05, range=0.02409-1.05E-21) among 196 genes (Figures 4a, b; Supplementary Figure 7; Supplementary Table 15). The 37 significant KEGG pathways involved four main KEGG categories: cellular processes, environmental information processing, human diseases, and organismal systems, of which the one with the greatest enrichment was ‘pathways in cancers’ (hsa05200; B-H q=1.05E-21), followed by ‘focal adhesion’ (hsa04510; B-H q=8.04-E20) as the second highest enrichment.
Of these 37 KEGG pathways, 17 were selected a priori based on their involvement in brain function and relevant involvement in pathways modulated by lithium, such as PI3K-Akt signaling, Ras signaling, MAPK signaling, and Wnt signaling (Figures 4a, b). These 17 relevant pathways with 130 network genes represented 26.0% of top 500 network genes, including 7 DE, 3 DE/GWAB, and 24 GWAB genes. Of the 17 relevant KEGG pathways, the top 3 were ‘focal adhesion’ (hsa04510; B-H q=8.04-E20), ‘ECM-receptor interaction’ (hsa04512; B-H q=1.57E-13), and ‘PI3K-Akt signaling pathway’ (hsa04151; B-H q=9.62E-13), respectively (Figure 4b). These top 3 pathways were significantly overrepresented in a subset of 54 network genes (10.8% of top 500 network genes). Note that 20 out of 54 genes overlapped among the top 3 relevant KEGG pathways (Figures 4c, d). The top relevant KEGG pathway — ‘focal adhesion’ with 42 network genes, is illustrated in Figure 4e, which also shows the connection between focal adhesion and other enriched pathways.
Notably, the enrichment of the top 500-proximal gene network was consistent with the preliminary enrichment of the 41 DE gene set obtained via WebGestalt32 and g:Profiler33 (Supplementary Figure 5). Likewise, Figure 5a summarizes the UniProtKB functions38 of the 41 DE genes, which were associated with cell/focal adhesion, the ECM, neurogenesis, including development of axon and synapse. Similarly, the UniProtKB function38 of 22 genes (Figure 5b) shared by gene sets of the top 3 terms of cluster 0 (91 genes) and the top 3 relevant KEGG pathways (54 genes) were involved in the same functions.
Hub-like genes are defined as genes that have a high degree of connectivity among pathways. Among a total of 90 genes from the top 3 of 37 KEGG pathways, seven genes (EGFR, TGFB2, CAMK2B, FGFR1, TIMP3, LAMA4, and COL1A1) showed the highest degree of connectivity (degree >200, range=202-258; Supplementary Table 16), which were considered ‘hub-like’ genes. Out of these seven, four genes were also found in a 54-gene subset of the top 3 of 17 KEGG pathways (Figures 4c, d). The top scoring gene (EGFR) was involved in all three pathways. The remaining three genes (FGFR1, LAMA4, and COL1A1) were involved in one or two pathways. Noticeably, all seven hub-like genes were not DE; but rather GWAB or network genes, since only 34 DE genes (6.80%) were part of the top 500- proximal gene network.
Discussion
In this study, we have combined GWAS and transcriptomic data to improve our overall power to detect genes and biological functions associated with lithium response. Analysis of the RNA-seq data indicated that the largest overall difference was between LR and NR, particularly in the absence of lithium, implying that inter-individual differences are a larger effect than the effect of lithium. In addition, the effect of lithium was similar between LR and NR subjects. We further demonstrated a highly significant overlap of the DE gene-propagated network and GWAB-prioritized genes (Phypergeometric=1.28E-09 for the top 500-proximal gene network; 4.10E-18 for the top 2000-proximal gene network), indicating that GWAB genes are in the same gene neighborhoods as the 41 DE genes. Functional enrichment analyses of the 500-gene network identified more than 200 functions and revealed ‘focal adhesion’ (KEGG), ‘ECM-related functions’ (KEGG and cluster 0) and ‘PI3K-Akt signaling’ (KEGG) as the functions influencing lithium response. PI3K-Akt signaling has long been implicated in lithium’s action, though the role of focal adhesion and the ECM in lithium response in BD are relatively novel results.
Several limitations temper the interpretation of our results. Most prominent is the small sample size of each iPSC-derived neuron group (6 LR; 5 NR; 6 controls) and the GWAS (n=256). Not surprisingly, no significant SNPs in the GWAS were detected due to low power. Only EA subjects were included, limiting generalization to other racial/ethnic groups. Lastly, our iPSC model using very young neurons may not reflect the behavior of mature neurons interacting with other surrounding cells in vivo from BD patients.
There are limited reports with which to compare our results. Recently, studies of lithium response in BD have examined gene expression but utilized different tissues or different comparisons (BD vs controls; BD LR vs BD NR; Li-exposure vs non-exposure). The majority of studies utilized lymphocytes36, 39–41, whose expression pattern is of limited relevance to brain; while few studies utilized either iPSC derived neurons18, 42 or post-mortem brains43. In the current study, six of our 41 DE genes from LR vs NR comparisons were also reported in previous transcriptomic studies of lithium response in BD. For five genes (HEY1, KLF10, PDGFA, POU3F1, and PTP4A3), expression in lymphoblasts was shown to be modulated by lithium36. Another gene (LEF1) was reported to be responsible for resistance to lithium in NR42. Surprisingly, only PDGFA appeared to be involved in both focal adhesion and the ECM. Our study failed to detect genes previously reported for lithium response (i.e., GADL110, GRIA28, SESTD113, lncRNAs11, and HLA antigen genes11). Nonetheless, we performed a post-hoc comparison of our 37 DE genes (Li-.LR vs Li-.NR) with genes identified in our PGBD/VA and two other GWA studies: the ConLiGen consortium GWAS of lithium response9 (n=2563) and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group (PGC-BD) GWAS of BD44 (n=51 710). Of the 35 DE genes for which GWAS results were available, 14 genes showed significant SNP association after Bonferroni correction (12 in our PGBD/VA study; DSP and LMX1B in the ConLiGen study; ADAMTS14 and FOXO6 in the PGC-BD study; Supplementary Table 17). LMX1B and ADAMTS14 were significant in two studies. Of these 14 significantly associated genes, 12 were part of the top 500-proximal gene network and achieved statistically significant functional enrichment. Taken together, our post-hoc findings indicate a striking level of correspondence between the RNA-seq and three independent GWAS results.
Focal adhesion and the ECM were novel and unexpected findings. In neurons, focal adhesions are a complex of proteins that bind multiple ECM proteins45–47. Integrins on the cell surface are activated by mechanical or chemical signals from the ECM, and in turn form the focal adhesion complex, which promotes actin-microtubule polymerization46, 48, 49. Axon guidance occurs as filopodia and lamellipodia of the growth cone detect and respond to axon guidance signals from the ECM proteins (known as guidance cues), resulting in growth-cone motility and turning50–54. The ECM, comprising various proteins, e.g., collagens and non-collagenous glycoproteins55, has been shown to be a dynamic structure that provides not just structural support for neurons and glia cells but has an important role in axon guidance and regulation of axonal growth56, 57. Thus, in neurons, focal adhesions and the ECM together form a “motor” that propels growth-cone movement and steering via downstream regulation of actin cytoskeleton organization47, 49, 52–54, 58, 59.
Figure 4e is the KEGG pathway diagram for focal adhesion (hsa04510), the most enriched among the 17 pathways relevant to BD/neuronal system, annotated with gene involvement from our analyses. Among these multiple genes (n=42), of particular interest is EGFR, our top hub-like gene, that appears to be essential for neuronal development, including neurite outgrowth and axonal regeneration60. A recent study also demonstrates that EGFR can modulate integrin tension and focal adhesion formation61. Altogether, it supports the role of EGFR in the focal adhesion process and the mechanism of lithium response in BD. It also shows an example of biological interconnections contributing to lithium response in BD, which were successfully identified by integrative multi-omics approaches.
A variety of studies indicate a strong effect of lithium on neurons in culture and in animal models62, 63. Lithium has been shown at therapeutic concentrations to regulate axon morphology, i.e., promote axon growth, enlarge the growth cone, and increase neurite branching64, 65. Inhibition of GSK3β results in a similar phenotype of elongated axons and increased branching consistent with lithium’s action being mediated by its inhibition of GSK3β66, 67. Lithium and two other mood stabilizing drugs, carbamazepine and valproate, all prevent growth-cone collapse, increase growth-cone area and axonal branching68.
BD neurons are shown to have morphopathological changes in a variety of measures, e.g., reductions in number, size, density, and/or dendrite lengths69–71, which suggests that BD neurons tend to be smaller with short dendrites and axons, as compared with normal/healthy neurons. Together with our findings, we hypothesize that BD LR inherit genetic defects in ‘focal adhesion’ and the ECM including the integrin- ECM interactions that cause disruption of focal adhesion function. This results in poorly branched and shortened axons with malformed growth cones that convey susceptibility to BD (Figure 5c). Lithium, through its actions (likely upon inhibition of GSK3β) of facilitating branching, re-arborization, and supporting the growth cone, is effective for BD LR by correcting these morphological and functional defects (Figure 5c’’). BD NR, on the other hand, have BD for reasons other than dysfunctional focal adhesion, and therefore, lithium does not rescue the relevant mechanisms and they fail to respond (Figure 5c’’’). In this model, BD LR and BD NR result from different disease mechanisms as has been previously proposed5, 18, 19, 36. Consistent with this, another line of evidence shows a significant difference in cellular adhesion in directly induced neuron-like cells between BD LR than BD NR72. This highlights the role of the biological cell adhesion-ECM process in the underlying mechanism of lithium response in BD.
In conclusion, to our knowledge, our study is the first to report the significant role of ‘focal adhesion’ and the ‘ECM’ influencing lithium response in BD. This study also demonstrates the power of applying network methods to multi-omics data. Our results suggest that both genetic and functional studies of lithium response and/or BD should focus efforts on the pathways of focal adhesion and the ECM as well as regulation of axonal growth/extension and synaptic connectivity. Distinguishing two distinct forms of BD would advance our understanding of disease mechanism and facilitate the development of novel therapeutics or a clinical test for lithium response.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Author Contributions
Designed the study: KEB, JRC, WHC, ESG, SGL, MJM, MGM, DC, JIN, KJØ, PPZ, MA, and JRK.
Collected the data: VN, MCM, RS, NA, AA, YB, WHB, HB, KEB, JRC, CVC, CC, WHC, AD, SF, CF, NF, MF, KG, JG, ESG, FG, TG, GH, PJ, M Kamali, M Kelly, SGL, FL, MJM, MGM, DC, CEM, FM, GM, JIN, CO, KJØ, KR, MS, PDS, CS, EKS, AS, BT, PPZ, MA, FHG, and JRK.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: VN, SBR, CMN, AXM, DC, PDS, KMF, and JRK.
Wrote the manuscript: VN, SBR, CMN, JRC, WHC, ESG, MJM, MGM, DC, JIN, KJØ, PDS, PPZ, MA, KMF, FHG, and JRK.
Securing funding: KEB, JRC, WHC, ESG, SGL, MJM, MGM, DC, JIN, KJØ, MA, and JRK.
Overall principal investigator: JRK.
All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Ethical Declarations
The Human Research Protection Program of UCSD gave ethical approval for this work.
Conflict of Interests
JIN is an investigator for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (US Headquarters, Raritan, NJ).
No other author declares a conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We thank the patients who participated. The study was primarily supported by a grant to JRK from the NIMH (U01 MH92758) as part of the Pharmacogenomics Research Network (PGRN) and a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. KMF is supported by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, part of the NIH, as part of support for the UCSD CTSA (UL1TR001442). FHG and MCM are supported by U19MH106434, part of the National Cooperative Reprogrammed Cell Research Groups (NCRCRG) to Study Mental Illness. FHG is also supported by grants from AHA-Allen Initiative in Brain Health and Cognitive Impairment Award made jointly through the American Heart Association and The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group (19PABH134610000), The JPB Foundation, Bob and Mary Jane Engman, Annette C. Merle-Smith, R01 MH095741, and Lynn and Edward Streim. The Halifax group (MA, CVC, JG, CO, and CS) is supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#166098), ERA PerMed project PLOT-BD, Research Nova Scotia, Genome Atlantic, Nova Scotia Health Authority and Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation (Lindsay Family Fund).