Role of Inflammation in Depressive and Anxiety Disorders, Affect, and Cognition: Genetic and Non-Genetic Findings in the Lifelines Cohort Study

Background: Low-grade systemic inflammation is implicated in the pathogenesis of various neuropsychiatric conditions affecting mood and cognition. While much of the evidence concerns depression, large-scale population studies of anxiety, affect, and cognitive function are scarce. Importantly, causality remains unclear. We used complementary non-genetic, genetic risk score (GRS), and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to examine whether inflammatory markers are associated with affect, depressive and anxiety disorders, and cognitive performance in the Lifelines Cohort; and whether associations are likely to be causal. Methods: Using data from up to 55,098 (59% female) individuals from the Dutch Lifelines cohort, we tested the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of C-reactive protein (CRP) with (i) depressive and anxiety disorders; (ii) positive and negative affect scores, and (iii) five cognitive measures assessing attention, psychomotor speed, episodic memory, and executive functioning (figural fluency and working memory). Additionally, we examined the association between inflammatory marker GRSs (CRP, interleukin-6 [IL-6], IL-6 receptor [IL-6R and soluble IL-6R (sIL-6R)], glycoprotein acetyls [GlycA]) on these same outcomes (Nmax=57,946), followed by MR analysis examining evidence of causality of CRP on outcomes (Nmax=23,268). In genetic analyses, all GRSs and outcomes were z-transformed. Results: In non-genetic analyses, higher CRP was associated with diagnosis of any depressive disorder, lower positive and higher negative affect scores, and worse performance on tests of figural fluency, attention, and psychomotor speed after adjusting for potential confounders, although the magnitude of these associations was small. In genetic analyses, CRPGRS was associated with any anxiety disorder (β=0.002, p=0.037, N=57,047) whereas GlycAGRS was associated with major depressive disorder (β=0.001, p=0.036; N=57,047). Both CRPGRS (β=0.006, p=0.035, N=57,946) and GlycAGRS (β=0.006, p=0.049; N=57,946) were associated with higher negative affect score. Inflammatory marker GRSs were not associated with cognitive performance, except sIL-6RGRS which was associated with poorer memory performance (β=−0.009, p=0.018, N=36,783). Further examination of the CRP-anxiety association using MR provided some weak evidence of causality (β=0.12; p=0.054). Conclusions: Genetic and non-genetic analyses provide consistent evidence for an association between CRP and negative affect. Genetic analyses suggest that IL-6 signaling could be relevant for memory, and that the association between CRP and anxiety disorders could be causal. These results suggest that dysregulated immune physiology may impact a broad range of trans-diagnostic affective symptoms. However, given the small effect sizes and multiple tests conducted, future studies are required to investigate whether effects are moderated by sub-groups and whether these findings replicate in other cohorts.


Cogstate Test Battery
Detection Task.This is a reaction time task designed to assess psychomotor functioning and processing speed (Kuiper et al., 2017).In this task, participants attend to a card in the centre of the screen and respond to the question "Has the card turned face up" with "Yes" as soon as the card faces up.The task ends after 35 correct trials.The primary outcome is reaction time (ms) normalised using log10 transformation.
Identification Task.This is a reaction time task designed to measure visual attention (Kuiper  et al., 2017).In this task, participants attend to a card in the centre of the screen and respond to the question "Is the card red?" with "Yes" or "No".The task ends after 30 correct trials.The primary outcome is reaction time (ms) normalized using log10 transformation.
One-back Task.This task is designed to measure of attention and working memory (Kuiper et  al., 2017).In this task, participants attend to a card in the centre of the screen and respond to the question "Is this card the same as that on the immediately previous trial?"with "Yes" or "No".The task ends after 30 correct trials.The primary outcome is proportion of correct answers, normalized using arcsine transformation.
One Card Learning Task.This task is designed to measure visual learning and memory (Kuiper et al., 2017).In this task, participants attend to a card in the centre of the screen and respond to the question "Have you seen this card before in this task?" with "Yes" or "No".The task ends after 42 trials.The primary outcome is proportion of correct answers normalized using arcsine transformation.

Lifelines Genetics Data
CytoSNP.In total, ~17,000 participants were genotyped in different batches using Illumina HumanCytoSNP-12v2.0 (n~16,500) and HumanCytoSNP-12v2.1 (n~500).Only probes present on both platforms were included.Genotyping was done using OptiCall and calls were refined using Beagle.CytoSNP originally used Genome Build 36, the probes were remapped to Genome Build 37 using SHRiMP2, with all probes are mapped on the forward strand.In total, 264,922 variants were present on both versions of the used HumanCytoSNP.Quality controls included excluding individuals with: (1) gender mismatches, (2) minimal or excessive heterozygosity, (3) duplicate sample identification, ( 4) missingness (call-rate < 95%), ( 5) non-Caucasian (determined by self-report in Lifelines phenotype database, Outlier [IBS] analysis, population stratification using Eigenstrat), ( 6) cryptic relationships (if a pair of samples were indicated as first-degree relatives using genetic similarity, the sample with the best genotyping quality was included).This resulted in 15,422 participants being available.Variants with minor allele frequency (MAF) of < 1%, call rate < 95%, or evidence for violations of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (p < 0.001) were removed.Phasing was done using SHAPEIT2 and imputation using IMPUTE2 (combined reference panel of both genomes Genome of the Netherlands release 5 and 1000 Genomes phase1 v3 was used).For further details, please see: http://wiki-lifelines.web.rug.nl/doku.php?id=gwas.

Affymetrix [UGLI2 cohort].
In total, 29,166 participants were genotyped in 12 batches using the FinnGen Thermo Fisher Axiom® Custom array.Genotyping was done in Human Genome Build hg38.Quality controls included excluding individuals with: (1) sample mix-ups (using gender mismatches and pedigree concordance), ( 2) heterozygosity (> 4 SD from the mean), (3) duplicate sample, (4) missingness (two-step process: first removed individuals with > 20% missingness and then > 3% missingness).A genetic relationship matrix was created for the 1000G cohort (without the admixed AMR population samples) (https://www.internationalgenome.org/) and used for principle-component-analysis (PCA) of up to 20 principal components to generate PC-loadings that were projected onto the UGLI2 cohort.The PC analysis of all 1000G superpopulations identified 142 non-Europeans (>4 SDs from centroid 1000G European population for first five PCs), and PC analysis of only 1000G European population identified 161 genetic outliers (>4 SDs from centroid of all UGLI2 samples for first two PCs).In this study, we removed non-European and genetic outliers from the dataset.Variants with MAF < 0.02%, call rate < 1%, HWE in all samples (p<1x10 -10 ), HWE in unrelated samples (p<1x10 -6 ; defined as no 1 st or 2 nd degree relations) were excluded.There were no SNPs with > 1% Mendelian errors across all parent-offspring pairs.Prior to imputation, genetic markers were lifted over to Genome Build GRCh37 and aligned with Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC) v1.1 (http://www.haplotypereferenceconsortium.org/site).A final set of 28,250 samples and 462,731 markers on autosomal and X chromosomes passing quality check steps above were used for genetic imputation using the Sanger imputation service using HRC panel.For further details, please see: http://wiki-lifelines.web.rug.nl/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=qc_report_ugli2_release_1_-v1.pdf and http://wiki-lifelines.web.rug.nl/doku.php?id=ugli.
Principal Components.Lifelines provides genetic PCs for each chip separately, and PCs created using combined data (using all individuals).For the GRAMMAR method, PCs calculated on each chip separately were used.For unadjusted analysis and analysis removing related individuals, combined PCs were used.

Said et al. (2022). Meta analysis of two GWAS: CHARGE Consortium (Ligthart et al., 2018)
Circulating CRP was natural log transformed.Individuals were excluded from analyses if they had an auto-immune disease, were taking immune-modulating agents (if information was available) or had CRP ≥ 4 SD from the mean.

UK Biobank
Circulating CRP was natural log transformed, and individuals with extreme values (± 4 SD) from the mean were excluded.Individuals taking immune modulating drugs, who had auto-immune related conditions (1.8% sample), were removed.

Ahluwalia et al. (2021)
Circulating IL-6 was natural log transformed.Only population-based samples or healthy controls from case-control studies were included.

Sarwar et al. (2012)
Circulating IL-6 was natural log transformed.This instrument is composed of a single SNP (rs2228145) in the IL6R gene.The minor allele of this SNP (358A1a) is associated with increased sIL6R levels and decreased CRP levels 4,5 .Cell based experiments show that the minor allele decreases classical signalling 4 .Therefore, the effect of this SNP can be seen as a proxy for IL-6 activity.For more information on the biological function of this SNP, see 4,6 .

Rosa et al. (2019)
This SNP list was based on the Sun et al. (2018) sIL6R GWAS.The GWAS includes participants in good health.Individuals were excluded if they had a history of major disease (such as myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, HIV, and hepatitis B or C) or and had a recent illness or infection.For more information, see 8 .Quality controls included exclusions for sex mismatches, low call rates, duplicate sample, extreme heterozygosity, and non-European descent.

Adjustment for relatedness in genetic analyses
To adjust for relatedness within each chip, two approaches were taken.First, we applied the GRAMMAR method (primary analysis) 9 : on each chip, we performed restricted estimated maximum likelihood predicting each outcome with the sparse genetic relationship matrix (GRM) and top 10 genetic principal components (PCs) as predictors.This was done using -reml-pred-rand in GCTA 10 .We extracted the residuals from each model and merged the data across chips (standardized GRS, residuals, age, sex).We then performed linear regressions to predict the outcome residuals using standardized GRS, age, sex, and chip (to adjust for potential differences between chips).Second, we re-ran analysis removing close relatives (secondary analysis) using king-cutoff 11 in Plink v2.0 12,13 to identify relatives using conventional cut-offs for kinship coefficients (up to first-degree: 0.177; up to second-degree: 0.088; up to third-degree: 0.044).

Creating Genetic Relationship Matrices (GRM)
Using genotype (non-imputed) data, we created three GRM's (one for each chip).SNPs were used to create the GRM if they met the following criteria: MAF (0.01), call rate (0.95), HWE (1e-6), not multi-allelic.Independent SNPs were selected using --indep-pairwise [50 10 0.1] in Plink v1.9.Following this, a sparse GRM was created by replacing non-diagonal values <0.125 to 0 using --make-bK in GCTA 10 .A sparse matrix was created so that inclusion of the GRM will only adjust for recent relatedness.

GRS analysis
Primary analyses were run adjusted for close relatedness within chips using a genetic relationship matrix (GRAMMAR method).Secondary analyses included (1) re-running the analysis unadjusted for relatedness within chips and (2) re-running the analysis removing close relatives within chips (up to first-degree, up to second-degree, up to third-degree).Conclusions are consistent across analyses.

GRSs associations with exposures and potential confounders
Linear regression models checked whether CRP GRS's predicted circulating levels of CRP in 23,607 Lifelines participants who had both genetic and CRP data available.The GRAMMAR method was used.All instruments had F-statistics >10 (158 for cis GRS, 1045 for genomewide GRS), indicating adequate instrument strength 14,15 .Cis and genome-wide instruments explained 0.7% and 4.2% variance in CRP levels, respectively.The amount of variance explained by CRP GRS's in circulating CRP is consistent with our previous results in the ALSPAC cohort 16 .
Linear regression models examined whether GRS's were associated with potential confounders.For primary instruments, there was evidence that the CRP cis instrument was associated with smoking (p=0.035) and weak evidence that the sIL6R instrument was associated with lower education attainment (p=0.061).For secondary instruments, there was evidence that the CRP genome-wide instrument was associated with BMI (p<0.001),smoking (p=0.0003) and lower education attainment (p=0.0004).Evidence for other GRS's was weak (Supplementary Table 3).Stronger evidence of associations between genomewide instruments and potential confounders (consistent to what was reported in the previous ALSPAC study) highlights that cis variants may provide more valid instruments for MR 16 .

Possible factors contributing to mixed MR results of CRP-depression
Four factors which may contribute are CRP SNP selection, how depression was measured, statistical power, and selection bias.Regarding SNP selection, all previous studies (including the current study) used cis CRP SNPs; and previous studies included the same four cis SNPs (rs1205, rs1130864, rs3093077, rs3091244) as either a primary or secondary instrument.Thus, it is unlikely that SNP selection is driving discrepancy.Depression has been characterized differently across studies.This includes self-reported probable lifetime depression 17 , hospitalization or death with depression 18 , depression questionnaires/interviews assessed using PHQ-9 and HADS-D (coded continuously and categorically) 19,20 or MINI (current study), or a mixture of the above 21 .Different measures assess different symptoms of depression (e.g., the PHQ-9 includes somatic symptoms which are not included in measures such as HADS-D 20 ).Therefore, if CRP differentially affects specific depression symptoms, this may contribute to mixed results observed.Selection bias should also be considered.For example, the study by Ye et al. (2021) which reported higher CRP to be associated with decreased risk of depression only included a subset of UK Biobank participants who responded to a mental health survey at follow-up, and consequently may be affected by selection bias.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Flow diagram of total sample size available for genetic risk score analysis.