We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
It has been well established that both genes and non-shared environment contribute substantially to the underlying aetiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). A comprehensive overview of genetic research in MDD is presented.
Method
Papers were retrieved from PubMed up to December 2011, using many keywords including: depression, major depressive disorder, genetics, rare variants, gene–environment, whole genome, epigenetics, and specific candidate genes and variants. These were combined in a variety of permutations.
Results
Linkage studies have yielded some promising chromosomal regions in MDD. However, there is a continued lack of consistency in association studies, in both candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Numerous factors may account for variable results including the use of different diagnostic approaches, small samples in early studies, population stratification, epigenetic phenomena, copy number variation (CNV), rare variation, and phenotypic and allelic heterogeneity. The conflicting results are also probably, in part, a consequence of environmental factors not being considered or controlled for.
Conclusions
Each research group has to identify what issues their sample may best address. We suggest that, where possible, more emphasis should be placed on the environment in molecular behavioural genetics to identify individuals at environmental high risk in addition to genetic high risk. Sequencing should be used to identify rare and alternative variation that may act as a risk factor, and a systems biology approach including gene–gene interactions and pathway analyses would be advantageous. GWAS may require even larger samples with reliably defined (sub)phenotypes.