Abstract
Despite recent progress, the challenges in drug discovery for schizophrenia persist. However, computational drug repurposing has gained popularity as it leverages the wealth of expanding biomedical databases. Network analyses provide a comprehensive understanding of transcription factor (TF) regulatory effects through gene regulatory networks, which capture the interactions between TFs and target genes by integrating various lines of evidence. Using the PANDA algorithm, we examined the topological variances in TF-gene regulatory networks between individuals with schizophrenia and healthy controls. This algorithm incorporates binding motifs, protein interactions, and gene co-expression data. To identify these differences, we subtracted the edge weights of the healthy control network from those of the schizophrenia network. The resulting differential network was then analysed using the CLUEreg tool in the GRAND database. This tool employs differential network signatures to identify drugs that potentially target the gene signature associated with the disease. Our analysis utilised a large RNA-seq dataset comprising 532 post-mortem brain samples from the CommonMind project. We constructed co-expression gene regulatory networks for both schizophrenia cases and healthy control subjects, incorporating 15,831 genes and 413 overlapping TFs. Through drug repurposing, we identified 18 promising candidates for repurposing as potential treatments for schizophrenia. The analysis of TF-gene regulatory networks revealed that the TFs in schizophrenia predominantly regulate pathways associated with energy metabolism, immune response, cell adhesion, and thyroid hormone signalling. These pathways represent significant targets for therapeutic intervention. The identified drug repurposing candidates likely act through TF-targeted pathways. These promising candidates, particularly those with preclinical evidence such as rimonabant and kaempferol, warrant further investigation into their potential mechanisms of action and efficacy in alleviating the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Subject terms: Drug development, Transcriptional regulatory elements
Introduction
Drug discovery for schizophrenia continues to be a formidable challenge despite recent pharmacological advances. Most effective antipsychotics currently available were discovered via clinical observations and serendipity more than 60 years ago [1]. Without credible biomarkers as well as animal models adequately representing the disease, the complexity of schizophrenia makes drug development, which is already a laborious process, all the more challenging [2, 3].
As an alternative to conventional drug discovery, drug repurposing has recently gained popularity. Considering known safety profiles and bioavailability, as well as established manufacturing processes, drug repurposing can bypass several steps compared to conventional drug discovery, thereby reducing the cost and risk of the development process [4, 5]. A variety of computational drug repurposing approaches have facilitated novel treatment research strategies by taking advantage of expanding biomedical databases.
Recently, network analysis – the use of multiple layers of knowledge to identify latent connections between components has emerged as a powerful tool for drug discovery. A recent example is integrating the human interactome with viral and drug targets to find repurposing medications for COVID-19 [6, 7]. Fitting well with the “one drug multiple targets” or poly-pharmacology paradigm shift in drug discovery for complex psychiatric disorders, a network medicine framework allows a simultaneous and comprehensive view of various biological components and their relationships [8–10].
Transcriptomics has been an essential feature of the genomic landscape and offers a comprehensive reflection of molecular status related to pathophysiology and medication effects [11, 12]. In this context, transcription factors (TFs) – as regulators of gene expression, play a major role in driving pathological conditions. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of exploring the main drivers of transcriptional profiles over the simple evaluation of all differentially expressed genes to explore the mechanism of phenotypic transitions [13, 14]. While the impact of gene expression regulators is amplified by the cascade of downstream targets, such regulatory influence is affected by not only the regulators’ expression level but also the availability of co-factors and targets as well as post-translational modifications. Hence, TFs’ activities may not coherently correlate directly to their expression levels and should be considered with other interacting elements, particularly their targets [15]. Recent systems-level analyses allow the comprehensive assessment of TF regulatory effects via gene regulatory networks, reflecting TF and target genes interactions by incorporating multiple lines of evidence complementing gene expression such as motif binding and physical protein interactions [16–18].
In this study, we first identified the topological differences of the TF-gene regulatory networks of schizophrenia cases versus healthy controls using PANDA (Passing Attributes between Networks for Data Assimilation). PANDA uses information from different data types (i.e., motifs, protein interactions, gene co-expression) to iteratively refine predictions of context-specific regulatory relationships by searching for agreement among available evidence [16]. By focusing on the differential interactions (edges of the network), PANDA highlights meaningful patterns in regulatory changes for genes that are not differentially expressed [19]. These perturbations can then be utilised as network-based signatures for finding potential drug repurposing candidates for the treatment of schizophrenia.
The notion of signatures for drug repurposing was based on Connectivity Map (CMap) [20] and the Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) [21], where transcriptional expression patterns are considered as the unique ‘signature’ of disease states as well as drug effects [22, 23]. By matching signatures based on their dissimilarity or similarity, potential drug-disease connections (signature reversion strategy) or drug-drug associations (guilt-by-association strategy) respectively can be explored and interrogated for drug repurposing [23]. Typical signature-based approaches on differential expression profiles have several limitations: differential expression profiles are susceptible to poor reproducibility [18, 21] and simplistic signature matching ignores the interactions between genes and their functional redundancy [24]. Network-based approaches which consider modular units as key regulators instead of a single set of individual genes could offer a more biologically relevant approach to mitigate these limitations. Integration of more data sources and network models can not only improve reproducibility and robustness but also yield more biologically relevant insights into molecular mechanism(s) at a systems level [18, 24, 25]. Therefore, our application of gene regulatory networks could shed light on biologically important processes associated with numerous phenotypes, which may be missed when looking at gene expression alone. To our best knowledge, this is the first-time gene regulatory networks were used for drug repurposing for schizophrenia.
Methods
RNA sequencing data
Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) RNA sequencing data were accessed from the CommonMind Consortium [26]. After quality control, a total of 532 post-mortem samples belonging to the MSSM – Pitt – Penn Brain Bank were collected from 279 healthy control subjects and 253 people with schizophrenia. Genes being expressed at more than 0.5 count per million (CPM) in at least 30% of samples were kept for downstream analyses. While within- and between-sample normalisations are commonly used for gene expression analyses such as differential expression, a comprehensive benchmark study of normalisation techniques for co-expression network construction by Johnson et al. found that any normalisation mainly results to worse performance than not using it [27]. Therefore, in this study, no normalisation was applied to the read counts given the lack of evidence justifying its use in network construction.
The R package variancePartition was used to produce expression residuals as input for the co-expression network [28]. We accounted for covariates with the most variance explained and/or the greatest spreads in the linear mixed model as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1 (i.e., diagnosis, sex, RNA integrity number, cell type composition, institution, age of death, intronic rate, intragenic rate, intergenic rate, ribosomal RNA rate). These covariates were regressed out (i.e., we excluded the effects by such variables), followed by the adding back of main variable of diagnosis and the intercept. The expression residuals were pre-processed (removal of genes with no counts, taking the average of duplicated genes) before being calculated for co-expression in PANDA using Pearson correlations.
Gene co-expression regulatory networks
The R package PANDA was used to build the bipartite gene regulatory network that linked TFs to their target genes via a guilt-by-association approach with two main scenarios: (1) if TF A was known to regulate gene B, then TF A may regulate gene C which is co-expressed with gene B; (2) if TF X regulates gene Y then a TF Z interacting with TF X may also co-regulate gene Y [16]. PANDA integrates three sources of information to infer the TF-gene regulatory network: TF physical protein-protein interactions (TF - TF links), gene co-expression (gene - gene links) and TF motif binding sites (TF - gene links) [16].
TF protein-protein interactions (PPI) were obtained from the STRING database [29] with confidence scores reflecting how likely an interaction was considered to be true from combined sources of evidence. A threshold of 0.7 (high confidence) was applied to the combined score to convert the score to binary (0 implies no interaction and 1 implies high likelihood of interaction). Binding motifs were acquired from previous studies [30, 31], where TF binding domain sequences (i.e., motifs) were scanned for their presence in the promoter regions of genes where transcription initiates.
Expression residuals, TF PPI and binding motifs were inputted in PANDA with the following non-default parameters to make sure only mutual connections shared by PPI, co-expression and TF motifs were considered in the networks: mode = “legacy”, remove.missing.motif = True, remove.missing.ppi = True, remove.missing.genes = True. Two separate regulatory networks were built for schizophrenia cases and healthy control subjects. Edge weight of each network implied the strength of connection of TFs and genes, reflected via Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the TF and the target gene.
Differential schizophrenia network
To find the differences in regulation in schizophrenia patients as compared to healthy control subjects, the two corresponding regulatory networks were first aligned and filtered to keep intersections of genes and TFs only. Then the differential network was estimated by subtracting the edge weights of the healthy control network from those of schizophrenia network. All networks were imported and visualised in Cytoscape [32].
Gene regulatory network analysis is based on the hypothesis that alterations in the way TFs regulate genes lead to “targeting” patterns that explain phenotypic perturbations or reactions to specific stimuli. When conducting comparative gene regulatory network analysis, TFs that regulate gene sets with different patterns (e.g., changing targets, disturbance in the order of targeting intensity) in the compared phenotypes are typically identified as “differential targeting” TFs [33]. Enrichment analysis of differential targeting was performed based on Subramanian et al. rank-based gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) [34] via the R package ClusterProfiler [35], with gene lists ranked based on differential targeting score and pathway reference from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database [36].
Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied on the non-normally distributed targeting scores (Shapiro–Wilk normality test) to identify TFs with significant differential targeting between schizophrenia and healthy control subjects. To account for multiple testing correction, Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted q-values were generated.
Finding drug repurposing candidates
The 100 top positively differential TFs and 100 top negatively differential TFs based on the differential targeting score were submitted to the CLUEreg tool of the GRAND database [33] which utilises differential network signatures to find drugs that potentially target the disease’s gene signature. The drug typically is expected to revert the abnormal alterations to normality, knowing as “signature reversion” approach in signature-based drug repurposing [23]. Herein, ideal drug matches are the ones that negatively regulate the top 100 positively regulated TFs in samples with schizophrenia, and positively regulate the top 100 negatively regulated TFs in schizophrenia. The similarity of a pair of network-based signatures was evaluated by cosine similarity score and statistical significance was calculated to compare such score with those of other pairs. The more negative cosine value suggests the drug’s signature is more dissimilar to the disease, suggesting higher likeliness of reversing the queried disease.
Results
Using a large RNA-seq dataset of 532 post-mortem brain samples [26], we built co-expression gene regulatory networks for schizophrenia cases and healthy control subjects. Patient clinical features of samples used in the RNA-sequencing are in Supplementary Table 1. Each network was pruned to retain 15,831 genes and 413 TFs overlapping in both schizophrenia and healthy control networks. In corresponding networks for each phenotype (Supplementary Fig. 2 for schizophrenia cases and Supplementary Fig. 3 for healthy controls – due to limited space only top 200 edges for each network were illustrated), an edge connecting a TF to its target gene reflects the likelihood of the regulatory relationship. The edge weight was represented by the z-score of the confidence interval calculated by PANDA [16].
To find topological differences between the gene regulatory networks of schizophrenia versus healthy controls, we subtracted the edge weights of the healthy control network from those of the schizophrenia network. TFs with significant differential targeting scores between schizophrenia and healthy control subjects were represented in Fig. 1. Bar plot of variance partitioned on the variables accounted in variancePartition’s linear mixed model for these TFs is presented in Supplementary Fig. 4. The network with the top 100 differential regulatory edges sorted by largest absolute value is shown in Fig. 2. Sum of edge weights was used as a summary measure for each node (i.e., gene or TF). The term “gene targeting” implies the weighted in-degree of each gene (i.e., the sum of the incoming edge weights from all TFs in the network to that gene), and “TF targeting” implies the weighted out-degree for each TF (the sum of outgoing edges from that TF to all its target genes).
The gene targeting difference between the schizophrenia and healthy control networks was then used as ranking metric for enrichment analysis of differential targeting. Significant pathways are presented in Fig. 3. The full enrichment results can be found in Supplementary Table 2. Positive normalised enrichment score (NES) implies more TF targeting and negative NES implies less TF targeting on the corresponding pathway in schizophrenia. Ribosome and oxidative phosphorylation were most positively targeted pathways by TFs, while platelet activation and focal adhesion were most negatively targeted pathways.
From the differential network, the 100 top positively differential TFs and 100 top negatively differential TFs were then used as network-based signatures to query for potential drug repurposing candidates for schizophrenia. From the top 100 drug repurposing candidates highlighted by the GRAND database, we focused on drugs having Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) generated by US Food and Drug Administration [37], that have known activities in the central nervous system, have been approved or are undergoing clinical trials (Table 1). The full results with relevant literature review evidence can be found in Supplementary Table 3.
Table 1.
Drug | Cosine | Q-value | Pharmacological targets | Therapeutic indication |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alendronic-acid | −0.3871 | <0.001 | Farnesyl diphosphate synthase - InhibitorGeranylgeranyl pyrophosphate synthetase - Inhibitor Acetylcholinesterase - Inhibitor | Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis - Approved Osteoporosis - ApprovedPaget’s disease - Approved |
Khellin | −0.3446 | <0.001 |
Cytochrome P450 1A1 - Inhibitor Aryl hydrocarbon receptor - Activator Ca2+ influx - Inhibitor |
Angina pectoris - ApprovedAsthma - Approved Vitiligo - Phase II |
Rimonabant | −0.3203 | <0.001 |
Cannabinoid CB1 receptor - Inverse Agonist Cannabinoid CB2 receptor - Inverse Agonist |
Obesity - ApprovedArteriosclerosis - Phase IIIFatty liver disease - Phase III |
Kaempferol | −0.3165 | <0.001 |
Ribosomal protein S6 kinase alpha 5 - Inhibitor DNA topoisomerase II - Inhibitor Monoamine oxidase A - Inhibitor Ribosomal protein S6 kinase alpha 3 - Inhibitor |
Osteoarthritis - Phase II Cancer - Preclinical Depression - Preclinical |
Alizapride | −0.3008 | <0.001 | Dopamine D2 receptor - Antagonist | Nausea and vomiting - Approved |
Glutamine | −0.2953 | <0.001 |
Protein-glutamine gamma-glutamyltransferase - Substrate CTP synthase 1 - Antagonist Apoptotic process - Inhibitor Glutaminase kidney isoform, mitochondrial - Substrate |
Short bowel syndrome - Approved |
Carbachol | −0.2939 | <0.001 |
Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor - Agonist Acetylcholinesterase - Substrate |
Elevated intraocular pressure - Approved |
Vidarabine | −0.2821 | 0.0271 |
Adenosine receptor - Agonist Thymidine kinase - Substrate Human herpesvirus 1 DNA polymerase - Inhibitor |
Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia - ApprovedKeratoconjunctivitis - Approved Epithelial keratitis - ApprovedHerpes simplex infection - Phase III |
Ellagic-acid | −0.2738 | <0.001 |
Tyrosine-protein kinase TIE-2 - Inhibitor Aldose reductase - Inhibitor Casein kinase II alpha - Inhibitor |
Follicular lymphoma - Phase II HPV infection - Pilot randomised controlled trial |
Benfotiamine | −0.2321 | 0.0317 | Glycogen synthase kinase-3 - Inhibitor | Type 1 diabetes mellitus - Phase IIAlzheimer’s disease - Phase II |
Cosine: Similarity of drug versus disease, more negative is better (more dissimilar). Q-value: Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-value. Phase refers to the current clinical trial stage.
As a validation for drug repurposing results, we applied the similar analyses using two independent post-mortem datasets as replications of the main dataset: HBCC Brain Bank from CommonMind Consortium, BrainGVEX study from PsychENCODE [26, 109]. A Supplementary Methods and Results. We found 49 out of 100 repurposing candidates with statistical significance (q-value < 0.05) from the current dataset (MSSM – Pitt – Penn Brain Bank from CommonMind Consortium) were replicated in both datasets. Only 6 drugs were not replicated in any analysed datasets. All shortlisted drugs in Table 1 were replicated in at least one dataset, with 6 candidates (alendronic-acid, rimonabant, alizapride, glutamine, carbachol, ellagic-acid) being replicated in both datasets.
Discussion
The current study deployed network analyses to identify different targeting patterns of TFs in schizophrenia versus healthy controls. We then applied the acquired TF signatures of differential network targeting for drug repurposing. While TFs are generally expressed at lower levels than non-TF genes, their effects may be amplified by the cascade of regulatory mechanisms they induce [38]. The use of differential targeting enabled the comparison of the flow of regulation rather than the state of single genes as in differential expression, where TFs could be less prioritised than their potential targets with higher expression [39]. Herein, we found our most differentially targeting TFs (Fig. 1) were not the most differentially expressed genes highlighted by a previous study by Fromer et al. using a similar dataset [40]. However, these TFs have been associated with schizophrenia in other studies as shown in Supplementary Table 5. Moreover, no significantly enriched pathways by differentially expressed genes were observed in Fromer et al., while we identified some pathways enriched by the differential targeting. Interestingly, our enrichment analysis of differential targeting highlighted several main biological functions (Fig. 3), i.e., energy metabolism, immune response, cell adhesion and thyroid hormone signalling, which are highly relevant to schizophrenia.
Impaired energy metabolism has been reported in schizophrenia, mainly owing to mitochondrial dysfunction [41, 42]. Mitochondria engage in oxidative phosphorylation, which is the main energy-producing pathway [43]. There have been abnormalities reported in schizophrenia in the gene expression and activity of oxidative phosphorylation complexes, mostly of complex I, affecting the production of high-energy phosphates [44]. Positive symptomology and active psychosis are associated with increased complex I activity, whereas residual psychosis is associated with decreased activity [45]. Antipsychotics have been shown to decrease oxidative phosphorylation and related respiratory responses in different neuronal cell models, potentially via complex I [46, 47]. For ribosomes, increased total protein levels and protein synthesis were reported in induced pluripotent stem cells derived from schizophrenia patients versus healthy controls [48]. We also found antipsychotic drugs reduced overall expression of ribosomal genes and protein synthesis in neuronal-like cells [49]. The validity of this finding is suggested by research showing that N-acetylcysteine which ameliorates redox dysfunction may have benefits in schizophrenia, especially negative symptoms [50].
The immune response has been associated with schizophrenia, given many risk genes of the disorder also play roles in inflammation and pathogen life cycles [51, 52]. Such links support the hypothesis of schizophrenia being a pathogenetic autoimmune disease: pathogen-induced knockdown may contribute to the immune activation in the patient’s brain and lymphocytes, as well as immune-related gene variants in schizophrenia [53, 54]. While there are contradictory results regarding the direction of cytokine level changes that could result from different disease stages and patient conditions, disturbances in cytokine levels and interactions may be significant contributors to schizophrenia pathophysiology [55]. Agents affecting inflammation such as minocycline and celecoxib have been explored in schizophrenia with variable results [56–58].
Cell adhesion is a major contributor to maintaining neuronal structure and regulates synaptic plasticity, as well as complex brain functions such as memory and learning [59]. In the developing nervous system, disrupted neuronal cell adhesion can cause neural circuits to malfunction, potentially leading to several neuropsychiatric diseases including schizophrenia [60]. Integrins, cadherins and claudins are among the main groups of cell adhesion molecules and are linked via the actin cytoskeleton. Cadherins are responsible for homotypic adhesion between cells (forming adherens junctions), integrins are responsible for adhesion between the cell and its extracellular matrix (contributing to focal adhesion), and claudins form the tight junction regulating paracellular barrier permeability [61, 62]. Proteoglycans provide a contact link between the cell membrane and the surrounding extracellular matrix [63]. Abnormalities of these elements have been reported in schizophrenia: reduced focal adhesion in patient-derived cells [64], negative correlation between expression of tight junction mRNAs and disease duration [65], and loss of adherens junctions in human iPSC-derived neural progenitors carrying a risk variant [66]. Altered levels of immune cell adhesion molecules in the plasma of schizophrenia patients also suggested the link of disrupted cell adhesion to abnormal immunomodulation in the disorder as discussed previously [67, 68].
Thyroid hormones have been known to play a vital role in neuronal and glial development, leading to their associations with multiple neurological disorders including schizophrenia [69–71]. Decreased phosphatidylinositol phospholipid levels as well lower expression levels of genes relevant to this signalling pathway were reported in the post-mortem prefrontal cortex of schizophrenia patients [72, 73]. Interestingly, phosphatidylinositol signalling can activate focal adhesion kinase - a central signalling component of focal adhesion, linking to the aforementioned cell adhesion processes [74].
Our drug repurposing utilising the disease signature of differential targeting TFs to find compounds that may correct the abnormalities in schizophrenia. This is the first time drug repurposing based on differential targeting networks has been applied in schizophrenia. It should be noted that different repurposing methodologies could produce different results, for example transcriptomics-based versus genetically-driven. Zhang et al. 2019 utilised a different methodology based on genetic-trait associations and CommonMind Consortium data was used for expression quantitative trait loci analysis [75]. In the Zhang et al. study, repurposing for schizophrenia led to one candidate surviving correction for multiple testing, i.e., phenformin – a withdrawn anti-diabetic agent. While the reported impaired glucose homoeostasis of schizophrenia could be relevant to the potential of phenformin in the disorder, antipsychotics have also been widely associated with metabolic abnormalities [76]. It is challenging to determine whether the metabolic traits linked to schizophrenia could be specific to the disorder or the off-target effects of medications. While 5 out of our 10 top drugs were in the list of drugs associated with schizophrenia in Supplementary Fig. 6 from Zhang et al. (khellin, kaempferol, carbachol, vidarabine, benfotiamine) – none of these survived multiple testings (phenformin was the only one that did in Zhang et al. study). While the different strategies for drug repurposing could offer alternatives suiting different data availability, every drug repurposing candidate should be considered carefully with as much validation as possible. In this study, apart from comprehensive literature review, we replicated the primary dataset’s analyses by applying similar methods to two independent post-mortem datasets from CommonMind Consortium and PsychENCODE (details in Supplementary Methods and Results). Our findings revealed a high replication rate, with 94 out of 100 repurposing candidates replicated in at least one dataset. Notably, 49 of these candidates were replicated in all datasets examined. This supports the notion that TF-based network methodologies could improve reproducibility as mentioned above.
Among the top drugs highlighted in Table 1, rimonabant and kaempferol had preclinical evidence supporting beneficial effects for schizophrenia. Rimonabant is an inverse agonist of cannabinoid receptors and has been shown to normalise psychotic-like behaviours in animal models of schizophrenia [77, 78]. Rimonabant, previously approved as anti-obesity drug, was withdrawn from European market in 2008 due to negative psychiatric side effects (depression and anxiety) [79]. Therefore, comorbid depression was part of exclusion criteria in a 16-week randomised controlled trial in 2011 on neurocognitive impairments in schizophrenia. The trial found rimonabant improved specific learning deficit based on response to positive feedback with no significant difference in anxiety/depression subscale of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score [80]. Kaempferol, a polyphenol, has exhibited neuroprotection in rat models of hippocampal damage and memory deficits via the activation of SIRT1 – a neuroprotective gene in schizophrenia [81–83]. Alendronic acid, an osteoporosis medication, has been also highlighted as a repurposing candidate for schizophrenia in another study using a drug-protein interactome [84]. It has been demonstrated that alendronic acid inhibits acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and markedly reduces AChE activity in the frontal cortex of rats [85, 86]. Interestingly, a Cochrane review of clinical randomised trials revealed that the addition of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors to antipsychotics leads to improvements in the overall psychopathology, negative symptomatology, and depressive symptoms in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia [87]. This suggests alendronic acid could be beneficial for schizophrenia via its effect on AChE.
The top drug repurposing candidates with known mechanisms of action tended to affect the main biological processes enriched by the differential TFs. Khellin, kaempferol and ellagic acid likely affect oxidative phosphorylation. Khellin, a phytochemical extracted from Ammi visnaga, could rescue mitochondrial dysfunction in common forms of familial Parkinson’s disease (Table 1 of screening study by Mortiboys et al.) [88]. Kaempferol can also reduce oxidative stress [81, 89]. Ellagic acid, a phenolic acid, was found to alleviate clozapine‑induced oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in cardiomyocytes [90].
With the relevance of the immune response to schizophrenia, targeting pathogens may ameliorate the disorder. Vidarabine, an antiviral mainly used against herpes simplex virus, has been reported to improve a patient’s schizo-affective disorder possibly induced by the viral infection as per a case study reported by Schlitt et al. [91]. Associations of herpes simplex virus to schizophrenia have been found not only in the immediate viral carriers but also in their offspring [92–94].
Benfotiamine and carbachol may be beneficial via phosphatidylinositol signalling. Benfotiamine, a derivative of thiamine, improved cognitive function and suppressed glycogen synthase kinase-3 activity in an animal model of Alzheimer’s disease [95]. Glycogen synthase kinase-3 is a target of Akt, which is a downstream effector of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase activation [96]. Carbachol, a cholinergic activator, targets M3 muscarinic receptors which enhances phospholipase Cβ 3 in phosphatidylinositol signalling [97]. Cholinergic activation of M3 and M1 receptors induced by carbachol was also found to facilitate synaptic plasticity in a model of GABA dysfunction in schizophrenia [98]. Alizapride (a dopamine 2 receptor antagonist) and glutamine (the main precursor of glutamate) affect the main neurotransmission targets of current antipsychotic drugs [99–101]. While the dopaminergic and glutamatergic pathways were not among the most significantly enriched pathways by differential targeting of TFs, they still had significant nominal p-values (Supplementary Table 2). Circulating glutamate and glutamine levels was suggested to be under dual regulatory pattern in schizophrenia. Madeira et al. reported increased glutamine/glutamate ratio versus healthy individuals at the recent onset of schizophrenia followed by a decrease of the ratio in chronic patients [102]. A meta-analysis of 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies found higher glutamine in frontal brain region of schizophrenia patients, yet both glutamine and glutamate levels reduced at a faster rate with age comparing with healthy controls [103]. It was unclear if such glutamatergic changes were due to the progression of the disease or antipsychotic usage, making it hard to justify the potential of glutamine for treatment.
There are some limitations of this study. The methodology has not been subjected to benchmarking, due to the lack of suitable ground-truth drug repurposing datasets for sensitivity and specificity analyses. Gene regulatory networks may be biased towards well-studied TFs and proteins. The results depend on limited treatment response data, which could have been yielded from non-neuronal cell types. In addition, the transcriptomics data was not derived from drug-naïve patients, potentially diminishing the importance of the main targets of current medications (e.g., dopamine antagonists) in the drug repurposing results. Nevertheless, the identified repurposing candidates may work on poorly addressed pathological features of schizophrenia, as highlighted by the enriched pathways potentially targeted by them. Only post-mortem samples from DLPFC were considered, hence the results may not be generalisable to other brain regions. The DLPFC focus is due to the various evidence showing abnormalities in schizophrenia from genetics to functional imaging [104–107]. It would be important to examine other brain regions in the future. Furthermore, a hurdle in post-mortem brain analyses lies in the fact that even with the inclusion of explicit, observed covariates, there may still be an incomplete accounting for the effects of RNA degradation or other latent variables [108]. In view of this, the results of this study should be interpreted carefully, as more research is necessary before clinical implementation.
In conclusion, our study deployed comprehensive network-based approaches taking advantage of high-throughput data and prior knowledge to elucidate gene expression regulation driven by TFs in schizophrenia. Energy metabolism, immune response, cell adhesion, and thyroid hormone signalling are among the significant pathways that have been unveiled to be most regulated by the TFs in the disorder. Using the TF signatures from regulatory perturbations in schizophrenia, we ultimately searched for potential drugs that can be repurposed to treat schizophrenia. The best repurposing candidates with known mechanisms were then described in the context of TF-targeted pathways. Those candidates, especially ones with supported preclinical evidence such as kaempferol, should be studied further on their potential mechanisms of action and efficacy in ameliorating schizophrenia.
Supplementary information
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. Søren Østergaard, Dr. Christopher Rohde (Aarhus University), Dr. Sonia Shah, Dr. Clara Jiang (University of Queensland), Prof. Lana Williams and Amanda Stuart (Deakin University) for their assistance with data analysis. Data were generated as part of the CommonMind Consortium supported by funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and NIH grants R01MH085542, R01MH093725, P50MH066392, P50MH080405, R01MH097276, RO1-MH-075916, P50M096891, P50MH084053S1, R37MH057881, AG02219, AG05138, MH06692, R01MH110921, R01MH109677, R01MH109897, U01MH103392, U01MH116442, project ZIC MH002903 and contract HHSN271201300031C through IRP NIMH. MB is supported by a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship and Leadership 3 Investigator grant (1156072 and 2017131). Data were generated as part of the PsychENCODE Consortium, supported by: U01DA048279, U01MH103339, U01MH103340, U01MH103346, U01MH103365, U01MH103392, U01MH116438, U01MH116441, U01MH116442, U01MH116488, U01MH116489, U01MH116492, U01MH122590, U01MH122591, U01MH122592, U01MH122849, U01MH122678, U01MH122681, U01MH116487, U01MH122509, R01MH094714, R01MH105472, R01MH105898, R01MH109677, R01MH109715, R01MH110905, R01MH110920, R01MH110921, R01MH110926, R01MH110927, R01MH110928, R01MH111721, R01MH117291, R01MH117292, R01MH117293, R21MH102791, R21MH103877, R21MH105853, R21MH105881, R21MH109956, R56MH114899, R56MH114901, R56MH114911, R01MH125516, and P50MH106934 awarded to: Alexej Abyzov, Nadav Ahituv, Schahram Akbarian, Alexander Arguello, Lora Bingaman, Kristin Brennand, Andrew Chess, Gregory Cooper, Gregory Crawford, Stella Dracheva, Peggy Farnham, Mark Gerstein, Daniel Geschwind, Fernando Goes, Vahram Haroutunian, Thomas M. Hyde, Andrew Jaffe, Peng Jin, Manolis Kellis, Joel Kleinman, James A. Knowles, Arnold Kriegstein, Chunyu Liu, Keri Martinowich, Eran Mukamel, Richard Myers, Charles Nemeroff, Mette Peters, Dalila Pinto, Katherine Pollard, Kerry Ressler, Panos Roussos, Stephan Sanders, Nenad Sestan, Pamela Sklar, Nick Sokol, Matthew State, Jason Stein, Patrick Sullivan, Flora Vaccarino, Stephen Warren, Daniel Weinberger, Sherman Weissman, Zhiping Weng, Kevin White, A. Jeremy Willsey, Hyejung Won, and Peter Zandi.
Author contributions
Conceptualisation, KW, JHK, TTTT and MB; methodology, TTTT, OMD and KW; formal analysis, TTTT, and B.P.; software, TTTT; resources, KW; data curation, ZSJL; writing—original draft preparation, TTTT; writing—review and editing, ZSJL, BP, OMD, MB, JHK, and KW; visualisation: TTTT, ZSJL, and JHK; funding acquisition, KW; supervision, KW, JHK and MB.
Funding
This research was funded by National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant (GNT1078928) and Centre of Research Excellence (GNT1153607). MB is supported by a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship and Leadership 3 Investigator grant (1156072 and 2017131). Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41386-024-01805-6
References
- 1.Smoller JW. Psychiatric genetics and the future of personalized treatment. Depress Anxiety. 2014;31:893. doi: 10.1002/da.22322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Stahl SM. Stahl’s essential psychopharmacology: neuroscientific basis and practical applications. Cambridge University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lee HM, Kim Y. Drug repurposing is a new opportunity for developing drugs against neuropsychiatric disorders. Schizophr Res Treatment. 2016, 2016, 6378137, 10.1155/2016/6378137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 4.Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA, Escott KJ, Hopper S, Wells A, et al. Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18:41–58. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2018.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ashburn TT, Thor KB. Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:673–83. doi: 10.1038/nrd1468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Morselli Gysi D, do Valle Í, Zitnik M, Ameli A, Gan X, Varol O, et al. Network medicine framework for identifying drug-repurposing opportunities for COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118:e2025581118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2025581118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Adhami M, Sadeghi B, Rezapour A, Haghdoost AA, MotieGhader H. Repurposing novel therapeutic candidate drugs for coronavirus disease-19 based on protein-protein interaction network analysis. BMC Biotechnol. 2021;21:22. doi: 10.1186/s12896-021-00680-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Truong TTT, Panizzutti B, Kim JH, Walder K, Repurposing drugs via network analysis: opportunities for psychiatric disorders. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 10.3390/pharmaceutics14071464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 9.Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4:682–90. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bianchi MT, Botzolakis EJ. Targeting ligand-gated ion channels in neurology and psychiatry: is pharmacological promiscuity an obstacle or an opportunity? BMC Pharmacol. 2010;10:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-10-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zygmunt M, Piechota M, Rodriguez Parkitna J, Korostyński M. Decoding the transcriptional programs activated by psychotropic drugs in the brain. Genes Brain Behav. 2019;18:e12511. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sequeira PA, Martin MV, Vawter MP. The first decade and beyond of transcriptional profiling in schizophrenia. Neurobiol Dis. 2012;45:23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2011.03.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lim WK, Lyashenko E, Califano A. Master regulators used as breast cancer metastasis classifier. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2009;504–15 10.1142/9789812836939_0048. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Padi M, Quackenbush J. Integrating transcriptional and protein interaction networks to prioritize condition-specific master regulators. BMC Syst Biol. 2015;9:80. doi: 10.1186/s12918-015-0228-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schacht T, Oswald M, Eils R, Eichmüller SB, König R. Estimating the activity of transcription factors by the effect on their target genes. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:i401–i407. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Glass K, Huttenhower C, Quackenbush J, Yuan GC. Passing messages between biological networks to refine predicted interactions. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e64832. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Weighill D, Ben Guebila M, Lopes-Ramos C, Glass K, Quackenbush J, Platig J, et al. Gene regulatory network inference as relaxed graph matching. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell. 2021;35:10263–72. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v35i11.17230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.De Bastiani MA, Pfaffenseller B, Klamt F. Master regulators connectivity map: a transcription factors-centered approach to drug repositioning. Front Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 10.3389/fphar.2018.00697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Glass K, Quackenbush J, Spentzos D, Haibe-Kains B, Yuan GC. A network model for angiogenesis in ovarian cancer. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16:115. doi: 10.1186/s12859-015-0551-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, Modell JW, Blat IC, Wrobel MJ, et al. The connectivity map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science. 2006;313:1929–35. doi: 10.1126/science.1132939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Vidović D, Koleti A, Schürer SC. Large-scale integration of small molecule-induced genome-wide transcriptional responses, Kinome-wide binding affinities and cell-growth inhibition profiles reveal global trends characterizing systems-level drug action. Front Genet. 2014, 5, 10.3389/fgene.2014.00342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 22.Shukla R, Henkel ND, Alganem K, Hamoud AR, Reigle J, Alnafisah RS, et al. Signature-based approaches for informed drug repurposing: targeting CNS disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 2020, 10.1038/s41386-020-0752-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 23.Iorio F, Rittman T, Ge H, Menden M, Saez-Rodriguez J. Transcriptional data: a new gateway to drug repositioning? Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:350–7. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.07.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Liu W, Tu W, Li L, Liu Y, Wang S, Li L, et al. Revisiting connectivity map from a gene co‑expression network analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2018;16:493–500. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.6275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Musa A, Ghoraie LS, Zhang S-D, Glazko G, Yli-Harja O, Dehmer M, et al. A review of connectivity map and computational approaches in pharmacogenomics. Brief Bioinforma. 2017;19:506–23. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbw112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hoffman GE, Bendl J, Voloudakis G, Montgomery KS, Sloofman L, Wang YC, et al. CommonMind consortium provides transcriptomic and epigenomic data for Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder. Sci Data. 2019;6:180. doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0183-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Johnson KA, Krishnan A. Robust normalization and transformation techniques for constructing gene coexpression networks from RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 2022;23:1. doi: 10.1186/s13059-021-02568-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hoffman GE, Schadt EE. variancePartition: interpreting drivers of variation in complex gene expression studies. BMC Bioinforma. 2016;17:483. doi: 10.1186/s12859-016-1323-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Nastou KC, Lyon D, Kirsch R, Pyysalo S, et al. The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein–protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:D605–D612. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lopes-Ramos CM, Chen CY, Kuijjer ML, Paulson JN, Sonawane AR, Fagny M, et al. Sex differences in gene expression and regulatory networks across 29 human tissues. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107795. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Weirauch MT, Yang A, Albu M, Cote AG, Montenegro-Montero A, Drewe P, et al. Determination and inference of eukaryotic transcription factor sequence specificity. Cell. 2014;158:1431–43. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003;13:2498–504. doi: 10.1101/gr.1239303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ben Guebila M, Lopes-Ramos CM, Weighill D, Sonawane AR, Burkholz R, Shamsaei B, et al. GRAND: a database of gene regulatory network models across human conditions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50:D610–D621. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:15545–50. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506580102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, He QY. clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS. 2012;16:284–7. doi: 10.1089/omi.2011.0118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M, Sato Y, Morishima K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D353–D361. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Food U, Administration D, Food U, Administration D. Substance registration system—Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII). 2007.
- 38.Vaquerizas JM, Kummerfeld SK, Teichmann SA, Luscombe NM. A census of human transcription factors: function, expression and evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:252–63. doi: 10.1038/nrg2538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Wang Y, Hicks SC, Hansen KD. Addressing the mean-correlation relationship in co-expression analysis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022;18:e1009954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Fromer M, Roussos P, Sieberts SK, Johnson JS, Kavanagh DH, Perumal TM, et al. Gene expression elucidates functional impact of polygenic risk for schizophrenia. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19:1442–53. doi: 10.1038/nn.4399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zuccoli GS, Saia-Cereda VM, Nascimento JM, Martins-de-Souza D. The energy metabolism dysfunction in psychiatric disorders postmortem brains: focus on proteomic evidence. 2017, 11, 10.3389/fnins.2017.00493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 42.Pruett BS, Meador-Woodruff JH. Evidence for altered energy metabolism, increased lactate, and decreased pH in schizophrenia brain: A focused review and meta-analysis of human postmortem and magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies. Schizophr Res. 2020;223:29–42. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2020.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Miller JL, Cimen H, Koc H, Koc EC. Phosphorylated proteins of the mammalian mitochondrial ribosome: implications in protein synthesis. J Proteome Res. 2009;8:4789–98. doi: 10.1021/pr9004844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bergman O, Ben-Shachar D. Mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation system (OXPHOS) deficits in schizophrenia: possible interactions with cellular processes. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61:457–69. doi: 10.1177/0706743716648290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Ben-Shachar D, Zuk R, Gazawi H, Reshef A, Sheinkman A, Klein E. Increased mitochondrial complex I activity in platelets of schizophrenic patients. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 1999;2:245–53. doi: 10.1017/S1461145799001649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Brenner-Lavie H, Klein E, Ben-Shachar D. Mitochondrial complex I as a novel target for intraneuronal DA: modulation of respiration in intact cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 2009;78:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2009.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Bortolasci CC, Spolding B, Kidnapillai S, Richardson MF, Vasilijevic N, Martin SD, et al. Effects of psychoactive drugs on cellular bioenergetic pathways. World J BiolPsychiatry 2020, 1–15, 10.1080/15622975.2020.1755450 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 48.Topol A, English JA, Flaherty E, Rajarajan P, Hartley BJ, Gupta S, et al. Increased abundance of translation machinery in stem cell–derived neural progenitor cells from four schizophrenia patients. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5:e662–e662. doi: 10.1038/tp.2015.118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Liu ZSJ, Truong TTT, Bortolasci CC, Spolding B, Panizzutti B, Swinton C, et al. Effects of psychotropic drugs on ribosomal genes and protein synthesis. Int J Mol Sci 2022, 23, 10.3390/ijms23137180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 50.Berk M, Copolov D, Dean O, Lu K, Jeavons S, Schapkaitz I, et al. N-acetyl cysteine as a glutathione precursor for schizophrenia—a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;64:361–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Carter CJ. Schizophrenia susceptibility genes directly implicated in the life cycles of pathogens: cytomegalovirus, influenza, herpes simplex, rubella, and toxoplasma gondii. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35:1163–82. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbn054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Sun J, Jia P, Fanous AH, van den Oord E, Chen X, Riley BP, et al. Schizophrenia gene networks and pathways and their applications for novel candidate gene selection. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Carter CJ. Schizophrenia: a pathogenetic autoimmune disease caused by viruses and pathogens and dependent on genes. J Pathog. 2011;2011:128318. doi: 10.4061/2011/128318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Jones AL, Mowry BJ, Pender MP, Greer JM. Immune dysregulation and self-reactivity in schizophrenia: do some cases of schizophrenia have an autoimmune basis? Immunol Cell Biol. 2005;83:9–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1711.2005.01305.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Reale M, Costantini E, Greig NH. Cytokine imbalance in schizophrenia. from research to clinic: potential implications for treatment. 2021, 12, 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.536257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 56.Dean OM, Data-Franco J, Giorlando F, Berk M. Minocycline. CNS Drugs. 2012;26:391–401. doi: 10.2165/11632000-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Panizzutti B, Skvarc D, Lin S, Croce S, Meehan A, Bortolasci CC, et al. Minocycline as treatment for psychiatric and neurological conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J Mol Sci. 2023;24:5250. 10.3390/ijms24065250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 58.Sethi R, Gómez-Coronado N, Walker AJ, Robertson ODA, Agustini B, Berk M, et al. Neurobiology and therapeutic potential of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors for inflammation in neuropsychiatric disorders. 2019, 10, 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 59.Benson DL, Schnapp LM, Shapiro L, Huntley GW. Making memories stick: cell-adhesion molecules in synaptic plasticity. Trends Cell Biol. 2000;10:473–82. doi: 10.1016/S0962-8924(00)01838-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Yang X, Hou D, Jiang W, Zhang C. Intercellular protein–protein interactions at synapses. Protein Cell. 2014;5:420–44. doi: 10.1007/s13238-014-0054-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Mui KL, Chen CS, Assoian RK. The mechanical regulation of integrin–cadherin crosstalk organizes cells, signaling and forces. J Cell Sci. 2016;129:1093–1100. doi: 10.1242/jcs.183699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Findley MK, Koval M. Regulation and roles for claudin-family tight junction proteins. 2009, 61, 431–7, 10.1002/iub.175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 63.Yue B. Biology of the extracellular matrix: an overview. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:S20–S23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 64.Fan Y, Abrahamsen G, Mills R, Calderón CC, Tee JY, Leyton L, et al. Focal adhesion dynamics are altered in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74:418–26. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Greene C, Hanley N, Campbell M. Blood-brain barrier associated tight junction disruption is a hallmark feature of major psychiatric disorders. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:373. doi: 10.1038/s41398-020-01054-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Yoon KJ, Nguyen HaN, Ursini G, Zhang F, Kim N-S, Wen Z, et al. Modeling a genetic risk for schizophrenia in IPSCs and mice reveals neural stem cell deficits associated with adherens junctions and polarity. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;15:79–91. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2014.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Cai HQ, Weickert TW, Catts VS, Balzan R, Galletly C, Liu D, et al. Altered levels of immune cell adhesion molecules are associated with memory impairment in schizophrenia and healthy controls. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;89:200–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Wedervang-Resell K, Ueland T, Aukrust P, Friis S, Holven KB, H. Johannessen C, et al. Reduced levels of circulating adhesion molecules in adolescents with early-onset psychosis. NPJ Schizophr. 2020;6:20. doi: 10.1038/s41537-020-00112-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Noda M. Possible role of glial cells in the relationship between thyroid dysfunction and mental disorders. 2015, 9, 10.3389/fncel.2015.00194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 70.Misiak B, Stańczykiewicz B, Wiśniewski M, Bartoli F, Carra G, Cavaleri D, et al. Thyroid hormones in persons with schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2021;111:110402. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Santos NC, Costa P, Ruano D, Macedo A, Soares MJ, Valente J, et al. Revisiting thyroid hormones in schizophrenia. J Thyroid Res. 2012;2012:569147. doi: 10.1155/2012/569147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Kunii Y, Matsumoto J, Izumi R, Nagaoka A, Hino M, Shishido R, et al. Evidence for altered phosphoinositide signaling-associated molecules in the postmortem prefrontal cortex of patients with schizophrenia. 2021;22:8280 10.3390/ijms22158280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 73.Matsumoto J, Nakanishi H, Kunii Y, Sugiura Y, Yuki D, Wada A, et al. Decreased 16:0/20:4-phosphatidylinositol level in the post-mortem prefrontal cortex of elderly patients with schizophrenia. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45050. doi: 10.1038/srep45050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Goñi GM, Epifano C, Boskovic J, Camacho-Artacho M, Zhou J, Bronowska A, et al. Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate triggers activation of focal adhesion kinase by inducing clustering and conformational changes. 2014, 111, E3177-E3186, 10.1073/pnas.1317022111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 75.Zhang W, Voloudakis G, Rajagopal VM, Readhead B, Dudley JT, Schadt EE, et al. Integrative transcriptome imputation reveals tissue-specific and shared biological mechanisms mediating susceptibility to complex traits. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3834. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11874-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Riordan HJ, Antonini P, Murphy MF. Atypical antipsychotics and metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia: risk factors, monitoring, and healthcare implications. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2011;4:292–302. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Levin R, Almeida V, Fiel Peres F, Bendlin Calzavara M, Derci da Silva N, Akimi Suiama M, et al. Antipsychotic profile of cannabidiol and rimonabant in an animal model of emotional context processing in schizophrenia. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18:4960–5. doi: 10.2174/138161212802884735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Roser P, S. Haussleiter I. Antipsychotic-like effects of cannabidiol and rimonabant: systematic review of animal and human studies. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18:5141–55. doi: 10.2174/138161212802884690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Sam AH, Salem V, Ghatei MA. Rimonabant: from RIO to Ban. J Obes. 2011;2011:432607. doi: 10.1155/2011/432607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Boggs DL, Kelly DL, McMahon RP, Gold JM, Gorelick DA, Linthicum J, et al. Rimonabant for neurocognition in schizophrenia: a 16-week double blind randomized placebo controlled trial. Schizophr Res. 2012;134:207–10. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2011.11.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.El-kott AF, Abd-Lateif AEKM, Khalifa HS, Morsy K, Ibrahim EH, Bin-Jumah M, et al. Kaempferol protects against cadmium chloride-induced hippocampal damage and memory deficits by activation of silent information regulator 1 and inhibition of poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase-1. Sci Total Environ. 2020;728:138832. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Saleem A, Qurat-ul-Ain, Akhtar MF. Alternative therapy of psychosis: potential phytochemicals and drug targets in the management of schizophrenia. 2022, 13, 10.3389/fphar.2022.895668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 83.Herskovits AZ, Guarente L. SIRT1 in neurodevelopment and brain senescence. Neuron. 2014;81:471–83. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Karunakaran KB, Chaparala S, Ganapathiraju MK. Potentially repurposable drugs for schizophrenia identified from its interactome. Sci Rep. 2019;9:12682. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48307-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Gholivand K, Ghaziani F, Yaghoubi R, Hosseini Z, Shariatinia Z. Design, synthesis and anticholinesterase activity of some new α-aminobisphosphonates. J Enzym Inhib Med Chem. 2010;25:827–35. doi: 10.3109/14756361003691860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Cibicková L, Palicka V, Cibicek N, Cermáková E, Micuda S, Bartosová L, et al. Differential effects of statins and alendronate on cholinesterases in serum and brain of rats. Physiol Res. 2007;56:765–70. doi: 10.33549/physiolres.931121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Singh J, Kour K, Jayaram MB. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1:Cd007967. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007967.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Mortiboys H, Aasly J, Bandmann O. Ursocholanic acid rescues mitochondrial function in common forms of familial Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2013, 136, 3038–50, 10.1093/brain/awt224 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 89.Al-Numair KS, Chandramohan G, Veeramani C, Alsaif MA. Ameliorative effect of kaempferol, a flavonoid, on oxidative stress in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Redox Rep. 2015;20:198–209. doi: 10.1179/1351000214Y.0000000117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Ahangari R, Khezri S, Jahedsani A, Bakhshii S, Salimi A. Ellagic acid alleviates clozapine‑induced oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in cardiomyocytes. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2022;45:1625–33. doi: 10.1080/01480545.2020.1850758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Schlitt M, Lakeman FD, Whitley RJ. Psychosis and herpes simplex encephalitis. South Med J. 1985;78:1347–50,. doi: 10.1097/00007611-198511000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Yolken R. Viruses and schizophrenia: a focus on herpes simplex virus. Herpes. 2004;11:83A–88A. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Kouba L, Alhosain D. A peculiar case of psychosis: anti-NMDAr encephalitis. Int J Emerg Med. 2021;14:65. doi: 10.1186/s12245-021-00389-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Oommen KJ, Johnson PC, Ray CG. Herpes simplex type 2 virus encephalitis presenting as psychosis. Am J Med. 1982;73:445–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90751-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Pan X, Gong N, Zhao J, Yu Z, Gu F, Chen J, et al. Powerful beneficial effects of benfotiamine on cognitive impairment and β-amyloid deposition in amyloid precursor protein/presenilin-1 transgenic mice. Brain. 2010;133:1342–51. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Pap M, Cooper GM. Role of glycogen synthase kinase-3 in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt cell survival pathway *. J Biol Chem. 1998;273:19929–32. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.32.19929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Kan W, Adjobo-Hermans M, Burroughs M, Faibis G, Malik S, Tall GG, et al. M3 muscarinic receptor interaction with phospholipase cβ3 determines its signaling efficiency. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:11206–18. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.538546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Gisabella B, Bolshakov VY, Benes FM. Regulation of synaptic plasticity in a schizophrenia model. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102:13301–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506034102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.McCutcheon RA, Krystal JH, Howes OD. Dopamine and glutamate in schizophrenia: biology, symptoms and treatment. World Psychiatry. 2020;19:15–33. doi: 10.1002/wps.20693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Kilpatrick GJ, el Tayar N, Van de Waterbeemd H, Jenner P, Testa B, Marsden CD. The thermodynamics of agonist and antagonist binding to dopamine D-2 receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 1986;30:226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Purves D, Augustine GJ, Fitzpatrick D, Hall W, LaMantia AS, White L Neurosciences; De Boeck Supérieur: 2019.
- 102.Madeira C, Alheira FV, Calcia MA, Silva TCS, Tannos FM, Vargas-Lopes C, et al. Blood levels of glutamate and glutamine in recent onset and chronic schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry 2018, 9, 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 103.Marsman A, van den Heuvel MP, Klomp DWJ, Kahn RS, Luijten PR, Hulshoff Pol HE. Glutamate in schizophrenia: a focused review and meta-analysis of 1H-MRS studies. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39:120–9. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbr069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Carter CS, Perlstein W, Ganguli R, Brar J, Mintun M, Cohen JD. Functional hypofrontality and working memory dysfunction in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1285–7. doi: 10.1176/ajp.155.9.1285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Weinberger DR, Egan MF, Bertolino A, Callicott JH, Mattay VS, Lipska BK, et al. Prefrontal neurons and the genetics of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;50:825–44. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01252-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Arnold SE, Trojanowski JQ. Recent advances in defining the neuropathology of schizophrenia. Acta Neuropathol. 1996;92:217–31. doi: 10.1007/s004010050512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Meyer-Lindenberg AS, Olsen RK, Kohn PD, Brown T, Egan MF, Weinberger DR, et al. Regionally specific disturbance of dorsolateral prefrontal–hippocampal functional connectivity in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:379–86,. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.4.379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Jaffe AE, Tao R, Norris AL, Kealhofer M, Nellore A, Shin JH, et al. qSVA framework for RNA quality correction in differential expression analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:7130–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617384114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Akbarian S, Liu C, Knowles JA, Vaccarino FM, Farnham PJ, Crawford GE, et al. The PsychENCODE project. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:1707–12. doi: 10.1038/nn.4156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.