Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 15.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2008 Jun;10(3):205–206.

Untapped resources for pharmacogenomic discovery in psychiatry

James J Crowley 1, Patrick F Sullivan 2, Howard L McLeod 1
PMCID: PMC3893089  NIHMSID: NIHMS536726  PMID: 18535926

Variation in individual clinical response to psychotropic drug treatment remains a critical problem in psychiatry. In general, only a minority of patients experience complete symptom remission while a larger proportion of patients continue to experience significant psychiatric symptoms. In addition, significant subsets of patients often develop drug-induced adverse events that range from troublesome to life threatening. Moreover, psychotropic drugs generally require weeks of treatment before therapeutic responses are expected, so critical time is often lost before a clinician can determine whether a specific treatment is effective or not and consider alternative pharmacotherapy. During this period, treated patients may experience the substantial morbidity associated with these conditions continue.

Therefore, psychiatry is one specialty where pharmacogenomic results are highly likely to be applied for improved patient outcome. However, the current published findings are inadequate and insufficient for utilization as routine clinical predictors of treatment efficacy, safety or dosing [1, 2]. Therefore, it is timely to reconsider and revise current approaches to pharmacogenomic discovery in psychiatry before expensive and ethically problematic prospective studies are undertaken. In this commentary, we consider two largely untapped resources that could help to identify, in an unbiased manner, high-quality candidate biomarkers for prospective pharmacogenomic studies of psychotropic drugs.

Behavioral neuroscientists have developed dozens of well-validated and carefully controlled methods for measuring the therapeutic and adverse effects of nearly all classes of psychotropic agents in laboratory mice [3]. For example, therapeutic responses to antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anxiolytics can be monitored using the tail suspension test, pre-pulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response and the elevated plus-maze, respectively. Over the past 30+ years, these methods have yielded important insights into psychotropic pharmacology and now, with recent advancements in mouse genomics, these behavioral assays are poised to increase our understanding of individual variation in drug response.

The mouse has recently become a powerful tool for pharmacogenomic studies, due to the genetic diversity found among inbred strains and the development of powerful new gene mapping technologies, such as haplotype association mapping (HAM)[4]. HAM is a genetic mapping methodology that uses the phenotypic and genotypic variation occurring in common laboratory inbred mouse strains to calculate measures of genetic association (i.e., in silico mapping). HAM has many advantages over traditional murine QTL mapping strategies, including no need to breed or genotype animals, increased levels of phenotypic diversity, a high recombination frequency, and availability of a dense genotype map. These characteristics result in more precisely defined QTL regions, facilitating identification of genes underlying QTL, which has traditionally been the rate-limiting step [5]. We believe there is great promise in using HAM to identify genes that explain variation in the therapeutic and adverse responses to psychotropic drugs. In particular, studies of this sort minimize several factors that often confound human pharmacogenomic studies, including treatment adherence, diet and other environmental influences, and ancestral background. Nevertheless, mice are not humans, and therefore might not always be appropriate models of a given disease or appropriate surrogates for humans in pharmacogenomic studies.

A second avenue that we feel has been underutilized in psychiatric pharmacogenomic discovery is the study of peripheral blood and lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCL) from human patients with variable responses to psychotropics. Peripheral blood represents an attractive tissue source in clinical pharmacogenomic studies, given the feasibility of its collection from patients and its potential as a sentinel tissue to monitor perturbations of physiology in many disease states [6]. This is particularly true for psychiatric disorders, for which the tissue presumably involved (brain) is inaccessible. Indeed, a growing number of studies are rapidly identifying transcriptional biomarkers in peripheral blood cells and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) transformed LCL that function as biomarkers of disease [710], evidence of pharmacodynamic effect [11], predictors of clinical outcomes [1214], and risk of toxicity [15].

Among the advantages of ex-vivo LCL based studies are: 1) the cells can be grown under identical conditions eliminating in vivo confounders; 2) they represent an unlimited resource; 3) genome-wide SNP data are often available; and 4) they offer ease of experimental manipulation and established methodologies to study gene expression and pharmacodynamic effects. Among the disadvantages of LCL studies are: 1) they represent one tissue type which may not be the most appropriate for the phenotype; 2) information on confounding factors that may alter the phenotype of interest, such as smoking or other drug use, may not be available; 3) EBV transformation can introduce phenotypic and gene expression changes; and 4) drug studies must take into account the lack of significant metabolic activities. Furthermore, a number of methodological issues and hurdles need to be overcome, with issues of standardizing blood sample collection and processing of paramount importance. The specificity of gene expression signatures for individual disease states also needs to be established. Despite these limitations, we feel that peripheral blood holds great promise for biomarker discovery and as with gene discovery, it may be best to perform these studies in mice before embarking on a prospective study in humans.

Psychiatry has a particularly high need for routine clinical predictors of treatment efficacy and adverse events, but these are severely lacking at the present time. While the ideal study may perhaps be a genome-wide association study of several thousand patients all taking the same medication in a highly-controlled, long-term clinical study, the unfortunate fact is that even if a large discovery study is constructed, there remains a challenge to secure appropriate patient cohorts for validation. We believe that these problems can be circumvented by utilizing animal and peripheral blood models to identify high-priority candidate biomarkers prior to human trials. This would effectively reduce the search space necessary for prospective pharmacogenomic studies of psychotropic drugs in human patients.

Suggested Reading

  • 1.Grossman I. Routine pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice: dream or reality? Pharmacogenomics. 2007;8(10):1449–1459. doi: 10.2217/14622416.8.10.1449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Malhotra AK, Murphy GM, Jr, Kennedy JL. Pharmacogenetics of psychotropic drug response. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(5):780–796. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.5.780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Crawley JN. Behavioral phenotyping strategies for mutant mice. Neuron. 2008;57(6):809–818. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pletcher MT, McClurg P, Batalov S, Su AI, Barnes SW, Lagler E, Korstanje R, Wang X, Nusskern D, Bogue MA, Mural RJ, Paigen B, Wiltshire T. Use of a dense single nucleotide polymorphism map for in silico mapping in the mouse. PLoS Biol. 2004;2(12):e393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Flint J, Valdar W, Shifman S, Mott R. Strategies for mapping and cloning quantitative trait genes in rodents. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6(4):271–286. doi: 10.1038/nrg1576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baird AE. The blood option: transcriptional profiling in clinical trials. Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7(2):141–144. doi: 10.2217/14622416.7.2.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, Mesirov JP, Coller H, Loh ML, Downing JR, Caligiuri MA, Bloomfield CD, Lander ES. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science. 1999;286(5439):531–537. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5439.531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Alizadeh AA, Eisen MB, Davis RE, Ma C, Lossos IS, Rosenwald A, Boldrick JC, Sabet H, Tran T, Yu X, Powell JI, Yang L, Marti GE, Moore T, Hudson J, Jr, Lu L, Lewis DB, Tibshirani R, Sherlock G, Chan WC, Greiner TC, Weisenburger DD, Armitage JO, Warnke R, Levy R, Wilson W, Grever MR, Byrd JC, Botstein D, Brown PO, Staudt LM. Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling. Nature. 2000;403(6769):503–511. doi: 10.1038/35000501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Glatt SJ, Everall IP, Kremen WS, Corbeil J, Sásik R, Khanlou N, Han M, Liew CC, Tsuang MT. Comparative gene expression analysis of blood and brain provides concurrent validation of SELENBP1 up-regulation in schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(43):15533–15538. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507666102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Segman RH, Shefi N, Goltser-Dubner T, Friedman N, Kaminski N, Shalev AY. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell gene expression profiles identify emergent post-traumatic stress disorder among trauma survivors. Mol Psychiatry. 2005;10(5):500–513. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lampe JW, Stepaniants SB, Mao M, Radich JP, Dai H, Linsley PS, Friend SH, Potter JD. Signatures of environmental exposures using peripheral leukocyte gene expression: tobacco smoke. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13 (3):445–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chang JC, Wooten EC, Tsimelzon A, Hilsenbeck SG, Gutierrez MC, Elledge R, Mohsin S, Osborne CK, Chamness GC, Allred DC, O’Connell P. Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Lancet. 2003;362(9381):362–369. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14023-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Burczynski ME, Twine NC, Dukart G, Marshall B, Hidalgo M, Stadler WM, Logan T, Dutcher J, Hudes G, Trepicchio WL, Strahs A, Immermann F, Slonim DK, Dorner AJ. Transcriptional profiles in peripheral blood mononuclear cells prognostic of clinical outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(3):1181–1189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lequerré T, Gauthier-Jauneau AC, Bansard C, Derambure C, Hiron M, Vittecoq O, Daveau M, Mejjad O, Daragon A, Tron F, Le Loët X, Salier JP. Gene profiling in white blood cells predicts infliximab responsiveness in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8(4):R105. doi: 10.1186/ar1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Komissarova EV, Li P, Uddin AN, Chen X, Nadas A, Rossman TG. Gene expression levels in normal human lymphoblasts with variable sensitivities to arsenite: identification of GGT1 and NFKBIE expression levels as possible biomarkers of susceptibility. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008;226(2):199–205. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2007.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES