↓ Skip to main content

A genetic risk score combining 32 SNPs is associated with body mass index and improves obesity prediction in people with major depressive disorder

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A genetic risk score combining 32 SNPs is associated with body mass index and improves obesity prediction in people with major depressive disorder
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0334-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi-Fa Hung, Gerome Breen, Darina Czamara, Tanguy Corre, Christiane Wolf, Stefan Kloiber, Sven Bergmann, Nick Craddock, Michael Gill, Florian Holsboer, Lisa Jones, Ian Jones, Ania Korszun, Zoltan Kutalik, Susanne Lucae, Wolfgang Maier, Ole Mors, Michael J Owen, John Rice, Marcella Rietschel, Rudolf Uher, Peter Vollenweider, Gerard Waeber, Ian W Craig, Anne E Farmer, Cathryn M Lewis, Bertram Müller-Myhsok, Martin Preisig, Peter McGuffin, Margarita Rivera

Abstract

Obesity is strongly associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) and various other diseases. Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple risk loci robustly associated with body mass index (BMI). In this study, we aimed to investigate whether a genetic risk score (GRS) combining multiple BMI risk loci might have utility in prediction of obesity in patients with MDD. Linear and logistic regression models were conducted to predict BMI and obesity, respectively, in three independent large case-control studies of major depression (Radiant, GSK-Munich, PsyCoLaus). The analyses were first performed in the whole sample and then separately in depressed cases and controls. An unweighted GRS was calculated by summation of the number of risk alleles. A weighted GRS was calculated as the sum of risk alleles at each locus multiplied by their effect sizes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of predictors of obesity. In the discovery phase, a total of 2,521 participants (1,895 depressed patients and 626 controls) were included from the Radiant study. Both unweighted and weighted GRS were highly associated with BMI (P <0.001) but explained only a modest amount of variance. Adding 'traditional' risk factors to GRS significantly improved the predictive ability with the area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analysis, increasing from 0.58 to 0.66 (95% CI, 0.62-0.68; χ(2) = 27.68; P <0.0001). Although there was no formal evidence of interaction between depression status and GRS, there was further improvement in AUC in the ROC analysis when depression status was added to the model (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.73; χ(2) = 28.64; P <0.0001). We further found that the GRS accounted for more variance of BMI in depressed patients than in healthy controls. Again, GRS discriminated obesity better in depressed patients compared to healthy controls. We later replicated these analyses in two independent samples (GSK-Munich and PsyCoLaus) and found similar results. A GRS proved to be a highly significant predictor of obesity in people with MDD but accounted for only modest amount of variance. Nevertheless, as more risk loci are identified, combining a GRS approach with information on non-genetic risk factors could become a useful strategy in identifying MDD patients at higher risk of developing obesity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 33 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
#5,647,670
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,247
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,189
of 264,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#67
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.