4.6 Review

Pharmacogenomics of Lithium Response in Bipolar Disorder

Journal

PHARMACEUTICALS
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph14040287

Keywords

pharmacogenomics; bipolar disorder; lithium; personalized medicine; predictive models; Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS)

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [1K01MH121580-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies suggest that the therapeutic efficacy of lithium in treating BD may be related to genetic variations, gene regulation, and stress responses, providing new directions for personalized treatment of BD patients.
Despite being the most widely studied mood stabilizer, researchers have not confirmed a mechanism for lithium's therapeutic efficacy in Bipolar Disorder (BD). Pharmacogenomic applications may be clinically useful in the future for identifying lithium-responsive patients and facilitating personalized treatment. Six genome-wide association studies (GWAS) reviewed here present evidence of genetic variations related to lithium responsivity and side effect expression. Variants were found on genes regulating the glutamate system, including GAD-like gene 1 (GADL1) and GRIA2 gene, a mutually-regulated target of lithium. In addition, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) discovered on SESTD1 may account for lithium's exceptional ability to permeate cell membranes and mediate autoimmune and renal effects. Studies also corroborated the importance of epigenetics and stress regulation on lithium response, finding variants on long, non-coding RNA genes and associations between response and genetic loading for psychiatric comorbidities. Overall, the precision medicine model of stratifying patients based on phenotype seems to derive genotypic support of a separate clinical subtype of lithium-responsive BD. Results have yet to be expounded upon and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available