4.7 Article

A game changer for bipolar disorder diagnosis using RNA editing-based biomarkers

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-022-01938-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using RNA editome analysis and machine learning, depressed patients with Bipolar Disorder (BD) can be identified, reducing the delay in misdiagnosis and allowing for earlier implementation of proper treatment.
In clinical practice, differentiating Bipolar Disorder (BD) from unipolar depression is a challenge due to the depressive symptoms, which are the core presentations of both disorders. This misdiagnosis during depressive episodes results in a delay in proper treatment and a poor management of their condition. In a first step, using A-to-I RNA editome analysis, we discovered 646 variants (366 genes) differentially edited between depressed patients and healthy volunteers in a discovery cohort of 57 participants. After using stringent criteria and biological pathway analysis, candidate biomarkers from 8 genes were singled out and tested in a validation cohort of 410 participants. Combining the selected biomarkers with a machine learning approach achieved to discriminate depressed patients (n = 267) versus controls (n = 143) with an AUC of 0.930 (CI 95% [0.879-0.982]), a sensitivity of 84.0% and a specificity of 87.1%. In a second step by selecting among the depressed patients those with unipolar depression (n = 160) or BD (n = 95), we identified a combination of 6 biomarkers which allowed a differential diagnosis of bipolar disorder with an AUC of 0.935 and high specificity (Sp = 84.6%) and sensitivity (Se = 90.9%). The association of RNA editing variants modifications with depression subtypes and the use of artificial intelligence allowed developing a new tool to identify, among depressed patients, those suffering from BD. This test will help to reduce the misdiagnosis delay of bipolar patients, leading to an earlier implementation of a proper treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据