Evidence Hub

Circulating Metabolite Abundances Associated With Risks of Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, and Depression: A Mendelian Randomization Study

Lu T, Chen Y, Yoshiji S, Ilboudo Y, Forgetta V, Zhou S, Greenwood CMT

Biological psychiatry, 2024

8,299 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preventive measures and treatments for psychiatric disorders are limited. Circulating metabolites are potential candidates for biomarker and therapeutic target identification, given their measurability and essential roles in biological processes.

METHODS: Leveraging large-scale genome-wide association studies, we conducted Mendelian randomization analyses to assess the associations between circulating metabolite abundances and the risks of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. Genetic instruments were selected for 94 metabolites measured in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging cohort (N = 8299). We repeated Mendelian randomization analyses based on the UK Biobank, INTERVAL, and EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer)-Norfolk studies.

RESULTS: After validating Mendelian randomization assumptions and colocalization evidence, we found that a 1 SD increase in genetically predicted circulating abundances of eicosapentaenoate and docosapentaenoate was associated with odds ratios of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.79) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.55-0.72), respectively, for bipolar disorder. Genetically increased Ω-3 unsaturated fatty acids abundance and Ω-3-to-total fatty acids ratio, as well as genetically decreased Ω-6-to-Ω-3 ratio, were negatively associated with the risk of bipolar disorder in the UK Biobank. Genetically increased circulating abundances of 3 N-acetyl-amino acids were associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia with a maximum odds…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 8,299 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free