Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jan 3. [Epub ahead of print]

The Serotonin Transporter Promoter Variant (5-HTTLPR), Stress, and Depression Meta-analysis Revisited: Evidence of Genetic Moderation.

Karg K, Burmeister M, Shedden K, Sen S.

University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany (Ms Karg); and Departments of Psychiatry (Ms Karg and Drs Burmeister and Sen), Human Genetics (Dr Burmeister), and Statistics (Dr Shedden), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Abstract

CONTEXT: Two recent meta-analyses assessed the set of studies exploring the interaction between a serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) and stress in the development of depression and concluded that the evidence did not support the presence of the interaction. However, even the larger of the meta-analyses included only 14 of the 56 studies that have assessed the relationship between 5-HTTLPR, stress, and depression.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis including all relevant studies exploring the interaction.

DATA SOURCES: We identified studies published through November 2009 in PubMed.

STUDY SELECTION: We excluded 2 studies presenting data that were included in other larger studies.

DATA EXTRACTION: To perform a more inclusive meta-analysis, we used the Liptak-Stouffer z score method to combine findings of primary studies at the level of significance tests rather than the level of raw data.

DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 54 studies and found strong evidence that 5-HTTLPR moderates the relationship between stress and depression, with the 5-HTTLPR s allele associated with an increased risk of developing depression under stress (P = .00002). When stratifying our analysis by the type of stressor studied, we found strong evidence for an association between the s allele and increased stress sensitivity in the childhood maltreatment (P = .00007) and the specific medical condition (P = .0004) groups of studies but only marginal evidence for an association in the stressful life events group (P = .03). When restricting our analysis to the studies included in the previous meta-analyses, we found no evidence of association (Munafò et al studies, P = .16; Risch et al studies, P = .11). This suggests that the difference in results between meta-analyses was due to the different set of included studies rather than the meta-analytic technique.

# posted by roodbont @ 10:11 AM