NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Genetic risk for major depressive disorder (MDD) can act through gene expression or pre-mRNA alternative splicing, but effector-gene mapping has relied mainly on expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), leaving splicing-level effects less systematically resolved. We integrated the latest MDD GWAS (MDD2025; effective sample size ~ 1.15×10⁶) with BigBrain, a human-brain cis-splicing-QTL (sQTL) resource of 10 725 RNA-seq samples. Within risk regions, colocalization identified 56 high-confidence brain splicing-effector genes (PP.H4 > 0.8; median 0.92), compared with approximately 22 using the 2018 GWAS. A matched BigBrain eQTL analysis separated expression-orthogonal associations from limited eQTL power: 29 genes had a genome-wide-significant cis-eQTL at the same locus that did not colocalize with MDD, defining an expression-orthogonal core; 23 had no genome-wide-significant cis-eQTL in the corresponding locus, and only four showed eQTL–MDD colocalization, with a concordant pattern in MetaBrain. Splicing Mendelian randomization supported a consistent cis-sQTL-to-MDD direction. Across disorders, 35 of 56 genes were shared with other psychiatric conditions, whereas only one colocalized with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. Seventeen genes were small-molecule tractable, including CACNA1C, targeted by approved calcium-channel blockers, and HDAC3, engaged by approved non-selective HDAC inhibitors. Thirteen genes remained high-confidence under a conservative prior, and 38 of 56 loci were single-signal. In an exploratory analysis, splicing-effector genes showed higher AlphaGenome-predicted splicing disruption than background genes (62% vs 45%; one-sided P = 0.03). These results define MDD candidate genes whose associations are more clearly resolved through brain splicing than expression in current bulk-brain resources, thereby providing a complementary regulatory layer for functional and translational prioritization.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.