Assessing the dependence of brain activity on individual single-nucleotide variability of genetic markers of major depressive disorder using principal component

   Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most widespread mental illnesses, which necessitates the search for factors of increased predisposition to this disorder. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in genes of the brain’s neurotransmitter systems are often considered as molecular genetic markers of MDD. Indicators of individual single nucleotide variability in neurotransmitter genes are used to assess the risk of MDD before its symptomatology at the behavioral level. However, the predictive capabilities of analyzing genomic variations to assess the risk of depression are not yet sufficiently reliable and are complemented by behavioral and neurophysiological information about patients. Neurophysiological markers of MDD provide the most reliable estimates of the severity of pathological symptoms, but they reflect a person’s state at the time of examination, and not a predisposition to the occurrence of this pathological state and do not allow assessing the risk of its appearance in the future. Major depressive disorder is often accompanied by abnormalities in a person’s ability to control motor responses, including the ability to voluntary suppress inappropriate behavior. The “stop-signal paradigm” (SSP) is an experimental method for assessing the functional balance between the inhibitory and activation systems of the brain during targeted movements. Combined with EEG recording, this experimental method allows for the consideration of not only participants’ behavioral characteristics, such as speed or accuracy of responses, but also the brain’s neuro physiological features associated with behavior control.

   The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between EEG responses in the stop-signal paradigm and individual single nucleotide variability in candidate genes for MDD detection.

   Dimensionality in the original genetic and neurophysiological experimental data was reduced by principal component analysis (PCA) to subsequently detect an association between EEG response components recorded during the control of random motor responses and single nucleotide variations in genes, the variability of which is associated with MDD risk. Variability in these genes has been shown to be associated with the amplitude of brain responses under the conditions of test subjects using the PCA method. The results obtained can be used to develop systems for the early diagnosis of depression, identify individual patterns of impairment in the brain, select methods for correcting the disease and control the effectiveness of therapy.

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM­5). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013;87-122. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

2. Band G.P.H., van der Molen M.W., Logan G.D. Horse-race model simulations of the stop­signal procedure. Acta Psychol. 2003; 112(2):105­142. doi: 10.1016/s0001-6918(02)00079-3

3. Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995; 57(1):289-300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

4. Cross­Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Iden­tification of risk loci with shared effects on five major psychiatric disorders: a Genome­wide analysis. Lancet. 2013;381(9875):1371-1379. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62129-1

5. Delorme A., Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single­trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neuroscience Methods. 2004;134(1):9­21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009

6. Duncan L.E., Pouastri A.R., Smoller J.W. Mind the gap: Why many geneticists and psychological scientists have discrepant views about gene–environment interaction (G×E) research. Am Psychol. 2014; 69(3):249­268. doi: 10.1037/a0036320

7. Flach P.A. ROC Analysis. In: Sammut C., Webb G. (Eds). Encyclo­pedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining. Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-7502-7_739-1

8. Gewers F.L., Ferreira G.R., de Arruda H.F., Silva F.N., Comin C.H., Amancio D.R., da Costa L.F. Principal component analysis: A natu­ral approach to data exploration. ACM Comput Surv. 2021;54(4):70. doi: 10.1145/3447755

9. Haase J., Brown E. Integrating the monoamine, neurotrophin and cytokine hypotheses of depression: A central role for the serotonin transporter? Pharmacol Ther. 2015;147:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.10.002

10. Halldorsdottir T., Binder E.B. Gene × environment interactions: From molecular mechanisms to behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68: 215­241. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044053

11. Ivanov R., Zamyatin V., Klimenko A., Matushkin Y., Savostyanov A., Lashin S. Reconstruction and analysis of gene networks of human neurotransmitter systems reveal genes with contentious manifestation for anxiety, depression, and intellectual disabilities. Genes. 2019;10(9):699. doi: 10.3390/genes10090699

12. Ivanov R., Kazantsev F., Zavarzin E., Klimenko A., Milakhina N., Matushkin Y.G., Savostyanov A., Lashin S. ICBrainDB: An integrated database for finding associations between genetic factors and EEG markers of depressive disorders. J Pers Med. 2022;12(1):53. doi: 10.3390/jpm12010053

13. Kolchanov N.A., Ignatyeva E.V., Podkolodnaya O.A., Likhoshvai V.A., Matushkin Yu.G. Gene networks. Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genetiki i Selektsii = Vavilov J Genet Breed. 2013;17(4/2):833-850 (in Russian)

14. Lopez-Calderon J., Luck S.J. ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event­related potentials. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8: 213. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213

15. Northoff G. Gene, brains, and environment – genetic neuroimaging of depression. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(1):133­142. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2012.08.004

16. Rokhlin V., Szlam A., Tygert M. A randomized algorithm for principal component analysis. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl. 2010;31(3):1100­-1124. doi: 10.1137/080736417

17. Savostyanov A.N., Tsai A.C., Liou M., Levin E.A., Lee J.D., Yurganov A.V., Knyazev G.G. EEG­correlates of trait anxiety in the stop-signal paradigm. Neurosci Lett. 2009;449(2):112­116. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.10.084

18. Shetty T., Kashyap H., Mehta U.M., Binu V.S. Executive function and emotion regulation in depressive and anxiety disorders: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2025. doi: 10.1177/02537176251340586

19. Stone B., Desrochers P.C., Nateghi M., Chitadze L., Yang Y., Cestero G.I., Bouzid Z., … Bremner J.D., Inan O.T., Sameni R., Lynn S.K., Bracken B.K. Decoding depression: Event related potential dynamics and predictive neural signatures of depression severity J Affect Disord. 2025;391:119893. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.119893

20. Subasi A., Gursoy M.I. EEG signal classification using PCA, ICA, LDA and support vector machines. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37(12): 8659­8666. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.065

21. Wang Z., Zellers S., Piirtola M., Aaltonen S., Salvatore J., Dick D., Kuhn S., Kaprio J. Gene­environment interplay in the relationship between the visibility of the environment and self­reported depres­sion in early midlife: a Finnish twin cohort study. medRxiv. 2025. doi: 10.1101/2025.05.23.25328215

22. Whitney D.G., Shapiro D.N., Peterson M.D., Warschausky S.A. Factors associated with depression and anxiety in children with intel­lectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2019;63(5):408-417. doi: 10.1111/jir.12583

23. Willner P., Scheel-Krüger J., Belzung C. The neurobiology of depression and antidepressant action. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013; 37(10 Pt. 1):2331-2371. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.007

24. Wong M.L., Licinio J. Research and treatment approaches to depression. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(5):343­351. doi: 10.1038/35072566

25. Zorina K.A., Kriveckiy A.A., Klemeshova D.I., Bocharov A.V., Karmanov V.S. Using machine learning methods to search for EEG and genetic markers of depressive disorder. In: IEEE 26^th International Conference of Young Professionals in Electron Devices and Materials (EDM), Altai, Russian Federation. 2025;1790-1793. doi: 10.1109/EDM65517.2025.11096763