Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676137›Full record

SynthesisMolecular psychiatry2025

Gene expression signatures of response to fluoxetine treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses.

David G Cooper, J Paige Cowden, Patrick M Vo, Parker A Stanley, Jack T Karbowski, Victoria S Gaertig, Caiden J Lukan, Ariel D Worthington, Caleb A Class

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

David G CooperButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9142-3591
J Paige CowdenButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Patrick M VoButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9595-5652
Parker A StanleyButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jack T KarbowskiButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Victoria S GaertigButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Caiden J LukanButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Ariel D WorthingtonButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Caleb A ClassButler University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA. cclass@butler.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-3613

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic (and other 'omic) data have provided valuable insights on the pharmacological signatures of antidepressant response, but results from individual studies are largely heterogeneous. In this work, we synthesized gene expression data for fluoxetine treatment in both human patients and rodent models, to better understand biological pathways affected by treatment, as well as those that may distinguish clinical or behavioral response.

methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) for studies profiling humans or rodent models with treatment of the antidepressant fluoxetine, excluding those not done in the context of depression or anxiety, in an irrelevant tissue type, or with fewer than three samples per group. Included studies were systematically reanalyzed by differential expression analysis and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). Individual pathway and gene statistics were synthesized across studies by three p-value combination methods, and then corrected for false discovery.

resultsOf the 74 data sets that were screened, 20 were included: 18 in rodents, and two in tissue from human patients. Studies were highly heterogeneous in the comparisons of both treated vs. control samples and responders vs. non-responders, with 691 and 357 pathways, respectively, identified as significantly different between groups in at least one study. However, 18 pathways were identified as consistently different in responders vs. non-responders, including toll-like receptor (TLR) and other immune pathways. Signal transduction pathways were identified as consistently affected by fluoxetine treatment in depressed patients and rodent models. DISCUSSION: These meta-analyses confirm known pathways and provide new hints toward antidepressant resistance, but more work is needed. Most included studies involved rodent models, and both patient studies had small cohorts. Additional large-cohort studies applying additional 'omics technologies are necessary to understand the intricacies and heterogeneity of antidepressant response.

Indexed as

FluoxetineAnimalsAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationDepressionDisease Models, AnimalGene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingHumansTranscriptomeAntidepressive AgentsAntidepressive Agents, Second-GenerationFluoxetine

Identifiers

PMID40676137
PMCPMC12532588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.