Psychiatry Investig Search

CLOSE


Psychiatry Investig > Volume 22(8); 2025 > Article
Oh, Kong, Jung, Kim, Kim, Kang, and Lee: Cytokine-Related Genes and Inflammatory Profiles as Potential Biomarkers in Major Depressive Disorder

Abstract

Objective

Based on the neuroimmunological hypothesis of major depressive disorder (MDD), we analyzed the existing research to identify cytokine-related genes associated with MDD. Furthermore, we examined the cytokine alterations in patients with MDD as potential biomarkers for diagnosis and monitoring.

Methods

Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) related to MDD were identified using the GEO2R tool on public datasets, followed by functional enrichment analyses with Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks were constructed using Cytoscape to identify hub genes. Finally, blood samples from 20 patients with MDD and 10 healthy controls were analyzed using the Olink® Target 96 Inflammation panel with proximity extension assay (PEA) technology to identify potential protein biomarkers.

Results

Two GEO datasets related to MDD were analyzed to identify 66 common DEGs. Following the PPI analysis, 46 genes were identified. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these genes were closely related to immune-related pathways. Subsequent blood sample analysis of patients with MDD and healthy controls confirmed that 18 cytokines related to 46 DEGs were significantly upregulated. Among the identified cytokines, oncostatin M (OSM) showed the highest receiver operating characteristic (ROC) performance (area under the curve [AUC]=0.96), followed by hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (AUC=0.95), cluster of differentiation 6 (CD6) (AUC=0.90), and tumor necrosis factor superfamily 14 (TNFSF14) (AUC=0.90).

Conclusion

Our study confirms that neuroinflammation is an important pathophysiological aspect of MDD and that several related cytokines, such as OSM, HGF, CD6, and TNFSF14, may be potential biomarkers of MDD.

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a severe condition that causes significant changes in emotional, cognitive, and neurovegetative functions, and its prevalence continues to increase annually [1]. Currently, the diagnosis of MDD is primarily based on clinical symptoms, following the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychological Association, or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system published by the WHO [2]. These diagnostic systems rely more on subjective reports and objective observations of individuals with MDD than on a diagnostic system based on the causes of the disease or on biological, chemical, and physical changes within the body, which are commonly used in most other medical fields outside psychiatry [3]. As a result, individuals with MDD, who may have various causes, end up forming a heterogeneous group, leading to diverse treatment outcomes for the same treatment [4,5]. To solve these problems, research in various fields has recently been conducted to identify the cause of MDD and find biomarkers for diagnosis [6-8].
The causes of MDD have not yet been clearly identified; however, current knowledge suggests that a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors contribute to the development of MDD [9]. Among the biological causes, monoamine, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, neuroendocrine, neuroanatomical, and genetic hypotheses have been proposed [10-12]. In the investigation of these causes, research is actively being conducted to identify biomarkers that could be integrated into the diagnostic process. These biomarkers can be used to objectively measure and evaluate normal biological processes (BPs) and pathological conditions [13]. Biomarker studies on MDD have reported to date include proteomic markers related to neurotransmitters, growth factors (e.g., BDNF), inflammatory markers (e.g., cytokines), metabolic and oxidative stress factors, endocrine markers, and biomarkers using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) [14,15]. Although various potential biomarkers are being studied and proposed, it is known that there is still no biomarker that has been clearly identified with a consensus.
Among the various potential biomarker areas of MDD, the neuroimmunological theory states that since Smith [16] first introduced the concept that depression can be caused by the activation of immune cells in the macrophage theory of depression in 1991, evidence has been accumulating over the past 30 years that abnormalities in immune-inflammatory pathways and the activation of cell-mediated immunity are important pathophysiological pathways in the development of MDD [17]. The neuroimmunology hypothesis states that the pathogenesis of MDD and changes in cytokines are causal, suggesting that external and internal stress induce an imbalance of cytokine, which plays an important role in the expression and persistence of depressive symptoms in vulnerable individuals [18]. According to the cytokine hypothesis, the relationship between MDD and cytokines is explained based on research showing that cytokine injection induces depressive-like symptoms, an increase in cytokines is observed in patients with depression, and cytokines trigger the HPA axis and catecholamines that are closely related to MDD. Additionally, some studies have suggested that antidepressants suppress cytokine release from immune cells, further supporting the relationship between MDD and cytokines [12,19]. A meta-analysis of 82 related studies reported that levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), IL-10, soluble IL-2 receptor, C-C chemokine ligand 2, IL-13, IL-12, and IL-18 were higher in patients with MDD [20]. Another study compared cytokine levels in patients with MDD before and after antidepressant treatment, showing that responders had lower IL-8 levels than non-responders, and antidepressant treatment significantly reduced TNF-a levels only in responders [21]. A recent study indicated that peripheral inflammation may predict the onset of depression. This study showed that children with higher serum IL-6 levels at the age of 9 years had a 10% higher risk of developing MDD than the general population or children with lower IL-6 levels [22]. However, whether changes in specific cytokines can be used to definitively diagnose or predict depression remains unclear.
Early prediction of MDD using inflammatory markers, such as cytokines, can lead to more effective MDD treatment and prevention strategies, including proactive interventions and rapid response after onset. Previous studies have measured a small number of cytokines (less than 10) related to MDD, while this study analyzed a wider range of inflammatory cytokines simultaneously, including those that have not been extensively studied.
This study was conducted in two phases. First, potential biomarkers were identified at the transcriptome level using publicly available datasets. Second, these candidate biomarkers were validated at the protein level in clinical samples collected from patients with MDD. This multi-step approach enhances the reliability of our findings, supporting early detection, targeted prevention, and objective monitoring of disease progression alongside clinical evaluation.

METHODS

Overall study design

This study employed a two-step design. In the first phase, candidate biomarkers for MDD were identified through transcriptomic analysis using publicly available datasets. In the second phase, these selected candidate biomarkers were validated at the protein level using clinical samples collected from patients with MDD.

Data acquisition

The GSE39653 and GSE19738 datasets, both of which consist of microarray data obtained from peripheral blood mononuclear cells, were acquired from the GEO database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/). The GSE39653 dataset includes 53 samples, comprising eight from bipolar disorder (BD), 24 healthy controls (HCs), and 21 patients with MDD. In this study, BD samples were excluded, leaving 45 samples (24 HC and 21 MDD) for analysis. The GSE19738 dataset contains 132 samples, equally divided into 66 HC and 66 MDD samples, all of which were used in this study.

Identification of differentially expressed genes

Differentially expressed gene (DEGs) between patients with MDD and HCs were identified using the GEO2R tool, which is an online interface based on the limma package for differential gene expression analysis. Given the relatively small sample size, we applied an adjusted p<0.05 and |log2foldchange| ≥0.1 as the threshold for identifying DEGs. To account for multiple comparisons, the Benjamini-Hochberg correction was applied to control the false discovery rate. These statistical criteria have been commonly used in similar studies analyzing small cohorts, including our previous research [23,24]. Common DEGs were identified by comparing the DEGs obtained from both datasets, and the overlapped genes were visualized using a Venn diagram. Venn diagrams were generated using the Venn package in R (version 1.12). DEG analysis results for each dataset were visualized using volcano plots, created using the ggplot2 package (version 3.5.1), available from the CRAN repository (https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggplot2).

Functional enrichment analysis of DEGs

To gain insight into the biological significance of the identified DEGs, Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analyses were performed. GO analysis classified genes into BP, cellular component (CC), and molecular function (MF) categories, while KEGG analysis identified key molecular pathways associated with MDD. This approach helps uncover the functional roles of dysregulated genes, offering a broader biological interpretation rather than focusing on individual genes. Both upregulated and downregulated DEGs were analyzed separately to distinguish activated and suppressed pathways. Enrichment analysis was conducted using the clusterProfiler package (version 4.12.2) in R Bioconductor, with p<0.05 as the significance threshold, and Benjamini-Hochberg correction was applied to control for multiple comparisons. While GO and KEGG analyses provide valuable insights into gene function and disease-related pathways, they are highly dependent on existing databases, which may lead to overrepresentation or underrepresentation of certain pathways due to database biases. Additionally, GO terms can exhibit high redundancy, making it challenging to extract biologically meaningful information. Despite these limitations, this approach remains one of the most widely used methods for functional annotation in transcriptomics and provides a foundation for further experimental validation of candidate genes and pathways.

Protein-protein interaction network construction and hub genes selection

To investigate the interactions among DEGs at the protein level, a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network was constructed using the STRING database (v11.5, https://string-db.org), which integrates experimentally validated and computationally predicted protein interactions. The network was visualized and analyzed using Cytoscape (version 3.9.1), and key gene clusters were identified using the MCODE plugin with predefined clustering criteria (network scoring degree >2, node score cut-off=0.2, k-core=2, and max depth=100) [25]. By identifying hub genes within the network, this approach helps pinpoint genes that may play a central role in MDD-related immune and inflammatory processes. While PPI network analysis is a powerful tool for understanding molecular interactions, it is not without limitations. The STRING database incorporates predicted interactions, which can lead to false positives, potentially skewing biological interpretations. Additionally, MCODE clustering prioritizes highly connected gene groups, meaning that biologically relevant but less interconnected genes may be overlooked. Despite these limitations, PPI network analysis remains a valuable approach for prioritizing key genes for further investigation and can complement functional enrichment analysis to reveal underlying molecular mechanisms in disease pathology.

Participants in blood analysis for cytokine microarray

Blood samples from 30 participants were analyzed. Of these, 20 were in the MDD patient group and 10 were in the HC group, which had not been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. The patient group consisted of males and females aged 13-65 years who were diagnosed with MDD by a psychiatrist according to the diagnostic criteria of DSM-5. Blood samples were stored in the Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center Biobank after being informed of the research purpose and providing informed consent for storage. Blood samples were collected during the active phase of depressive symptoms at the beginning of inpatient treatment. The 10 individuals in the control group gave their consent after receiving an explanation of the purpose of the study. Participants under 19 years of age also provided additional parental consent. Plasma was isolated from the blood samples collected from all participants using anticoagulant-containing tubes. The exclusion criteria included a history of infectious diseases, tumors, autoimmune diseases, brain disorders, or other medical conditions that could affect the study results, individuals with bleeding disorders unsuitable for blood collection, those taking anticoagulants (e.g., warfarin and aspirin), and individuals with intellectual disabilities or cognitive impairments. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center (IRB No. 2022-11-077).

Proteomic analysis

For proteomic analysis, plasma was collected from 30 patients with depressive disorder at the time of diagnosis and stored at -80°C. The samples were sent to Olink Proteomics (Watertown) and analyzed using the Olink Target 96 Inflammation Panel. This panel was selected due to its unique inclusion of various inflammatory cytokines. The samples were processed using the Olink Target platform, which comprises a proximity extension assay (PEA) with next-generation sequencing (NGS). Potential protein biomarkers were evaluated using PEA as described on the manufacturer’s website (https://www.olink.com). The manufacturer’s website provides an extensive list of potential protein biomarkers that comprises 92 entries. Furthermore, the website offers comprehensive assay validation data, including details on the detection limit, lower and upper limits of quantification, and within- and between-run precision coefficients of variation. The final assay protein concentration output is presented in terms of normalized protein expression (NPX) values. NPX is a logarithmic unit on a base-two scale, in which elevated NPX values correspond to higher protein concentrations.

Predictive analysis using logistic regression

To evaluate the predictive power of potential biomarkers, the GSE260603 dataset was randomly divided into a training set and a validation set in an 8:2 ratio using the “caret” package in R [26]. Genes associated with the prediction of MDD onset were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses facilitated by the R packages “glmnet” and “pROC.” [27,28] Logistic regression was selected because it estimates the probability that the data belong to a specific category, provides a value between 0 and 1, and classifies the data into the most likely category based on the estimated probability. This method is widely used for the predictive modeling of categorical data. Furthermore, to assess the discriminative ability of the gene combinations, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were conducted and the area under the ROC curve was calculated for comparison.

Statistical analysis

To compare gene expression levels between patients with MDD and HCs, t-tests were performed using methods adjusted based on normality and homogeneity of variance. To compare the demographic and clinical variables between the MDD and HC groups, we used statistical methods that accounted for the characteristics of each variable. Due to the small sample size and potential for low expected frequencies, Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the sex proportions between the two groups. For age comparison, we first assessed the normality of age data using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and as both groups followed a normal distribution (p>0.05), a two-sample t-test was performed to compare the mean ages. The homogeneity of variances was also verified using the F-test (p>0.05). In the case of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores, normality testing indicated that the HDRS scores of the control group did not follow a normal distribution (p<0.05); therefore, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare HDRS scores between the two groups. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. All statistical analyses and visualizations were performed with the R software (version 4.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

RESULTS

Identification of DEGs

Using datasets obtained from GEO, we identified DEGs associated with MDD. In the GSE39653 dataset, 1,815 DEGs were identified, of which 922 were upregulated and 893 were downregulated. In the GSE19738 dataset, 631 DEGs were identified, of which 471 were upregulated and 160 were downregulated. We identified 66 common DEGs by examining the overlap between the two datasets (Figure 1A). These common DEGs were considered potential biomarkers related to MDD and subjected to further analyses. The volcano plots that illustrate the DEGs for each dataset are shown in Figure 1B and C. To explore the biological significance of the identified DEGs, we performed GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses for each dataset. The results are presented in Supplementary Figures 1 and 2.

Functional enrichment analysis of common DEGs

Functional enrichment analysis was performed to determine the roles and signaling pathways associated with the common DEGs identified. GO analysis of common DEGs revealed significant terms, including leukocyte migration, cell chemotaxis, cytokine-mediated signaling pathway, external side of the plasma membrane, and receptor ligand activity signaling receptor activator activity (Figure 2A). KEGG analysis highlighted significant pathways, such as cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, viral protein interaction with cytokines and cytokine receptors, and the chemokine signaling pathway (Figure 2B).

PPI network construction and hub genes selection

PPI analysis was performed to explore the interactions among the common DEGs at the protein level and to identify hub genes. Of these 66 common DEGs, 46 were identified and included in the PPI network (Figure 3A). GO analysis of the 46 genes within the PPI network identified significant terms, including cellular processes, regulation of BPs, and regulation of cellular processes (Figure 3B). KEGG pathway analysis of these genes indicated their significant involvement in cytokine-cytokine receptor interactions, viral protein interactions with cytokines and cytokine receptors, and chemokine signaling pathways (Figure 3C). These findings suggest that immune-related factors play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of MDD, particularly considering the prominent immune-related pathways identified in the GO and KEGG analyses.

Demographic and clinical data for the cytokine microarray

Of the 20 patients with MDD, six were males and 14 were females. The mean age±standard deviation was 27.55±14.05 years. The HC group had five males and five females, with a mean age of 24.30±11.70 years. In patients with MDD, the mean period from the onset of depressive symptoms to the diagnosis of MDD (duration of the episode) was 3.13±1.76 months. In the MDD patient group, the HDRS score measured at the start of inpatient treatment was 23.25±4.63. The HDRS score of the HC group, which was measured at the time of blood collection, was 1.80±2.30 (Table 1). Statistical analyses revealed that there was no significant difference in sex distribution between the MDD and control groups (Fisher’s exact test, p=0.425). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in age between the two groups (two-sample t-test, p=0.233). However, HDRS scores were significantly higher in the MDD group compared to the control group (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.001), indicating a statistically significant difference in depression severity.

Experimental validation of common DEGs

From our bioinformatics analysis, we identified 46 potential biomarker genes related to MDD, most of which were associated with immune function. To validate these findings, we performed a cytokine array analysis using plasma samples from patients with MDD. The results indicated that 18 of the 46 genes were significantly upregulated in the plasma samples of patients with MDD (Figure 4), while the remaining 28 genes did not show statistically significant changes (Supplementary Figure 3). The genes showing significant differences were as follows: VEGFA, CXCL11, OSM, IL-2, CCL4, CD6, CCL11, TNFSF14, HGF, CD5, CCL3, SIRT2, CCL28, IL-33, IL-4, LIF, STAMBP, and ADA.

Evaluation of the predictive power of individual genes for MDD

The predictive powers of 18 potential biomarkers that were significantly upregulated at the protein level were assessed in an external MDD cohort. The analysis revealed that all biomarkers showed predictive ability, achieving an AUC≥0.6. The AUC values for individual genes were as follows: VEGFA (AUC=0.75), CXCL11 (AUC=0.81), OSM (AUC=0.96), IL-2 (AUC=0.84), CCL4 (AUC=0.74), CD6 (AUC=0.90), CCL11 (AUC=0.89), TNFSF14 (AUC=0.90), HGF (AUC=0.95), CD5 (AUC=0.88), CCL3 (AUC=0.72), SIRT2 (AUC=0.78), CCL28 (AUC=0.80), IL-33 (AUC=0.73), IL-4 (AUC=0.69), LIF (AUC=0.88), STAMBP (AUC=0.83), and ADA (AUC=0.87). Among these, OSM, CD6, TNFSF14, and HGF demonstrated strong predictive power (AUC>0.9) (Figure 5).

DISCUSSION

Recent studies have attempted to identify biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting the treatment response of various diseases using microarray and NGS technologies [29]. These whole-gene expression data have been studied extensively using differential expression analysis; however, there are concerns about the accuracy of the research results owing to factors such as clinical heterogeneity, data collection details, sample size, and biological variation. Consistent and repeated studies are necessary to improve the accuracy of these findings [30]. However, there are still relatively few studies that have used these methods in the context of depression. In this study, we analyzed various cytokines that have not been studied much before and attempted to discover high-confidence biomarkers by identifying and confirming potential biomarkers using proteomic analysis of plasma samples from patients with MDD. This will help us understand, diagnose, and treat MDD in the future.
In this study, we identified DEGs related to MDD using GEO datasets. As a result, a total of 66 DEGs were identified. Because these genes may interact with each other and have causal relationships, a functional enrichment analysis was performed to identify the roles and signaling pathways of these genes rather than simply confirming individual genes [31]. PPI analysis was performed to explore the interactions between common DEGs at the protein level and identify central genes. Finally, 46 genes were identified and the pathway analysis results of these genes mainly identified interactions with cytokines, cytokine receptors, and chemokine signaling pathways. The cytokine hypothesis, suggesting that cytokines contribute to the development of depression, is not independent of other established theories such as the monoamine hypothesis and hormone-related models [32,33]. According to the monoamine hypothesis, neurotransmitters like serotonin and norepinephrine (NE) play key roles in depression, and cytokines interact with these systems. Proinflammatory cytokines activate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), which degrades tryptophan, the precursor of serotonin, thereby reducing serotonin availability [34]. Cytokines also affect neurotransmission by activating signaling pathways like p38 MAPK and ERK1/2, altering serotonin and NE reuptake [35]. Additionally, cytokines stimulate the secretion of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), leading to HPA axis hyperactivation and chronic cortisol elevation [36,37]. This disrupts neurotransmitter balance, amplifies stress responses, and increases depression risk. Chronic HPA axis activation also increases serotonin receptor numbers in key brain areas, such as the hippocampus, amygdala, and frontal cortex [36]. Therefore, the cytokines identified in this study can be proposed as immune-inflammatory factors in the etiology of MDD.
We also performed a proteomic analysis of inflammation-related cytokines in blood samples from patients with MDD and compared them with those of HCs. Among the 46 DEGs selected through the PPI network analysis, 18 showed significantly increased expression in MDD blood samples, while the remaining 28 did not show significant differences. Among the 18 cytokines identified in this study, those with the highest AUC values on the ROC curve were OSM (AUC=0.96), HGF (AUC=0.95), CD6 (AUC=0.90), TNFSF14 (AUC=0.90).
Oncostatin M (OSM) is a member of the IL-6 family of cytokines and has various functions, such as wound healing, liver regeneration, heart remodeling, pain, and inflammatory metabolism [38]. OSM is known to contribute significantly to autoimmune diseases, inflammatory diseases, and cancers that occur in various organs, and there is active research on its use in treatments [39]. In particular, OSM is maintained at a low level in the central nervous system (CNS) under normal conditions but increases in the pathological environment and can increase the expression of other cytokines, such as IL-6 [40]. Franzen et al. [41] reported that OSM levels differed in the cerebrospinal fluid samples from eight patients with MDD and seven HCs. Korhonen et al. [42] conducted a study of 110 participants, including patients with first episode psychosis and controls, and found increased levels of inflammatory cytokines, including OSM and IL-6. These findings are consistent with those of many previous studies, suggesting that inflammatory cytokines play an important role in the onset of MDD. Although specific research on OSM and MDD remains limited, these results suggest that OSM plays an important role in the development of MDD.
Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) plays an essential role not only in the liver but also in various other organs by stimulating epithelial cell proliferation, motility, morphogenesis, and angiogenesis, thus providing critical signals for organ development. In the brain and CNS, HGF is crucial for cerebrovascular stability and neuronal regeneration and protection [43,44]. Furthermore, HGF is known to regulate immune responses, showing anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1, IL-6, and IFN-γ [45]. Meanwhile, Russo [46] observed lower levels of HGF in his study focusing on 26 depressed patients than in the control group, and this level was correlated with overall depressive behavior and depressive symptoms. Wakatsuki et al. [47] reported that mice with HGF suppression exhibited depressive and anxiety symptoms, which contrasts with the results of our study. However, Arnold et al. [48] found that plasma HGF levels increased as depressive symptoms increased in elderly aged 55-90 years and explained the opposite result of a previous study by suggesting that it may be a compensatory increase in response to elevated inflammatory cytokines. Many studies have reported not only an increase or decrease, but also an imbalance in inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines [20,22,49]. However, a study of 30 depressed patients and 12 patients with MDD with borderline personality disorder reported no significant differences in HGF levels between the two groups [50,51]. Given these varied results under different conditions, future research is needed to confirm these findings with a larger sample size and standardized conditions.
CD6 is a signaling receptor expressed by lymphocytes and is involved in physiological processes such as lymphocyte activation and proliferation, and although the detailed biological mechanism is still unclear, it is known to play an important role in immune-mediated processes and disease pathogenesis [52]. CD6 is related to the development of autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, and CD6 antibodies are being studied as a treatment for these diseases [53,54]. In our study, CD6 levels were found to be elevated in patients with MDD compared to those in HCs; however, previous studies have rarely reported a relationship between CD6 and depression. Therefore, further studies on the role of CD6 in depression are warranted.
Tumor necrosis factor superfamily 14 (TNFSF14) is one of over 20 members of the TNF superfamily and plays an important role in cell apoptosis, proliferation, activation, and differentiation, and acts as a cytokine that regulates immunity and inflammatory responses [55]. TNFSF14 contributes to the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases of the brain, mucosa, liver, joints, and vascular tissues, as well as autoimmune diseases and cancer [56,57]. In a study by Zhang et al. [58] involving 40 patients with MDD and 40 controls, TNFSF14 levels differed in patients with MDD, similar to the results of our study. In contrast, Yang et al. [59] conducted a study on 15 adolescent patients with depression and 15 controls and reported that TNFSF14 was downregulated in adolescent patients with depression, which is contrary to our findings. Many studies on cytokines in MDD, including those mentioned above, have reported an imbalance in cytokines.
Multiple studies have observed changes in cytokine levels among patients with depression, but it remains unclear whether these changes are causative or consequential [17,18]. Administration of cytokine can induce depressive-like symptoms, suggesting a causal role; however, chronic stress can activate the HPA axis, autonomic nervous system, and immune system, indicating that these changes may be a consequence of depression [12,60]. Depression is a heterogeneous disorder with similar symptoms influenced by various factors, including neurotransmitter imbalances, hormonal dysregulation, environmental stress and psychosocial elements [61]. Longitudinal studies in healthy individuals could help clarify this relationship in the future. Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying these dysregulations.
Previous meta-analyses studying inflammatory cytokines in depression reported that IL-2, IL-6, and IL-10 were elevated in depressed patients, while IL-4 and IFN-γ were reduced [20]. In this study, IL-2 was also significantly elevated in patients with depression, consistent with these findings, but there were no significant differences for IL-6, IL-10, and IFN-γ. One study suggested that there were no overall differences in IFN-γ between patients and controls, but sensitivity analysis showed various results potentially influenced by clinical factors such as smoking and high body mass index (BMI) [62]. In this study, IL-4 levels were significantly elevated in depressed patients, contrary to recent meta-analysis studies [62]. However, some studies comparing cytokines between patients with depression and HCs reported no significant differences in serum IL-4 levels or found increased levels in patient groups, as observed in our study, highlighting the need for further research [63-66].

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study. First, this study analyzed data only from the publicly available GEO dataset; therefore, it cannot be said to represent all previous research findings and there may be some differences from previous results. Second, the proteomic analysis of blood samples from patients with MDD had a small sample size and was carried out in a single center due to the high costs of the analysis and the limitations of the research process. Based on these results, future studies should investigate larger sample sizes to assess the potential of a more focused selection of cytokines as biomarkers. Third, the variables that could affect cytokine levels were not sufficiently controlled. Due to the retrospective nature of this study, we were unable to fully control for the types of medications administered to all participants, which may have influenced the study outcomes. Additionally, although all participants were primarily diagnosed with MDD, some patients also presented with comorbid psychiatric conditions, such as anxiety disorders. These factors should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Also, some antidepressants are known to affect cytokine levels [67,68]; however, since this was a retrospective study, patients were treated with different medications according to a psychiatrist’s judgment. Other variables can affect cytokine levels, such as smoking, obesity, and excessive alcohol consumption [62,69], and future studies are needed to identify and systematically analyze various related clinical variables.

Conclusion

Taken together, by analyzing results from public datasets related to previous MDD studies and blood samples from patients with MDD and HCs, we observed elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as plasma OSM, HGF, CD6, and TNFSF14, in patients with MDD, suggesting the importance of altered cytokines as potential biomarkers that could be related to important pathophysiological aspects of MDD. These findings may contribute to the development of effective strategies for the prevention and treatment of MDD. Future studies should involve systematic and prospective research to control for potential confounding factors and further clarify the relationship between inflammatory markers and depression.

Supplementary Materials

The Supplement is available with this article at https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2025.0013.
Supplementary Figure 1.
Functional enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from GSE39653. In all panels, the xaxis represents the number of genes included in each term, while the y-axis displays the functional terms (biological process, cellular component, or pathways). The size of each circle represents the number of genes mapped to a given term, while the color gradient (from blue to red) reflects the statistical significance (p-value) of enrichment, with red indicating lower p-values (higher significance). A: Gene Ontology (GO) analysis results for upregulated DEGs. B: GO analysis results for downregulated DEGs. C: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment results for upregulated DEGs. D: KEGG pathway enrichment results for downregulated DEGs.
pi-2025-0013-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf
Supplementary Figure 2.
Functional enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from GSE19738. Across all panels, the x-axis denotes the number of genes associated with each term, and the y-axis lists the enriched functional terms, including biological processes, cellular components, or pathways. The size of each circle corresponds to the number of genes associated with a specific term, and the color indicates the p-value from the chi-squared test, with a gradient from blue (higher p-values) to red (lower p-values). A: Gene Ontology (GO) analysis results for upregulated DEGs. B: GO analysis results for downregulated DEGs. C: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment results for upregulated DEGs. D: KEGG pathway enrichment results for downregulated DEGs.
pi-2025-0013-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf
Supplementary Figure 3.
Boxplot of cytokine protein expression levels for non-significant genes between control and major depressive disorder (MDD) groups. This figure presents boxplots of cytokine protein expression levels measured through cytokine array analysis. The x-axis represents the two groups: control (blue) and MDD (red), while the y-axis indicates the corresponding protein expression levels. Each panel represents a specific cytokine or protein, with its name displayed at the top of the panel. The boxplots display the distribution of protein expression values, with the central box representing the interquartile range (IQR) and the horizontal line inside the box indicating the median. Outliers, represented as dots above or below the whiskers, indicate expression values that fall outside 1.5 times the IQR, reflecting deviations from the general distribution. No statistically significant differences were observed between the control and MDD groups for the proteins shown here, indicating consistent expression levels across the two groups.
pi-2025-0013-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

Data sharing will be available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Hojun Lee, Shin Kim. Data curation: Sung-Won Jung, Hee-Cheol Kim, Hojun Lee, Na Yeong Kong. Formal analysis: Junho Kang, Haein Oh, Shin Kim. Funding acquisition: Hojun Lee. Investigation: Haein Oh, Shin Kim, Na Yeong Kong, Sung-Won Jung, Hee-Cheol Kim, Hojun Lee. Methodology: Hojun Lee, Junho Kang, Shin Kim. Supervision: Hojun Lee, Junho Kang. Writing—original draft: Haein Oh, Junho Kang. Writing—review & editing: Hojun Lee, Shin Kim, Junho Kang.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by a Bisa Research Grant from Keimyung University (grant number 20230706). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

None

Figure 1.
Analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). A: Venn diagram of DEGs identified in the GSE39653 and GSE19738 datasets. The numbers within the light red circle represent DEGs unique to the GSE39653 dataset, while the numbers within the light blue circle represent DEGs unique to the GSE19738 dataset. The numbers in the overlapping region represent the common DEGs identified in both datasets. B: Volcano plot for the GSE39653 dataset: the x-axis represents a log2 fold change and the y-axis represents -log10 (p-value). Blue dots represent downregulated genes, while red dots represent upregulated genes. The horizontal dotted line indicates the p-value cutoff and the vertical dotted lines indicate the log2 fold change cut-off. C: Volcano plot for the GSE19738 dataset: the plot follows the same legend information as in Figure 1A.
pi-2025-0013f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Functional enrichment analysis of common differentially expressed genes. A: Results of the Gene Ontology analysis. The x-axis represents the number of genes included in each term, and the y-axis lists the significant terms. The size of the circles corresponds to the number of genes, and the color represents the p-value. B: Results of the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis. The x-axis represents the number of genes included in each term, and the y-axis lists the significant terms. The size of the circles corresponds to the number of genes, and the color represents the p-value.
pi-2025-0013f2.jpg
Figure 3.
Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of common differentially expressed genes (DEGs). A: PPI network of the 46 common DEGs. Each node represents a protein, with colored nodes indicating query proteins and their first shell of interactors, while white nodes represent the second shell of interactors. Filled nodes denote proteins with known or predicted 3D structures, whereas empty nodes represent proteins of unknown 3D structure. The edges represent protein-protein associations, categorized as follows: solid lines indicate known interactions curated from databases or experimentally determined data, while colored or dashed lines represent predicted interactions, including gene neighborhood, gene fusions, and gene co-occurrence. Additionally, text mining, co-expression, and protein homology-based interactions are included in the network. The network was generated using STRING (v11.5), and edge thickness corresponds to STRING’s confidence score, with thicker edges representing higher confidence interactions. B: Results of the Gene Ontology analysis for the 46 common DEGs in the PPI network. The x-axis represents the number of genes included in each term, and the y-axis lists the significant terms. The size of the circles corresponds to the number of genes and the color represents the p-value. C: Results of the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis for the 46 common DEGs in the PPI network. The x-axis represents the number of genes included in each term, and the y-axis lists the significant terms. The size of the circles corresponds to the number of genes and the color represents the p-value.
pi-2025-0013f3.jpg
Figure 4.
Expression levels of the 46 common differentially expressed genes in major depressive disorder (MDD) blood samples. A: The results of the t-test for the 18 genes that are significantly upregulated in MDD blood samples. The red box on the left represents the control group, while the blue box on the right represents the MDD group. The x-axis indicates the groups, and the y-axis represents the expression levels. B: The t-test results for the 28 genes that did not show significant upregulation in MDD blood samples. The red box on the left represents the control group, while the blue box on the right represents the MDD group. The x-axis indicates the groups, and the y-axis represents the expression levels.
pi-2025-0013f4.jpg
Figure 5.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for potential biomarkers in predicting major depressive disorder (MDD). The ROC curves illustrate the predictive performance of 18 candidate biomarkers for MDD. The x-axis represents 1-specificity, and the y-axis represents sensitivity. Each panel displays the ROC curve for a specific biomarker, with the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) value annotated. Biomarkers showing excellent predictive performance (AUC>0.9) include OSM (AUC=0.96), HGF (AUC=0.95), CXCL11 (AUC=0.91), CD6 (AUC=0.90), and TNFSF14 (AUC=0.90). CCL11, with an AUC of 0.89, also demonstrates strong performance.
pi-2025-0013f5.jpg
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical data
Patients with MDD (N=20) Healthy controls (N=10)
Sex (male/female) 6/14 5/5
Age (yr) 27.55±14.05 24.30±11.70
DOE (mon) 3.13±1.76 -
HDRS 23.25±4.63 1.80±2.30

Data are presented as mean±standard deviation. DOE, duration of episode; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; -, not applicable.

REFERENCES

1. Cui L, Li S, Wang S, Wu X, Liu Y, Yu W, et al. Major depressive disorder: hypothesis, mechanism, prevention and treatment. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2024;9:30
crossref pmid pmc pdf
2. Tyrer P. A comparison of DSM and ICD classifications of mental disorder. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2014;20:280-285.
crossref
3. Malhi GS, Mann JJ. Depression. Lancet 2018;392:2299-2312.
crossref pmid
4. Malhi GS, Coulston CM, Fritz K, Lampe L, Bargh DM, Ablett M, et al. Unlocking the diagnosis of depression in primary care: which key symptoms are GPs using to determine diagnosis and severity? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2014;48:542-547.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Zimmerman M, Ellison W, Young D, Chelminski I, Dalrymple K. How many different ways do patients meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder? Compr Psychiatry 2015;56:29-34.
crossref pmid
6. Harsanyi S, Kupcova I, Danisovic L, Klein M. Selected biomarkers of depression: what are the effects of cytokines and inflammation? Int J Mol Sci 2022;24:578
crossref pmid pmc
7. Kang SG, Cho SE. Neuroimaging biomarkers for predicting treatment response and recurrence of major depressive disorder. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:2148
crossref pmid pmc
8. Jones C, Nemeroff CB. Precision psychiatry: biomarker-guided tailored therapy for effective treatment and prevention in major depression. Adv Exp Med Biol 2021;1305:535-563.
crossref pmid
9. Li Z, Ruan M, Chen J, Fang Y. Major depressive disorder: advances in neuroscience research and translational applications. Neurosci Bull 2021;37:863-880.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
10. Marx W, Penninx BWJH, Solmi M, Furukawa TA, Firth J, Carvalho AF, et al. Major depressive disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2023;9:44
crossref pmid pdf
11. Otte C, Gold SM, Penninx BW, Pariante CM, Etkin A, Fava M, et al. Major depressive disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16065
crossref pmid pdf
12. Jeon SW, Kim YK. Neuroinflammation and cytokine abnormality in major depression: cause or consequence in that illness? World J Psychiatry 2016;6:283-293.
crossref pmid pmc
13. García-Gutiérrez MS, Navarrete F, Sala F, Gasparyan A, Austrich-Olivares A, Manzanares J. Biomarkers in psychiatry: concept, definition, types and relevance to the clinical reality. Front Psychiatry 2020;11:432
pmid pmc
14. Kalia M, Costa E Silva J. Biomarkers of psychiatric diseases: current status and future prospects. Metabolism 2015;64(3 Suppl 1):S11-S15.
crossref pmid
15. Kennis M, Gerritsen L, van Dalen M, Williams A, Cuijpers P, Bockting C. Prospective biomarkers of major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry 2020;25:321-338.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
16. Smith RS. The macrophage theory of depression. Med Hypotheses 1991;35:298-306.
crossref pmid
17. Himmerich H, Patsalos O, Lichtblau N, Ibrahim MA, Dalton B. Cytokine research in depression: principles, challenges, and open questions. Front Psychiatry 2019;10:30
crossref pmid pmc
18. Schiepers OJ, Wichers MC, Maes M. Cytokines and major depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2005;29:201-217.
crossref pmid
19. Young JJ, Bruno D, Pomara N. A review of the relationship between proinflammatory cytokines and major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2014;169:15-20.
crossref pmid
20. Köhler CA, Freitas TH, Maes M, de Andrade NQ, Liu CS, Fernandes BS, et al. Peripheral cytokine and chemokine alterations in depression: a meta-analysis of 82 studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2017;135:373-387.
crossref pmid pdf
21. Liu JJ, Wei YB, Strawbridge R, Bao Y, Chang S, Shi L, et al. Peripheral cytokine levels and response to antidepressant treatment in depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry 2020;25:339-350.
crossref pmid pdf
22. Petralia MC, Mazzon E, Fagone P, Basile MS, Lenzo V, Quattropani MC, et al. The cytokine network in the pathogenesis of major depressive disorder. Close to translation? Autoimmun Rev 2020;19:102504
crossref pmid
23. Kamg K, Kwon EJ, Ha M, Lee H, Yu Y, Kang JW, et al. Identification of shared genes and pathways in periodontitis and type 2 diabetes by bioinformatics analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12:724278
pmid
24. Lim DM, Kang J, Woo SY, Choi HS, Kwon M, Kim J, et al. Risk stratification of patients with right-sided colorectal cancer based on the tumor-infiltrating M1 macrophage. Am J Cancer Res 2022;12:5532-5551.
pmid pmc
25. Bader GD, Hogue CWV. An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks. BMC bioinformatics 2003;4:2
crossref pmid pmc pdf
26. Kuhn M, Wing J, Weston S, Williams A, Keefer C, Engelhardt A, et al. Package ‘caret’. The R Journal 2020;223:48

27. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:77
crossref pmid pmc pdf
28. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Narasimhan B, Tay K, Simon N, et al. Package ‘glmnet’. CRAN Repository 2021;595

29. Roychowdhury S, Chinnaiyan AM. Translating cancer genomes and transcriptomes for precision oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:75-88.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
30. Ciobanu LG, Sachdev PS, Trollor JN, Reppermund S, Thalamuthu A, Mather KA, et al. Differential gene expression in brain and peripheral tissues in depression across the life span: a review of replicated findings. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016;71:281-293.
crossref pmid
31. Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, He QY. clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS 2012;16:284-287.
crossref pmid pmc
32. 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.
crossref pmid
33. Leonard BE. HPA and immune axes in stress: involvement of the serotonergic system. Neuroimmunomodulation 2006;13:268-276.
crossref pmid pdf
34. Raison CL, Borisov AS, Majer M, Drake DF, Pagnoni G, Woolwine BJ, et al. Activation of central nervous system inflammatory pathways by interferon-alpha: relationship to monoamines and depression. Biol Psychiatry 2009;65:296-303.
crossref pmid pmc
35. Miller AH, Maletic V, Raison CL. Inflammation and its discontents: the role of cytokines in the pathophysiology of major depression. Biol Psychiatry 2009;65:732-741.
crossref pmid pmc
36. Mikulska J, Juszczyk G, Gawronska-Grzywacz M, Herbet M. HPA axis in the pathomechanism of depression and schizophrenia: new therapeutic strategies based on its participation. Brain Sci 2021;11:1298
crossref pmid pmc
37. Hassamal S. Chronic stress, neuroinflammation, and depression: an overview of pathophysiological mechanisms and emerging anti-inflammatories. Front Psychiatry 2023;14:1130989
crossref pmid pmc
38. Rose-John S. Interleukin-6 family cytokines. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2018;10:a028415
crossref pmid pmc
39. Wolf CL, Pruett C, Lighter D, Jorcyk CL. The clinical relevance of OSM in inflammatory diseases: a comprehensive review. Front Immunol 2023;14:1239732
crossref pmid pmc
40. Chen SH, Benveniste EN. Oncostatin M: a pleiotropic cytokine in the central nervous system. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2004;15:379-391.
crossref pmid
41. Franzen AD, Lam TT, Williams KR, Nairn AC, Duman RS, Sathyanesan M, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid proteome evaluation in major depressive disorder by mass spectrometry. BMC Psychiatry 2020;20:481
crossref pmid pmc pdf
42. Korhonen L, Paul ER, Wåhlén K, Haring L, Vasar E, Vaheri A, et al. Multivariate analyses of immune markers reveal increases in plasma EN-RAGE in first-episode psychosis patients. Transl Psychiatry 2023;13:326
crossref pmid pmc pdf
43. Nakamura T, Mizuno S. The discovery of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and its significance for cell biology, life sciences and clinical medicine. Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci 2010;86:588-610.
crossref pmid pmc
44. Sakai K, Aoki S, Matsumoto K. Hepatocyte growth factor and Met in drug discovery. J Biochem 2015;157:271-284.
crossref pmid
45. Molnarfi N, Benkhoucha M, Funakoshi H, Nakamura T, Lalive PH. Hepatocyte growth factor: a regulator of inflammation and autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev 2015;14:293-303.
crossref pmid
46. Russo A. Decreased serum hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) in individuals with depression correlates with severity of disease. Biomark Insights 2010;5:63-67.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
47. Wakatsuki M, Akiyoshi J, Ichioka S, Tanaka Y, Tsuru J, Matsushita H, et al. Administration of antisense DNA for hepatocyte growth factor causes an depressive and anxiogenic response in rats. Neuropeptides 2007;41:477-483.
crossref pmid
48. Arnold SE, Xie SX, Leung YY, Wang LS, Kling MA, Han X, et al. Plasma biomarkers of depressive symptoms in older adults. Transl Psychiatry 2012;2:e65
crossref pmid pmc pdf
49. Lee H, Song M, Lee J, Kim JB, Lee MS. Prospective study on cytokine levels in medication-naive adolescents with first-episode major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 2020;266:57-62.
pmid
50. Maes M, Rachayon M, Jirakran K, Sodsai P, Sughondhabirom A. Lower nerve growth factor levels in major depression and suicidal behaviors: effects of adverse childhood experiences and recurrence of illness. Brain Sci 2023;13:1090
crossref pmid pmc
51. Kahl KG, Bens S, Ziegler K, Rudolf S, Kordon A, Dibbelt L, et al. Angiogenic factors in patients with current major depressive disorder comorbid with borderline personality disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009;34:353-357.
crossref pmid
52. Consuegra-Fernandez M, Lin F, Fox DA, Lozano F. Clinical and experimental evidence for targeting CD6 in immune-based disorders. Autoimmun Rev 2018;17:493-503.
crossref pmid
53. Pinto M, Carmo AM. CD6 as a therapeutic target in autoimmune diseases: successes and challenges. BioDrugs 2013;27:191-202.
crossref pmid pdf
54. Alonso-Ramirez R, Loisel S, Buors C, Pers JO, Montero E, Youinou P, et al. Rationale for targeting CD6 as a treatment for autoimmune diseases. Arthritis 2010;2010:130646
crossref pmid pmc pdf
55. Šedý J, Bekiaris V, Ware C. Tumor necrosis factor superfamily in innate immunity and inflammation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2014;7:a016279
crossref pmid pmc
56. Ware CF. Targeting the LIGHT-HVEM pathway. Adv Exp Med Biol 2009;647:146-155.
crossref pmid
57. Shui JW, Steinberg MW, Kronenberg M. Regulation of inflammation, autoimmunity, and infection immunity by HVEM-BTLA signaling. J Leukoc Biol 2011;89:517-523.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
58. Zhang E, Huang Z, Zang Z, Qiao X, Yan J, Shao X. Identifying circulating biomarkers for major depressive disorder. Front Psychiatry 2023;14:1230246
crossref pmid pmc
59. Yang L, Cao M, Tian J, Cui P, Ai L, Li X, et al. Identification of plasma inflammatory markers of adolescent depression using the olink proteomics platform. J Inflamm Res 2023;16:4489-4501.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
60. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Doyle WJ, Miller GE, Frank E, Rabin BS, et al. Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:5995-5999.
crossref pmid pmc
61. Dean J, Keshavan M. The neurobiology of depression: an integrated view. Asian J Psychiatr 2017;27:101-111.
crossref pmid
62. Osimo EF, Pillinger T, Rodriguez IM, Khandaker GM, Pariante CM, Howes OD. Inflammatory markers in depression: a meta-analysis of mean differences and variability in 5,166 patients and 5,083 controls. Brain Behav Immun 2020;87:901-909.
crossref pmid pmc
63. Song C, Halbreich U, Han C, Leonard BE, Luo H. Imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, and between Th1 and Th2 cytokines in depressed patients: the effect of electroacupuncture or fluoxetine treatment. Pharmacopsychiatry 2009;42:182-188.
crossref pmid
64. Fornaro M, Rocchi G, Escelsior A, Contini P, Martino M. Might different cytokine trends in depressed patients receiving duloxetine indicate differential biological backgrounds. J Affect Disord 2013;145:300-307.
crossref pmid
65. Schmidt FM, Lichtblau N, Minkwitz J, Chittka T, Thormann J, Kirkby KC, et al. Cytokine levels in depressed and non-depressed subjects, and masking effects of obesity. J Psychiatr Res 2014;55:29-34.
crossref pmid
66. Spanemberg L, Caldieraro MA, Vares EA, Wollenhaupt-Aguiar B, Kauer-Sant’Anna M, Kawamoto SY, et al. Biological differences between melancholic and nonmelancholic depression subtyped by the CORE measure. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2014;10:1523-1531.
crossref pmid pmc
67. Kluge M, Schuld A, Schacht A, Himmerich H, Dalal MA, Wehmeier PM, et al. Effects of clozapine and olanzapine on cytokine systems are closely linked to weight gain and drug-induced fever. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009;34:118-128.
crossref pmid
68. Gupta R, Gupta K, Tripathi AK, Bhatia MS, Gupta LK. Effect of mirtazapine treatment on serum levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and tumor necrosis factor-α in patients of major depressive disorder with severe depression. Pharmacology 2016;97:184-188.
crossref pmid pdf
69. Dowlati Y, Herrmann N, Swardfager W, Liu H, Sham L, Reim EK, et al. A meta-analysis of cytokines in major depression. Biol Psychiatry 2010;67:446-457.
crossref pmid


ABOUT
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
Editorial Office
#522, G-five Central Plaza, 27 Seochojungang-ro 24-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06601, Korea
Tel: +82-2-537-6171  Fax: +82-2-537-6174    E-mail: psychiatryinvest@gmail.com                

Copyright © 2026 by Korean Neuropsychiatric Association.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next