Translational Psychiatry (2015) 5, e553; doi:10.1038/tp.2015.47; published online
21 April 2015
Following publication, the authors identified an error in the meta-analysis of ISPC,
AMPS and STAR*D data. The error resulted from a failure to correctly harmonize alleles
at some SNPs prior to meta-analyzing results from the three studies. This error had
no impact on the primary analysis, which focused on the ISPC data alone (Table 2,
Figure 1), but resulted in several incorrect signals being listed in Table 3 (meta-analysis
results). The corrected Table 3 is shown below, along with a corrected Figure 2 (Manhattan
plot of the meta-analysis). A new Supplementary File is available online. The corrections
to the article are described below.
In the Abstract, the sentence ‘Top association results in the meta-analysis of response
included single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the HPRTP4 (hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
pseudogene 4)/VSTM5 (V-set and transmembrane domain containing 5) region, which approached
genome-wide significance (P=5.03E−08) and SNPs 5′ upstream of the neuregulin-1 gene,
NRG1 (P=1.20E−06)' should read ‘The top association result in the meta-analysis of
response represents SNPs 5′ upstream of the neuregulin-1 gene, NRG1 (P=1.20E−06).'
In the Results section, the following sentence should not have been included in the
article: ‘In the meta-analysis of response, one SNP approached genome-wide significance
(Table 3; rs2456568, P=5.0E−08). This SNP lies 3′ downstream of the pseudogene HPRTP4,
with other SNPs in this region with P-values <10−6 being located 5′ upstream of the
gene VSTM5 (V-set and transmembrane domain containing 5; Supplementary Figure S4).'
The subsequent sentence should not have begun with ‘Other' the corrected sentence
is ‘Notable top association regions for response include the 5′ upstream region of
the neuregulin gene, NRG1 (Figure 2b and Supplementary Figure S4).'
Also in the Results section, the following sentence should have appeared with the
two changes shown in square brackets: ‘Although the observed associations are not
significant after correction for multiple testing of SNPs selected for these replication
analyses, we observed marginally significant evidence of association of SNP rs11624702
in MDGA2 (MAM domain containing glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor 2) with response
in the ISPC alone (P=0.061) and [‘and' should read ‘but not'] in the combined ISPC-AMPS-STAR*D
meta-analysis (P=0.029) [‘0.029' should read ‘0.36'], with the minor allele being
associated with lower odds of response (that is, worse clinical outcomes)'.
In the Discussion section, the statement ‘A meta-analysis that included the ISPC,
PGRN-AMPS and STAR*D data revealed a SNP in the region of the HPRTP4 and VSTM5 genes
that approached genome-wide significance for association with response (p=5.0E-08).
Replication of this association signal is warranted, prior to further functional follow-up.
Moreover, several of the top association signals that did not achieve genome-wide
significance were in genes of biological interest, most notably NRG1, which merits
further investigation into their potential role in depression and antidepressant response.'
should read ‘A meta-analysis that included the ISPC, PGRN-AMPS and STAR*D data revealed
several association signals that did not achieve genome-wide significance but were
in genes of biological interest, most notably NRG1, which merits further investigation
into their potential role in depression and antidepressant response.'
Also in the Discussion section, the following sentence should not have been included:
‘In particular, our analyses provided nominally significant evidence of association
of SNP rs11624702 in MDGA2 with response in the combined ISPC-AMPS-STAR*D meta-analysis.'