氟西汀通过调节小鼠海马组织中长链非编码RNA的表达来改善抑郁症状

Chuan-Ling Zhang; Yi-Jia Li; Shuang Lu; Ting Zhang; Rui Xiao; Huai-Rong Luo

doi:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.294

氟西汀通过调节小鼠海马组织中长链非编码RNA的表达来改善抑郁症状

doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2020.294

张传领^{1, 2, 3},
李怡佳⁴,
卢双⁴,
张婷⁴,
肖瑞^4, ,,
罗怀容^{1, 5, ,}

1.
中国科学院昆明植物研究所植物化学与西部植物资源持续利用国家重点实验室，云南省天然药物化学重点实验室，云南昆明650201，中国
2.
内蒙古医科大学药学院，内蒙古呼和浩特010110，中国
3.
中国科学院大学，北京100049，中国
4.
内蒙古医科大学分子病理学重点实验室，内蒙古呼和浩特010059，中国
5.
西南医科大学药学院药理学系衰老与再生医学重点实验室，四川泸州 646000，中国

计量
- 文章访问数: 1429
- HTML全文浏览量: 633
- PDF下载量: 172
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-11-25
- 录用日期: 2021-01-06
- 网络出版日期: 2021-01-08
- 刊出日期: 2021-01-18

Fluoxetine ameliorates depressive symptoms by regulating lncRNA expression in the mouse hippocampus

Chuan-Ling Zhang^{1, 2, 3},
Yi-Jia Li⁴,
Shuang Lu⁴,
Ting Zhang⁴,
Rui Xiao^{4
, ,},
Huai-Rong Luo^{1, 5
, ,}

1.
State Key Laboratory of Phytochemistry and Plant Resources in West China, Yunnan Key Laboratory of Natural Medical Chemistry, Kunming Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan 650201, China
2.
School of Pharmacy, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia 010110, China
3.
University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4.
Key Laboratory of Molecular Pathology, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia 010059, China
5.
Key Laboratory for Aging and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, Southwestern Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan 646000, China

Funds: This work was supported by the Scientific Research Projects of Universities in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (NJZY111) and Natural Scientific Research Projects of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2020MS03060)

More Information

Corresponding author: E-mail: xiaorui79@hotmail.com; lhr@swmu.edu.cn

摘要

摘要: 抑郁症是一种与衰老相关的精神障碍疾病，可导致患者发病率和死亡率的增加。目前临床上具有显著抑郁症状的老年抑郁症患者的发病率也在逐年增加。最近的研究表明，在抑郁症发病期间，大脑中长链非编码RNA（lncRNA）表达的改变会影响神经发育，并对抑郁症具有调节功能。但是大多数lncRNA的功能尚未被研究。在本研究中，我们利用慢性不可预知温和应激（CUMS）抑郁小鼠模型，用抗抑郁药氟西汀进行6周干预后，分析了在抑郁样行为小鼠模型以及氟西汀干预后的CUMS小鼠海马组织中lncRNA的表达水平的差异。结果发现，与正常小鼠相比，CUMS诱导的小鼠海马组织中共有282个lncRNA差异表达，其中134个lncRNA在CUMS抑郁样小鼠中表达上调，148个lncRNA在CUMS抑郁样小鼠中表达下调）（P<0.05）。在氟西汀干预后，与CUMS抑郁样小鼠相比，我们发现370个lncRNA呈现差异表达。我们进一步对这些差异表达的lncRNA进行GO功能分析发现，差异表达的lncRNA与蛋白结合，氧结合和转运活性之间存在关联。通过基因和基因组百科全书（KEGG）信号通路分析表明，失调的lncRNA可能参与了炎症反应途径。氟西汀可通过调节海马中lncRNA的表达来有效缓解CUMS诱导的小鼠抑郁症状。本文的发现为老年抑郁症发生的潜在机制提供了有价值的见解。
- 抑郁症 /
- 老年 /
- 氟西汀 /
- LncRNA /
- 慢性不可预知温和应激
Abstract: Depression is a prevalent mental disorder that is associated with aging and contributes to increased mortality and morbidity. The overall prevalence of geriatric depression with clinically significant symptoms is currently on the rise. Recent studies have demonstrated that altered expressions of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in the brain affect neurodevelopment and manifest modulating functions during the depression. However, most lncRNAs have not yet been studied. Herein, we analyzed the transcriptome of dysregulated lncRNAs to reveal their expressions in a mouse model exhibiting depressive-like behaviors, as well as their corresponding response following antidepressant fluoxetine treatment. A chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) mouse model was applied. A six-week fluoxetine intervention in CUMS-induced mice attenuated depressive-like behaviors. In addition, differential expression analysis of lncRNAs was performed following RNA-sequencing. A total of 282 lncRNAs (134 up-regulated and 148 down-regulated) were differentially expressed in CUMS-induced mice relative to non-stressed counterparts (P<0.05). Moreover, 370 differentially expressed lncRNAs were identified in CUMS-induced mice after fluoxetine intervention. Gene Ontology (GO) analyses showed an association between significantly dysregulated lncRNAs and protein binding, oxygen binding, and transport activity, while the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis indicated that these dysregulated lncRNAs might be involved in inflammatory response pathways. Fluoxetine effectively ameliorated the symptoms of depression in CUMS-induced mice by regulating the expression of lncRNAs in the hippocampus. The findings herein provide valuable insights into the potential mechanism underlying depression in elderly people.
- Depression /
- Elderly /
- Fluoxetine /
- LncRNA /
- Chronic unpredictable mild stress

HTML全文

Figure 1. Behavioral assessments and the schematic diagram of the indcution process of depressive-like hehaviors in mice

In the SPT assessment (A), mice exposed to CUMS displayed decreased sucrose preference when compared to NOR mice; these effects were ameliorated after fluoxetine treatment. In the FST (B) and TST (C) assessments, immobility time was longer in the CUMS group than in the FLU and the NOR groups. * P-value<0.001. D: Schematic diagram showing the induction process of depressive-like behaviors in mice. Changes in the expression of 5-HT (E) and BDNF (F) in samples from CUMS, FLU, and NOR groups (n=4 per group). A significant decrease in 5-HT concentration was observed in the CUMS group compared to the NOR group. 5-HT concentration was increased after fluoxetine treatment (E). BDNF concentration increased after fluoxetine treatment in the FLU group compared to the CUMS group, in which it was decreased (F). Data indicate mean±SEM. *P-value<0.05. NOR: Normal control group; CUMS: CUMS induced depression group; FLU: Fluoxetine-treated group; SPT: Sucrose preference test; FST: Forced swim test; TST: Tail suspension test.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Transcriptome-wide identification and characterization of lncRNAs

A: A total of 8 281 lncRNAs were identified using the CNCI, CPC2, Pfam Scan, and PhyloCSF tools. B: Identified lncRNAs were mainly classified as lincRNA, anti-sense lncRNA, and intronic lncRNA. C: Conservation comparison of the identified lncRNAs, mRNAs, and predicted novel lncRNAs. D, E: The exon number (D) and length (E) of lncRNAs identified were comparatively shorter than mRNA transcripts. F: Length of ORF in most identified lncRNAs was less than 300 bp.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Differentially expressed lncRNAs (DElnRNAs) comparison between CUMS vs. NOR groups and FLU vs. CUMS groups

A, B: Volcano map of 282 and 370 differentially regulated lncRNAs based on a group-wise comparison of CUMS vs. NOR groups (A), and FLU vs. CUMS groups (B), respectively (P-value<0.05). C: Venn map showing 95 commonly expressed lncRNAs identified in a comparison between FLU vs. CUMS groups and CUMS vs. NOR groups (P-value<0.05). D: Three lncRNAs (LNC_004212, LNC_001203, and ENSMUST00000148687.1) with contrasting expression patterns between FLU and CUMS groups vs. CUMS and NOR groups based on RNA-seq analysis (Q-value<0.05).

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Chromosomal distribution and hierarchical clustering analysis of DElnRNAs in CUMS, FLU and NOR mice

A: Distribution of DElnRNAs on all chromosomes in CUMS vs. NOR groups. Among the 282 DElnRNAs, the 134 up-regulated and 148 down-regulated lncRNAs were enriched on chromosome 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, respectively. B: Distribution of DElnRNAs on all chromosomes in FLU vs. CUMS groups. After fluoxetine treatment, the 236 up-regulated and 134 down-regulated lncRNAs mapped to chromosomes 4, 6, 10, 11, 17 and 2, 7, 9, 11, 17, respectively. P-value<0.05. C: Hierarchical clustering showing that lncRNAs differentially expressed (P-value<0.05) in FLU vs. CUMS and CUMS vs. NOR groups were clustered into four main categories. DElnRNAs in the same category may participate in similar processes resulting in depressive-like behaviors. Samples from the same group were clustered together, indicating minimal variation in samples from the same group.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. GO analysis of putative target genes

A: GO analysis of mRNAs co-localized with DElnRNAs between FLU and CUMS mice. A total of 154 co-localized differentially expressed transcripts were found to be enriched with the GO terms of organismal development, intracellular part, organelle, and macromolecular complex binding when comparing FLU and CUMS groups. B: GO analysis of mRNAs co-expressed with DElnRNAs between FLU and CUMS mice. A total of 679 co-expressed transcripts indicated an association with the GO terms of response to stimulus, intracellular part, organelle or cytoplasm of the cell, and protein binding. C, D: GO annotation of mRNA targets co-localized with 48 DElnRNAs which were up-regulated in CUMS-induced mice compared to NOR mice, and down-regulated in FLU treated compared to CUMS mice. These 48 lncRNA transcripts were predicted to be associated with oxygen binding and transport activity. E: Validation of lncRNA expressions in the hippocampus of CUMS, FLU, and NOR mice by qRT-PCR. Six of eight randomly selected lncRNAs were up-regulated, whereas Tmem134 and LNC_004971 were down-regulated in CUMS mice compared to NOR controls. Up-regulated lncRNAs in CUMS mice compared to NOR controls were down-regulated after fluoxetine treatment, thereby validating the RNA-seq results.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. qRT-PCR primers used for validation of lncRNA expression identified from RNA-seq

lncRNA transcript ID	Transcript symbol name	Forward primer sequence (5'–3')	Reverse primer sequence (5'–3')	PCR product size (bp)
LNC_007274	–	CTTGGTCAGAAGCATCTGGA	AAGAACAGGCTTCGAGAACG	273
ENSMUST00000148687.1	Gm16638	ATCCAGCAGACAGCACTATG	GTTGCCTCTGTGTTCAGAAG	278
LNC_001203	–	CACAGTTGCTTCTAAGCCAG	ATACAGAGAGCGCAGCATTC	259
LNC_004971	–	TGGTGACATTCTTCAGCTCC	ATTGCAGAAGAGGCCGATAG	145
ENSMUST00000139987.8	Tmem134	GATCTTCATCTACTGCGCTG	CAGGTGTAGGTTGGAGGAAT	159
ENSMUST00000182520.1	Gm26917	AATGGTGCTACCGGTCATTC	ACACCTCTCTTATCCGCTCT	194
ENSMUST00000152663.7	4933431E20Rik	GACTCAGATCCATCCGTTCA	CAGTGTCTGGACCTGTTCAT	280
ENSMUST00000174808.1	Malat1	CCTTCCTGTGTGGCAAGAAT	CTGCAAGCACAACTTGAGGT	223
–: Not available.

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. DElnRNAs between CUMS-induced mice and normal controls (adjusted P-value <0.05)

LncRNA transcript_id	CUMS/NOR fold change (log₂ ratio)	P-value	Q-value
LNC_001649	–13.699 2	8.93E–05	0.029 085
LNC_002578	–13.348 5	0.000102	0.031 665
LNC_007352	–10.429 3	3.50E–05	0.014 861
LNC_001657	–9.480 77	6.31E–05	0.022 996
LNC_007186	–8.750 24	8.35E–07	0.000 832
LNC_004212	–8.231 64	3.01E–06	0.002 228
LNC_003004	–7.265 23	0.00018	0.045 952
LNC_002630	–7.001 84	0.000174	0.044 864
LNC_003171	–5.972 24	0.000118	0.034 934
LNC_001871	3.741 192	5.21E–05	0.020 057
LNC_002576	5.643 55	6.22E–06	0.004 041
LNC_005505	7.062 69	0.000196	0.048 071
LNC_000648	7.296 817	9.84E–05	0.030 782
LNC_002056	7.889 765	1.61E–05	0.008 33
ENSMUST00000139987.8	7.965 873	0.000105	0.032 184
LNC_001203	8.904 771	3.63E–05	0.015 174
ENSMUST00000148687.1	8.997 071	1.36E–05	0.007 63
LNC_003699	9.458 857	5.65E–05	0.021 329
LNC_007164	10.498 72	1.48E–05	0.007 939

下载: 导出CSV

Table 3. DELnRNAs between fluoxetine-treated CUMS-induced mice and CUMS-induced mice (adjusted P-value <0.05)

LncRNA transcript_id	FLU/CUMS fold change (log₂ ratio)	P-value	Q-value
LNC_000804	–12.589 2	7.49E–16	2.95E–12
LNC_004168	–11.758 1	2.41E–12	5.29E–09
LNC_007274	–10.935 3	4.54E–06	0.001 971
LNC_005854	–10.426 8	1.12E–05	0.003 987
ENSMUST00000148687.1	–9.016 46	1.63E–05	0.005 382
LNC_004971	–8.843 16	0.000 204	0.036 612
LNC_004518	–7.637 87	7.27E–05	0.017 453
LNC_001203	–7.069 03	0.000 151	0.029 595
LNC_001138	3.050 837	3.00E–08	3.39E–05
LNC_004347	3.307 226	3.81E–06	0.001 737
ENSMUST00000182520.1	5.833 658	1.36E–23	2.54E–19
LNC_007241	6.265 049	4.08E–05	0.011 235
LNC_003126	7.047 628	0.000 264	0.043 714
LNC_002186	7.188 645	0.000 182	0.034 032
LNC_003822	7.450 247	0.000 115	0.02 4392
LNC_007358	7.570 922	0.000 133	0.027 026
LNC_004212	7.790 258	4.21E–05	0.011 393
LNC_003821	8.000 836	1.37E–05	0.004 665
LNC_000872	8.030 34	7.94E–06	0.00 313
LNC_001392	8.045 196	0.000 21	0.037 484
LNC_001105	8.478 254	3.56E–11	7.19E–08
LNC_000238	8.580 248	0.000 309	0.048 759
LNC_002941	8.760 41	0.000 251	0.042 275
LNC_007536	9.109 974	0.000 196	0.035 421
ENSMUST00000123998.1	10.423 95	1.09E–05	0.003 939
LNC_003023	11.197 15	2.82E–06	0.001 406
LNC_000806	13.241 01	4.17E–05	0.011 379
ENSMUST00000174808.1	16.987 89	3.93E–05	0.010 935

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(57)

[1]	Angelucci F, Aloe L, Jiménez-Vasquez P, Mathé AA. 2002. Electroconvulsive stimuli alter the regional concentrations of nerve growth factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in adult rat brain. The Journal of ECT, 18(3): 138−143. doi: 10.1097/00124509-200209000-00005
[2]	Beyer JL. 2007. Managing depression in geriatric populations. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 19(4): 221−238. doi: 10.1080/10401230701653245
[3]	Blazer DG. 2003. Depression in late life: review and commentary. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 58(3): M249−M265. doi: 10.1093/gerona/58.3.M249
[4]	Bramham CR, Messaoudi E. 2005. BDNF function in adult synaptic plasticity: the synaptic consolidation hypothesis. Progress in Neurobiology, 76(2): 99−125. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2005.06.003
[5]	Bremner JD. 1984. Fluoxetine in depressed patients: a comparison with imipramine. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 45(10): 414−419.
[6]	Brunoni AR, Lopes M, Fregni F. 2008. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on major depression and BDNF levels: implications for the role of neuroplasticity in depression. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 11(8): 1169−1180. doi: 10.1017/S1461145708009309
[7]	Camkurt MA, Acar Ş, Coşkun S, Güneş M, Güneş S, Yılmaz MF, et al. 2015. Comparison of plasma MicroRNA levels in drug naive, first episode depressed patients and healthy controls. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 69: 67−71.
[8]	Casey DA. 1994. Depression in the elderly. South Medcal Jounal, 87(5): 559−563.
[9]	Cesana M, Cacchiarelli D, Legnini I, Santini T, Sthandier O, Chinappi M, et al. 2011. A long noncoding RNA controls muscle differentiation by functioning as a competing endogenous RNA. Cell, 147(2): 358−369.
[10]	Chen DM, Meng L, Pei F, Zheng Y, Leng JY. 2017. A review of DNA methylation in depression. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 43: 39−46.
[11]	Chen Z, Bu NP, Qiao XH, Zuo ZX, Shu YH, Liu ZL, et al. 2018. Forkhead Box M1 transcriptionally regulates the expression of long noncoding RNAs Snhg8 and Gm26917 to promote proliferation and survival of muscle satellite cells. Stem Cells, 36(7): 1097−1108.
[12]	Cryan JF, Mombereau C, Vassout A. 2005. The tail suspension test as a model for assessing antidepressant activity: review of pharmacological and genetic studies in mice. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(4–5): 571−625.
[13]	Cui XL, Sun XY, Niu W, Kong LM, He MJ, Zhong AF., et al. 2016. Long non-coding RNA: potential diagnostic and therapeutic biomarker for major depressive disorder. Medical Science Monitor, 22: 5240−5248.
[14]	Fiske A, Wetherell JL, Gatz M. 2009. Depression in older adults. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5: 363−389. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153621
[15]	Flurkey K, Currer JM, Harrison DE. 2007. Mouse models in aging research. In: Fox JG, Davisson MT, Quimby FW, Barthold SW, Newcomer CE, Smith AL. The Mouse in Biomedical Research. 2^nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 637−672.
[16]	Gibbons A, Udawela M, Dean B. 2018. Non-coding RNA as novel players in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Non-Coding RNA, 4(2): 11.
[17]	Guil S, Esteller M. 2012. Cis-acting noncoding RNAs: friends and foes. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 19(11): 1068−1075.
[18]	Gururajan A, Clarke G, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. 2016. Molecular biomarkers of depression. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 64: 101−133.
[19]	Hiles SA, Baker AL, de Malmanche T, Attia J. 2012. Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein and interleukin-10 after antidepressant treatment in people with depression: a meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 42(10): 2015−2026. doi: 10.1017/S0033291712000128
[20]	Huang X, Luo YL, Mao YS, Ji JL. 2017. The link between long noncoding RNAs and depression. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 73: 73−78. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2016.06.004
[21]	Huang XY, Sun WY, Yan ZQ, Shi HR, Yang QL, Wang PF, et al. 2019. Integrative analyses of long non-coding RNA and mRNA involved in piglet ileum immune response to Clostridium perfringens Type C infection. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 9: 130.
[22]	Jani BD, McLean G, Nicholl BI, Barry SJE, Sattar N, Mair FS, et al. 2015. Risk assessment and predicting outcomes in patients with depressive symptoms: a review of potential role of peripheral blood based biomarkers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9: 18.
[23]	Kim D, Paggi JM, Park C, Bennett C, Salzberg SL. 2019. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nature Biotechnology, 37(8): 907−915. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4
[24]	Kong L, Zhang Y, Ye ZQ, Liu XQ, Zhao SQ, Wei LP, et al. 2007. CPC: assess the protein-coding potential of transcripts using sequence features and support vector machine. Nucleic Acids Research, 35(S2): W345−W349.
[25]	Leung AKL, Sharp PA. 2010. MicroRNA functions in stress responses. Molecular Cell, 40(2): 205−215. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.027
[26]	Lin MF, Jungreis I, Kellis M. 2011. PhyloCSF: a comparative genomics method to distinguish protein coding and non-coding regions. Bioinformatics, 27(13): i275−i282.
[27]	Liu MY, Yin CY, Zhu LJ, Zhu XH, Xu C, Luo CX, et al. 2018. Sucrose preference test for measurement of stress-induced anhedonia in mice. Nature Protocols, 13(7): 1686−1698. doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0011-z
[28]	Liu ZF, Li XR, Sun N, Xu Y, Meng YQ, Yang CX, et al. 2014. Microarray profiling and co-expression network analysis of circulating lncRNAs and mRNAs associated with major depressive disorder. PLoS One, 9(3): e93388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093388
[29]	Lopez JP, Fiori LM, Cruceanu C, Lin RX, Labonte B, Cates HM, et al. 2017. MicroRNAs 146a/b-5 and 425–3p and 24–3p are markers of antidepressant response and regulate MAPK/Wnt-system genes. Nature Communications, 8: 15497. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15497
[30]	López-Muñoz F, Alamo C. 2009. Monoaminergic neurotransmission: the history of the discovery of antidepressants from 1950s until today. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 15(14): 1563−1586.
[31]	Maes M, Smith R, Scharpe S. 1995. The monocyte-T-lymphocyte hypothesis of major depression. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 20(2): 111−116. doi: 10.1016/0306-4530(94)00066-J
[32]	Miller AH, Raison CL. 2016. The role of inflammation in depression: from evolutionary imperative to modern treatment target. Nature Reviews Immunology, 16(1): 22−34. doi: 10.1038/nri.2015.5
[33]	Neto FL, Borges G, Torres-Sanchez S, Mico JA, Berrocoso E. 2011. Neurotrophins role in depression neurobiology: a review of basic and clinical evidence. Current Neuropharmacology, 9(4): 530−552. doi: 10.2174/157015911798376262
[34]	Ni XQ, Liao YZ, Li LM, Zhang XL, Wu ZZ. 2018. Therapeutic role of long non-coding RNA TCONS_00019174 in depressive disorders is dependent on Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 17(2): 125−132.
[35]	Nollet M, Le Guisquet AM, Belzung C. 2013. Models of depression: unpredictable chronic mild stress in mice. Current Protocols in Pharmacology, 61(1): 5.65.
[36]	Perez-Caballero L, Torres-Sanchez S, Bravo L, Mico JA, Berrocoso E. 2014. Fluoxetine: a case history of its discovery and preclinical development. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 9(5): 567−578. doi: 10.1517/17460441.2014.907790
[37]	Pertea M, Pertea GM, Antonescu CM, Chang TC, Mendell JT, Salzberg SL. 2015. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nature Biotechnology, 33(3): 290−295. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3122
[38]	Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate J, Boursnell C, et al. 2012. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Research, 40(Database issue): D290−D301.
[39]	Raedler TJ. 2011. Inflammatory mechanisms in major depressive disorder. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(6): 519−525. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32834b9db6
[40]	Raison CL, Capuron L, Miller AH. 2006. Cytokines sing the blues: inflammation and the pathogenesis of depression. Trends in Immunology, 27(1): 24−31. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2005.11.006
[41]	Riva P, Ratti A, Venturin M. 2016. The long non-coding RNAs in neurodegenerative diseases: novel mechanisms of pathogenesis. Current Alzheimer Research, 13(11): 1219−1231.
[42]	Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. 2010. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics, 26(1): 139−140. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616
[43]	Roy B, Wang QZ, Dwivedi Y. 2018. Long noncoding RNA-Associated transcriptomic changes in resiliency or susceptibility to depression and response to antidepressant treatment. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 21(5): 461−472. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyy010
[44]	Sampson SM. 2001. Treating depression with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a practical approach. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76(7): 739−744.
[45]	Sen S, Duman R, Sanacora G. 2008. Serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor, depression, and antidepressant medications: meta-analyses and implications. Biological Psychiatry, 64(6): 527−532. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.005
[46]	Siepel A, Bejerano G, Pedersen JS, Hinrichs AS, Hou MM, Rosenbloom K, et al. 2005. Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Research, 15(8): 1034−1050. doi: 10.1101/gr.3715005
[47]	Stelzhammer V, Haenisch F, Chan MK, Cooper JD, Steiner J, Steeb H, et al. 2014. Proteomic changes in serum of first onset, antidepressant drug-naïve major depression patients. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 17(10): 1599−1608. doi: 10.1017/S1461145714000819
[48]	Strawbridge R, Young AH, Cleare AJ. 2017. Biomarkers for depression: recent insights, current challenges and future prospects. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13: 1245−1262. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S114542
[49]	Sun L, Luo HT, Bu DC, Zhao GG, Yu KT, Zhang CH, et al. 2013. Utilizing sequence intrinsic composition to classify protein-coding and long non-coding transcripts. Nucleic Acids Research, 41(17): e166. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt646
[50]	Surget A, Belzung C. 2008. Unpredictable chronic mild stress in mice. In: Kalueff AV, LaPorte JL. Experimental Animal Models in Neurobehavioral Research. New York, NY: Nova Science, 79−112.
[51]	Tang J, Yu YZ, Yang W. 2017. Long noncoding RNA and its contribution to autism spectrum disorders. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 23(8): 645−656.
[52]	Wan YQ, Feng JG, Li M, Wang MZ, Liu L, Liu XR, et al. 2018. Prefrontal cortex miR-29b-3p plays a key role in the antidepressant-like effect of ketamine in rats. Experimental & Molecular Medicine, 50(10): 1−14.
[53]	Wapinski O, Chang HY. 2011. Long noncoding RNAs and human disease. Trends in Cell Biology, 21(6): 354−361. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2011.04.001
[54]	Willner P, Towell A, Sampson D, Sophokleous S, Muscat R. 1987. Reduction of sucrose preference by chronic unpredictable mild stress, and its restoration by a tricyclic antidepressant. Psychopharmacology, 93(3): 358−364.
[55]	Xiao R, Park Y, Dirisala VR, Zhang YP, Um SJ, Lee HT, et al. 2005. Identification of genes differentially expressed in wild type and Purkinje cell degeneration mice. Molecules and Cells, 20(2): 219−227.
[56]	Yalcin I, Belzung C, Surget A. 2008. Mouse strain differences in the unpredictable chronic mild stress: a four-antidepressant survey. Behavioural Brain Research, 193(1): 140−143. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.04.021
[57]	Yankelevitch-Yahav R, Franko M, Huly A, Doron R. 2015. The forced swim test as a model of depressive-like behavior. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (97): e52587.