Skip to main content

Integrated proteomic and genomic analysis to identify predictive biomarkers for valproate response in bipolar disorder: a 6-month follow-up study



Several genetic studies have been undertaken to elucidate the intricate interplay between genetics and drug responses in bipolar disorder (BD). However, there has been notably limited research on biomarkers specifically linked to valproate, with only a few studies investigating integrated proteomic and genomic factors in response to valproate treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to identify biological markers for the therapeutic response to valproate treatment in BD. Patients with BD in remission were assessed only at baseline, whereas those experiencing acute mood episodes were evaluated at three points (baseline, 8 ± 2 weeks, and 6 ± 1 months). The response to valproate treatment was measured using the Alda scale, with individuals scoring an Alda A score ≥ 5 categorized into the acute-valproate responder (acute-VPAR) group. We analyzed 158 peptides (92 proteins) from peripheral blood samples using multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry, and proteomic result-guided candidate gene association analyses, with 1,627 single nucleotide variants (SNVs), were performed using the Korean chip.


The markers of 37 peptides (27 protein) showed temporal upregulation, indicating possible association with response to valproate treatment. A total of 58 SNVs in 22 genes and 37 SNVs in 16 genes showed nominally significant associations with the Alda A continuous score and the acute-VPAR group, respectively. No SNVs reached the genome-wide significance threshold; however, three SNVs (rs115788299, rs11563197, and rs117669164) in the secreted phosphoprotein 2 gene reached a gene-based false discovery rate-corrected significance threshold with response to valproate treatment. Significant markers were associated with the pathophysiological processes of bipolar disorders, including the immune response, acute phase reaction, and coagulation cascade. These results suggest that valproate effectively suppresses mechanisms associated with disease progression.


The markers identified in this study could be valuable indicators of the underlying mechanisms associated with response to valproate treatment.


Effective long-term management of bipolar disorder (BD) and its favorable prognosis rely heavily on pharmaceutical therapy due to the chronic nature of the disease. (Judd et al. 2008) However, psychiatrists often encounter challenges in determining appropriate medications because of the heterogeneity of treatment responses. (Samalin and Belzeaux 2023) Although numerous studies have been conducted to explore potential biological markers for drug response prediction in patients with BD (Ho et al. 2020; Sagar and Pattanayak 2017; Perugi et al. 2019), the outcomes are inconclusive.

BD exhibits a high genetic predisposition compared with other psychiatric disorders, with significant genetic heritability. (McGuffin et al. 2003) Over the past two decades, several genetic studies have been conducted to investigate the influence of genomic factors on the outcome of BD drug therapies (Sagar and Pattanayak 2017; Alda and Manchia 2018; Hasler and Wolf 2015; Ziani et al. 2022), and have identified genetic variants associated with drug metabolism, particularly those linked with lithium, neurotransmitter systems, and cellular signaling pathways; however, the predictive value of these variants may vary across studies. (Sagar and Pattanayak 2017; Alda and Manchia 2018; Hasler and Wolf 2015; Ziani et al. 2022) Emerging evidence also suggests the potential use of blood protein biomarkers for treatment response prediction in patients with BD, such as alterations in certain inflammatory markers and complement and coagulation cascades (Perugi et al. 2019; Ziani et al. 2022; Akcan et al. 2018; Gao et al. 2022). Nevertheless, many of these findings await further validation.

The molecular factors influencing drug response in patients with BD include static factors, such as genetic variation, and dynamic factors, such as protein expression. (Fuh et al. 2023) Thus, integrating proteomic and genomic datasets can enhance the prediction of treatment response. (Fuh et al. 2023) Valproate holds a significant role as a medication for BD treatment; however, considerably less research has been conducted on biomarkers specifically associated with valproate, (Zhu et al. 2017) and only a few studies have focused on integrated proteomic and genomic investigations of response to valproate treatment.

The present study aimed to identify biological markers for response to valproate treatment. In order to overcome the limitations of prior studies, we applied a proteomics and genomic approach to identify valid biomarkers. Additionally, we employed methods incorporating both prospective and retrospective measures to evaluate treatment responses.



Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. 1905-150-1035), Samsung Medical Center (IRB No. 2019-02-038), and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-1908-559-404) and adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.


We recruited individuals who met the criteria for bipolar I or II disorders according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5) from August 2019 to May 2021 at hospitals affiliated with tertiary care universities in South Korea (Seoul National University Hospital, Samsung Medical Center, and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital). The participants who had received valproate treatment were included in the discovery analysis. The patients received medication prescriptions from the three hospitals, enabling the interviewer to verify the patients’ history of using psychotropic medications. All the participants received standard pharmacological treatment according to the most recent treatment guidelines. (Yatham et al. 2018) Considering the potential differences in treatment responses and prognoses among older individuals with BD, the age range of the participants was limited to 18–60 yrs. (Sajatovic et al. 2015) Patients were categorized into acute and stable groups based on their clinical symptoms during the baseline evaluation. Individuals who met the DSM-5 criteria for manic, hypomanic, or major depressive episodes were assigned to the ‘acute’ group. Patients in the acute group underwent follow-up assessments at baseline (T0), 8 ± 2 weeks (T1), and 6 ± 1 months (T2). The response to valproate treatment was evaluated at T2. The stable group comprised individuals who did not meet the criteria for an acute mood episode and had been receiving pharmacological treatment for a minimum of 2 yrs. The stable group underwent an evaluation, including an assessment of response to valproate treatment, only at baseline. The exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) prior diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder; (2) history of receiving neuromodulation therapies (such as electroconvulsive therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, or deep brain stimulation) within the past month; (3) history of neurosurgery or any central nervous system disease (including epilepsy); 4) severe head trauma resulting in loss of consciousness; (5) history of malignant cancer; (6) history of substance abuse (excluding nicotine or alcohol); and (7) pregnancy or lactation at the time of the initial evaluation. For independent validation analysis, patients with BD in acute status (manic, hypomanic or major depressive episode) who met the above inclusion criteria were recruited from June 2021 to May 2023.

Clinical assessments

During the baseline evaluation, structured clinical interviews were conducted using either the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders or the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. (First 1997; Hahn et al. 2000) In addition, the DSM-5 criteria were employed to confirm the diagnosis of BD. Participants’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including their medication history, were assessed in the present study. Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Montgomery–Asburg Depression Rating Scale (K-MADRS) at each evaluation period (T0–T2). (Asberg et al. 1978; Ahn 2005) The state of mania was evaluated using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), (Young et al. 1978; Jung et al. 2003) and global symptom severity was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) (Spearing et al. 1997) at each evaluation period (T0–T2). Symptom evaluation and blood sampling were performed simultaneously on the same day.

Assessment of treatment response using the Alda scale

The Alda scale, initially devised to gauge the response to lithium treatment in patients with bipolar disorders (Scott et al. 2020; Grof et al. 2002), has subsequently shown utility in assessing the treatment response of various medications, including valproate, thus reflecting real-world clinical practice. (Lee et al. 2020; Ahn et al. 2017). Over several years, we have developed a robust evaluation system for our research team. Independent clinicians with a minimum of 3 years of clinical experience carefully reviewed the hospital records and patient responses obtained during the research interviews. Through collaborative discussions, a consensus was reached regarding the treatment response. Furthermore, to ensure consistency among the raters across different hospitals, we conducted regular meetings in which actual patient case vignettes were discussed.

In the stable group, the clinical records were retrospectively evaluated by clinicians at T0, whereas in the acute group, the scale was assessed by each patient's psychiatrist at T2. The Alda scale comprises two rating sections: the Alda A score, which measures the extent of improvement during treatment on a scale of 0–10, and the Alda B score, which considers confounding factors that independently influence the outcome and includes five items (B1–B5). The overall Alda score was calculated by subtracting the B score from the A score, resulting in a score range of 0–10. (Grof et al. 2002) Higher Alda A and total Alda scores indicated higher response to treatment. The difference in the treatment duration between the acute and stable groups led to a higher Alda B score in the acute group, which contributed to the disparity in the total score. To reduce variations in the treatment duration and vulnerability associated with the Alda B score, (Scott et al. 2020) we used the Alda A score to evaluate treatment response. Furthermore, we categorized patients into two groups based on their response to treatment: responders and non-responders. Using frequentist mixture analysis (Fig. 1), we established the most appropriate theoretical model comprising two components, as indicated by the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (620.08) and Bayesian Information Criterion (626.00) values. A cutoff point was determined as a total score of 5. Therefore, individuals with a score of ≥ 5 were categorized as ‘valproate responders (VPAR),’ whereas those with a score of ≤ 4 were categorized as 'valproate non-responders (VPANR).'

Fig. 1
figure 1

Results of frequentist mixture analysis using Alda A scores (Valproate). This figure shows a histogram of the Alda A scores with two density plots for the two subpopulations. The subpopulations indicate good responders (blue) and moderate/poor responders (red), as assessed using the Alda A scale scores identified utilizing the Bayesian minimum message length method

Plasma protein quantification using multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry

For clinical plasma samples, proteolytic digestion was performed with trypsin using a one-step digestion procedure, as previously described. (Lee et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2021; Rhee et al. 2020) Subsequently, the resulting peptides were acidified with 10% trifluoroacetic acid and desalted using homemade C18-StageTips, as previously described. (Han et al. 2014) Mass spectrometry (MS) analysis was performed in the positive ion mode using an Agilent 6495A triple quadrupole instrument; 92 proteins, which included 158 peptides and 474 transitions, were chosen for the targeted multiple reaction monitoring (MRM)-MS. The details of the candidate marker selection process were presented in our previous article (Lee et al. 2024). Supplementary Table S1 presents an overview of these proteins and their associated peptides. The raw data from the MRM-MS analysis were then processed using Skyline v. 20.2 (MacCoss Lab, Seattle, WA, USA), where the peak area values for the transitions were computed. The specific procedures for preparing plasma samples and quantifying proteins using MRM-MS have been previously described. (Lee et al. 2022) The obtained blood samples were divided into two analysis points and analyzed, and the Combat algorithm ( was used to mitigate batch effects. (Reich et al. 2006) Principal component analysis was performed to validate the successful correction of batch effects, with no other factors impacting peptide distribution (Supplementary Figure S1). To account for skewed data distribution, the values underwent a log2 transformation. In addition, the normality of the protein data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

Selection of single nucleotide variants and genotyping

Although the sample size in the present study is limited for a genetic association study, genetic association analyses of candidate genes were performed as a validation modality to confirm the proteomic results. We selected genes that directly encode proteins and were significantly associated with response to valproate treatment. Among the 27 selected genes, we incorporated 1627 single nucleotide variants (SNVs) located within a 50 kb region upstream and downstream of both the exonic and intronic regions of each gene. Genotype data were obtained from the Korea Biobank Array 1.0, commonly known as the Korean Chip (KCHIP, Seoul, Republic of Korea). Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes using a Wizard Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, SNV genotyping was performed in a commercial laboratory using KCHIP 1.0. The chip used was based on the Axiom™ (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and developed by the Center for Genome Science at the Korea National Institute of Health. The array comprises > 833,000 markers specifically optimized for the Korean population, encompassing tag SNVs, variants with various frequencies (common and rare), and functional variants derived from the sequencing data of > 2,500 Koreans. To maintain data integrity, we adhered to the quality control procedures outlined in the Korean Biobank Array protocol, which included the evaluation of several parameters to eliminate study samples and variants that did not satisfy the required quality criteria. These parameters encompassed the following criteria: a variant call rate < 0.99, a Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium p-value < 0.000001, minor allele frequency < 0.01, duplicate SNVs, samples exhibiting first- or second-degree relatedness, a sample call rate < 0.95, excessive heterozygosity, sex mismatches, and deviations in the principal component analysis. We also evaluated genetic relatedness using KING. (Manichaikul et al. 2010).

Statistical analyses

Categorical data were examined using the chi-square test, whereas continuous variables, including proteomic data, were analyzed using analysis of variance with multiple comparisons using Tukey’s honestly significant difference, independent Student’s t-test, and Mann–Whitney U test.

Linear mixed-effects analysis was performed to investigate whether there were distinct trends over time (T0-T2) in clinical symptoms (K-MADRS, YMRS, and CGI-BP-Overall) and the expression of the 158 peptides between the VPAR and VPANR groups. The analysis was adjusted for covariates, including patient age, (Tanaka et al. 2018) sex, (Miike et al. 2010) body mass index (BMI), type of BD (BD-I and BD-II), and mood state (depression vs. (hypo)mania), to account for their influence. Differentially expressed peptides were deemed significant when the p-value between each group was < 0.05. To address the issue of multiple comparisons, p-values adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) method were also considered.

Association analyses of the candidate genes were performed using the R software. Linear regression analyses were performed with the Alda A score as the dependent variable, whereas logistic regression analyses were performed with valproate responsiveness and non-responsiveness as the dependent variables. Age, sex, and the BD subtype were used as covariates. Post-hoc analyses were performed using the FDR method for each gene.

Bioinformatics analysis was performed using the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (version 2021; ( Huang et al. 2009) Cytoscape version 3.8.2 was used for network analysis and visualization. (Shannon et al. 2003) Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS (version 25.0; BM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA) and R Statistical Software (version 4.3.0; R Core Team, Vienna, Austria;


Demographic and clinical characteristics

The final analysis of the discovery analysis included 163 participants categorized based on the Alda A score into the following groups: stable-VPAR (n = 69), acute-VPAR (n = 72), and acute-VPANR (n = 22); stable-VPANR (n = 7) was excluded from the analysis due to an insufficient number of samples (Supplementary Figure S2). Table 1 presents the demographic and clinical features of the different groups for comparison. The average age and prevalence of BD-I were higher in the stable group than in the acute group. The acute-VPAR group had a lower BMI than the other groups. The age at BP diagnosis and the frequency of hospitalization were greater in the stable-VPAR group than in the acute-VPAR group. In contrast, the prevalence of quetiapine use was higher in the acute groups than in the stable group. The prevalence of lithium use was higher in the acute-VPANR group than in the other groups, whereas the prevalence of risperidone use was higher in the acute-VPANR group than in the stable-VPAR group (Table 1). The independent validation dataset comprised 50 VPARs and 25 VPANRs. There were no significant differences in the sociodemographic and clinical features between the discovery dataset and the validation dataset except family history of mood disorders (Supplementary Table S2).

Table 1 Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics among stable-valproate responders, acute-valproate responders, and acute-valproate non-responders

At T0, the acute groups exhibited significantly higher levels of overall BD symptoms (CGI-BP, Overall, K-MADRS, YMRS) than the stable-VPAR group (Fig. 2a–c). At T1, the acute-VPAR group showed a significantly lower overall severity (CGI-BP) than the acute-VPANR group (Fig. 2a). However, there were no differences in depression or manic symptoms between the acute-VPAR and acute-VPANR groups at T1 or T2 (Fig. 2b, c).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of changes in symptom severity between the three groups during different follow-up periods. This figure shows the comparison of changes in symptom severity between three groups (Stable-VPAR, acute-VPAR, and acute-VPANR) during different follow-up periods (T0: Baseline, T1: 8 ± 2 weeks, and T2: 6 ± 1 month) using a CGI-BP, overall, b K-MADRS, and c YMRS. VPAR, Valproate responder (Alda A score of Valproate ≥ 5); VPANR, Valproate non-responder (Alda A score of Valproate < 5); CGI-BP, Clinical global impression scale-bipolar disorder; K-MADRS, Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale; YMRS, Young mania rating scale. ***p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Peptides that exhibited a distinct alteration in expression over time

Of the 158 peptides, 37 (corresponding to 27 proteins) exhibited a significant interaction effect between group and time, as shown in Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S3-1. As shown in Fig. 3, these 37 peptides exhibited a distinct pattern of increasing changes over the 6-month follow-up period in the acute-VPANR group compared with the pattern observed in the acute-VPAR group. Even after accounting for the influence of various covariates, such as age, sex, BMI, type of BD, and mood state (Supplementary Table S3-2–3–6), the observed statistical differences remained significant. Additionally, of the 37 peptides, 8 peptides (FETUB, A1AT, ITIH4, FA5, VWF, HGFA, BTD, VTNC) were also significant in the independent validation dataset (Supplementary Table S3-7).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A plot of 37 significant peptides (from 27 proteins†) after linear mixed-effect model analysis. † CERU, Ceruloplasmin; FA12, Coagulation factor XII; A1AT, Alpha-1-antitrypsin; ANGT, Angiotensinogen; A2MG, Alpha-2-macroglobulin; APOA1, Apolipoprotein A-I; CRP, C-reactive protein; SAMP, Serum amyloid P-component; CO9, complement C9; VTDB, Vitamin D-binding protein; HEMO, Hemopexin; KLKB1, kallikrein B1; VTNC, Vitronectin; VWF, von Willebrand factor; PROS, Vitamin K-dependent protein S; CBG, Corticosteroid-binding globulin; FA5, Coagulation factor V; VINC, Vinculin; TAGL2, Transgelin-2; BTD, Biotinidase; RAP1B, Ras-related protein Rap-1b; 1433Z, 14-3-3 protein zeta/delta, tyrosine 3-monooxygenase/tryptophan 5-monooxygenase activation protein zeta; HGFA, Hepatocyte growth factor activator; SPP24, Secreted phosphoprotein 24; ITIH4, Inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain H4; FETUB, Fetuin B; TLN1, Talin-1; VPAR, Valproate responder (Alda A score of Valproate ≥ 5); VPANR, Valproate non-responder (Alda A score of Valproate < 5)

Peptides that exhibited differences regardless of overtime

Among the proteins examined in the three groups, 10 were differentially expressed. However, none of the proteins showed time-independent differential expression, which could reflect the response to valproate treatment regardless of the time factor both in the discovery and validation datasets, as shown in Supplementary Table S4-1 and S4-2.

Candidate gene association studies

Twenty-seven candidate genes were selected from proteins that showed significant associations with response to valproate treatment in the proteomic study (Supplementary Table S5-1). A total of 1627 SNVs from 27 genes were included in the analyses. A total of 37 SNVs in 22 genes showed nominally significant associations with the Alda A continuous score (Supplementary Table S5-2), whereas 24 SNVs in 15 genes showed nominally significant associations (raw p < 0.05) with the acute-VPAR group (Supplementary Table S4-3). Among these SNVs, three (rs115788299, rs11563197, and rs117669164) in the secreted phosphoprotein 2 (SPP2) gene (encoding SPP24) reached gene-based FDR-corrected significance in the linear regression analysis with the Alda A continuous score. In particular, rs115788299 was a missense variant (T > A, C, G) (Asp > Glu). Of the common genetic variations that directly encoded proteins showing significant associations with valproate response (37 genes), 33 SNVs from 13 genes (CRP, TAGL2, FA5, ANGT, PROS, CERU, HGFA, KLKB1, CO9, 1433Z, VINC, vWF and VTNC) showed nominally significant associations with acute-VPAR group. In particular, 12 SNVs from 5 genes (FA5, HGFA, vWF and VTNC) encoding validated proteins showed significant associations with the acute-VPAR group (Supplementary Table 5–3).

Biological pathway analysis

In the bioinformatics analysis, we identified 27 proteins associated with response to valproate treatment. These proteins were associated with various biological processes, such as acute phase response, blood coagulation, protein processing maturation, positive regulation response, and negative regulation of activity (Fig. 4a). Analysis of the cellular components revealed that most protein markers were associated with the composition of the extracellular region (Fig. 4b). Analyses of molecular functions indicated that the markers were associated with activities such as endopeptidase regulation, binding to cell adhesion molecules, and binding to macromolecular complexes (Fig. 4b). The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway analyses revealed that the markers were associated with pathways involved in the complement and coagulation cascades and focal adhesions (Fig. 4b).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Bioinformatics analysis of proteins that reflected the response to Valproate treatment. a Network analysis showed the altered biological pathways that DEPs included; b GO enrichment map. Each node represents a GO term, and the connecting lines indicate common proteins shared between nodes. DEPs, Differentially expressed protein; GO, Gene ontology


In the present study, we identified 27 protein markers significantly associated with response to valproate treatment, with 8 proteins (FETUB, A1AT, ITIH4, FA5, vWF, HGFA, BTD, VTNC) in the independent validation dataset also showing significance. Notably, 12 SNVs in the genes encoding FA5, HGFA, vWF, and VTNC showed significant associations, suggesting their validity as biomarkers of response to valproate treatment.

The majority of the significant proteins exhibited a progressive increase in expression over time in the acute-VPANR group (Fig. 3). The proteins that showed increasing pattern were associated with acute phase reaction (ceruloplasmin [CERU, CP], hemopexin [HEMO, HPX], and serum amyloid P-component [SAMP, APCS]), immune response (C-reactive protein [CRP, CRP], complement C9 [CO9, C9], and inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain H4 [ITIH4, ITIH4]), and coagulation cascades (alpha-2-macroglobulin [A2MG, A2M], coagulation factor V [FA5, F5], coagulation factor XII [FA12, F12], kallikrein B1 [KLKB1, KLKB1], von Willebrand factor [VWF, VWF]) (Fig. 4). These biological processes have been previously reported to be associated with psychiatric disorders, including BD, and can be suppressed by valproate treatment. (Ziani et al. 2022; Sluzewska et al. 1997; Maes et al. 1997; Kumar et al. 2019) These results indicate that valproate effectively inhibited the mechanisms associated with disease progression. This finding highlights the potential use of these protein markers as indicators for predicting and monitoring the efficacy of valproate treatment in patients.

Among the proteins examined in the genomic study, SNVs within the SPP2 gene showed FDR-corrected significant associations. Notably, no prior study has reported the association of SPP2 with mental illnesses. However, our research team identified it as a target marker through a patient discovery set analysis. The SPP2 protein is mainly expressed in the liver and is primarily involved in mineral metabolism. Additionally, it serves as a barrier to prevent the spread of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), a bone-formation promoting protein with neurotoxic effect, to nervous system. (Tian et al. 2015) Thus, SPP2 might be associated with reduced response to valproate treatment through a neuroinflammatory process (Chen et al. 2018), although further studies are needed to confirm the association.

The present study successfully identified significant biomarkers indicative of the response to valproate treatment in patients with BD; however, this study had a few limitations. First, although the Alda score was used as the primary outcome measure, other measures to evaluate treatment responses did not align with the Alda score. The overall symptoms (CGI-BP) improved in the acute-VPAR group compared with those in the acute-VPANR group at the 2-month follow-up (T1), whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups at the 6-month follow-up (T2). The MADRS and YMRS scores showed no significant differences between the two groups at any time point. These clinical outcomes are believed to reflect the finding that the median duration of mood episodes in patients with BD is approximately 3 months rather than being solely indicative of the treatment response. (Solomon et al. 2010) The discordance between treatment response measures in our study might imply valproate could be used as an adjunctive agent for BD treatment. Moreover, although valproate has been suggested as a primary treatment agent for BD (Nierenberg et al. 2023), its efficacy is inferior to other first-line agents including lithium or atypical antipsychotics (Yildiz et al. 2023; Nestsiarovich et al. 2022). In fact, most patients in our study were under polypharmacy, which is very common in the real-world treatment of BD (Merikangas et al. 2011; Baek et al. 2014). Second, although the Alda Scale is designed for assessing treatment responses over a one-year duration, our study had applied it over a 6-month period. However, this time-period was considered suitable for evaluating early response to valproate in the acute phase of symptoms. In addition, we specifically utilized the Alda A score, focusing on the medication response evaluation while excluding the duration aspect. Third, we could not include stable VPANR in the analysis due to the limited number of participants. However, given that ineffective medications are typically recommended for discontinuation in the course of treatment (Qureshi and Young 2021), it is not uncommon for a small subset of patients undergoing long-term valproate treatment to be categorized as non-responders. Fourth, the inclusion of other medications taken by participants take may introduce bias into the results. This inclusion was unavoidable considering that most patients were under polypharmacy. However, we applied a statistical correction to account for potential confounding factors that might influence protein expression, including age, sex, BMI, and type of BD. Finally, although the FDR was considered, we could not completely correct for multiple comparisons.

In conclusion, our study identified significant proteomic and genomic markers that could serve as valuable indicators of the underlying mechanisms associated with the response to valproate treatment. These markers could help develop more effective therapeutic strategies for patients with BD. Further investigations are necessary to elucidate the specific mechanistic underpinnings of these protein markers and validate their clinical relevance in diverse patient populations.

Availability of data and materials

Datasets presented in this study may be available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable requests.



Acute-valproate responder


Bipolar disorder


Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5


False discovery rate


Single nucleotide variants


Mass spectrometry


Multiple reaction monitoring


Young Mania Rating Scale


  • Ahn YM, Lee KY, Yi JS, Kang MH, Kim DH, Kim JL, Shin J, Shin HK, Yeon BK, Lee JH, Chung SK, et al. A validation study of the korean-version of the montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale. J Korean Neuropsychiatric Assoc. 2005;44(4):466–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn SW, Baek JH, Yang SY, Kim Y, Cho Y, Choi Y, et al. Long-term response to mood stabilizer treatment and its clinical correlates in patients with bipolar disorders: a retrospective observational study. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2017;5(1):24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Akcan U, Karabulut S, İsmail Küçükali C, Çakır S, Tüzün E. Bipolar disorder patients display reduced serum complement levels and elevated peripheral blood complement expression levels. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2018;30(2):70–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alda M, Manchia M. Personalized management of bipolar disorder. Neurosci Lett. 2018;669:3–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asberg M, Montgomery SA, Perris C, Schalling D, Sedvall G. A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1978;271:5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek JH, Ha K, Yatham LN, Chang JS, Ha TH, Jeon HJ, et al. Pattern of pharmacotherapy by episode types for patients with bipolar disorders and its concordance with treatment guidelines. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;34(5):577–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J-Y, Chu L-W, Cheng K-I, Hsieh S-L, Juan Y-S, Wu B-N. Valproate reduces neuroinflammation and neuronal death in a rat chronic constriction injury model. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):16457.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • First MB. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders. Biometrics Res Dep. 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuh SC, Fiori LM, Turecki G, Nagy C, Li Y. Multi-omic modeling of antidepressant response implicates dynamic immune and inflammatory changes in individuals who respond to treatment. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(5): e0285123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gao K, Ayati M, Koyuturk M, Calabrese JR, Ganocy SJ, Kaye NM, et al. Protein biomarkers in monocytes and CD4(+) lymphocytes for predicting lithium treatment response of bipolar disorder: a feasibility study with tyramine-based signal-amplified flow cytometry. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2022;52(1):8–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grof P, Duffy A, Cavazzoni P, Grof E, Garnham J, MacDougall M, et al. Is response to prophylactic lithium a familial trait? J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(10):942–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn OS, Ahn JH, Song SH, Cho M, Kim J-K, Bae JN. Development of Korean version of structured clinical interview schedule for DSM-IV axis I disorder: interrater reliability. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2000;39:362–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han D, Jin J, Woo J, Min H, Kim Y. Proteomic analysis of mouse astrocytes and their secretome by a combination of FASP and StageTip-based, high pH, reversed-phase fractionation. Proteomics. 2014;14(13–14):1604–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler G, Wolf A. Toward stratified treatments for bipolar disorders. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25(3):283–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ho AM, Coombes BJ, Nguyen TTL, Liu D, McElroy SL, Singh B, et al. Mood-stabilizing antiepileptic treatment response in bipolar disorder: a genome-wide association study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(6):1233–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huang DW, Sherman BT, Lempicki RA. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Judd LL, Schettler PJ, Solomon DA, Maser JD, Coryell W, Endicott J, et al. Psychosocial disability and work role function compared across the long-term course of bipolar I, bipolar II and unipolar major depressive disorders. J Affect Disord. 2008;108(1–2):49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jung HY, Cho HS, Joo YH, Shin HK, Yi JS, Hwang S, et al. A validation study of the Korean-version of the young mania rating scale. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2003;42(2):263–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim H, Rhee SJ, Lee H, Han D, Lee TY, Kim M, et al. Identification of altered protein expression in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder patients using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Psychiatry Res. 2021;299: 113850.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Vidaurre J, Gedela S. Valproic acid-induced coagulopathy. Pediatr Neurol. 2019;98:25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Baek JH, Lee D, Ahn SW, Yang SY, Choi Y, et al. Defining phenotypes of long-term lithium and valproate response, including combination therapy: a modified application of the Alda scale in patients with bipolar disorders. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2020;8(1):36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Rhee SJ, Kim J, Lee Y, Kim H, Lee J, et al. Predictive protein markers for depression severity in mood disorders: a preliminary trans-diagnostic approach study. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;142:63–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Han D, Rhee SJ, Kim J, Lee Y, Kim EY, et al. Alterations in blood proteins in the prodromal stage of bipolar II disorders. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):3174.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Kim M, Kim SH, Lee J, Lee TY, Rhee SJ, et al. Proteomic profiling in the progression of psychosis: analysis of clinical high-risk, first episode psychosis, and healthy controls. J Psychiatr Res. 2024;169:264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maes M, Delange J, Ranjan R, Meltzer HY, Desnyder R, Cooremans W, et al. Acute phase proteins in schizophrenia, mania and major depression: modulation by psychotropic drugs. Psychiatry Res. 1997;66(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manichaikul A, Mychaleckyj JC, Rich SS, Daly K, Sale M, Chen WM. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(22):2867–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McGuffin P, Rijsdijk F, Andrew M, Sham P, Katz R, Cardno A. The heritability of bipolar affective disorder and the genetic relationship to unipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(5):497–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merikangas KR, Jin R, He JP, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Miike K, Aoki M, Yamashita R, Takegawa Y, Saya H, Miike T, et al. Proteome profiling reveals gender differences in the composition of human serum. Proteomics. 2010;10(14):2678–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nestsiarovich A, Gaudiot CES, Baldessarini RJ, Vieta E, Zhu Y, Tohen M. Preventing new episodes of bipolar disorder in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;54:75–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nierenberg AA, Agustini B, Köhler-Forsberg O, Cusin C, Katz D, Sylvia LG, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder: a review. JAMA. 2023;330(14):1370–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perugi G, De Rossi P, Fagiolini A, Girardi P, Maina G, Sani G, et al. Personalized and precision medicine as informants for treatment management of bipolar disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019;34(4):189–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi MM, Young AH. Hamlet’s augury: how to manage discontinuation of mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2021;11:20451253211000612.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reich M, Liefeld T, Gould J, Lerner J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP. GenePattern 2.0. Nat Genet. 2006;38(5):500–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee SJ, Han D, Lee Y, Kim H, Lee J, Lee K, et al. Comparison of serum protein profiles between major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sagar R, Pattanayak RD. Potential biomarkers for bipolar disorder: where do we stand? Ind J Med Res. 2017;145(1):7–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sajatovic M, Strejilevich SA, Gildengers AG, Dols A, Al Jurdi RK, Forester BP, et al. A report on older-age bipolar disorder from the international society for bipolar disorders task force. Bipolar Disord. 2015;17(7):689–704.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Samalin L, Belzeaux R. Why does non-adherence to treatment remain a leading cause of relapse in patients with bipolar disorder? Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2023;73:16–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Etain B, Manchia M, Brichant-Petitjean C, Geoffroy PA, Schulze T, et al. An examination of the quality and performance of the Alda scale for classifying lithium response phenotypes. Bipolar Disord. 2020;22(3):255–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003;13(11):2498–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sluzewska A, Sobieska M, Rybakowski JK. Changes in acute-phase proteins during lithium potentiation of antidepressants in refractory depression. Neuropsychobiology. 1997;35(3):123–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon DA, Leon AC, Coryell WH, Endicott J, Li C, Fiedorowicz JG, et al. Longitudinal course of bipolar I disorder: duration of mood episodes. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(4):339–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Spearing MK, Post RM, Leverich GS, Brandt D, Nolen W. Modification of the clinical global impressions (CGI) Scale for use in bipolar illness (BP): the CGI-BP. Psychiatry Res. 1997;73(3):159–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka T, Biancotto A, Moaddel R, Moore AZ, Gonzalez-Freire M, Aon MA, et al. Plasma proteomic signature of age in healthy humans. Aging Cell. 2018;17(5): e12799.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tian H, Li C-S, Scott TP, Montgomery SR, Phan K, Lao L, et al. Secreted phosphoprotein 24 kD inhibits nerve root inflammation induced by bone morphogenetic protein-2. The Spine Journal. 2015;15(2):314–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Bond DJ, Frey BN, et al. Canadian network for mood and anxiety treatments (CANMAT) and international society for bipolar disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2018;20(2):97–170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz A, Siafis S, Mavridis D, Vieta E, Leucht S. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2023;10(9):693–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young RC, Biggs JT, Ziegler VE, Meyer DA. A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry. 1978;133(5):429–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu M-M, Li H-L, Shi L-H, Chen X-P, Luo J, Zhang Z-L. The pharmacogenomics of valproic acid. J Hum Genet. 2017;62(12):1009–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ziani PR, Feiten JG, Goularte JF, Colombo R, Antqueviezc B, Géa LP, et al. Potential candidates for biomarkers in bipolar disorder: a proteomic approach through systems biology. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2022;20(2):211–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank Jinseob Kim (Zarathu Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) for statistical advice on the genomic data analysis.


This study was supported by the Original Technology Research Program for Brain Science through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (Grant number: NRF-2019M3C7A1030625; NRF-2019M3C7A1030624).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



HL, DHH, KSH, KH, JHB, and YMA contributed to the study concept and design. HK and DHH acquired the proteomic data and EYC acquired the genetic data. HL, KSH, KH, WM, SJR, SHK, THH, KEL, HWJ, YL, DL1 (Dongbin LEE), HY, DL2 (Daseul Lee), YSP, JHB, and YMA obtained the clinical data. HL performed the statistical analysis and JK supervised statistical analysis. HL and JHB drafted this manuscript. All authors critically review the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ji Hyun Baek or Se Hyun Kim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. 1905-150-1035), Samsung Medical Center (IRB No. 2019-02-038), and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB No. B-1908-559-404) and adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

YMA receives research support from or serves as a speaker for Janssesn Korea Ltd., and Korea Otsuka Pharmaceutical. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, H., Han, D., Hong, K.S. et al. Integrated proteomic and genomic analysis to identify predictive biomarkers for valproate response in bipolar disorder: a 6-month follow-up study. Int J Bipolar Disord 12, 19 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: