Major depressive disorder is a heterogeneous disorder, mostly diagnosed on the basis of symptomatic criteria alone. It would be of great help when specific biomarkers for various subtypes and symptom clusters of depression become available to assist in diagnosis and subtyping of depression, and to enable monitoring and prognosis of treatment response. However, currently known biomarkers do not reach sufficient sensitivity and specificity, and often the relation to underlying pathophysiology is unclear. In this review, we evaluate various biomarker approaches in terms of scientific merit and clinical applicability. Finally, we discuss how combined biomarker approaches in both preclinical and clinical studies can help to make the connection between the clinical manifestations of depression and the underlying pathophysiology.

The identification of biomarkers associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) holds great promise to develop an objective laboratory test. However, current biomarkers lack discriminative power due to the complex biological background, and not much is known about the influence of potential modifiers such as gender. We first performed a cross-sectional study on the discriminative power of biomarkers for MDD by investigating gender differences in biomarker levels. Out of 28 biomarkers, 21 biomarkers were significantly different between genders. Second, a novel statistical approach was applied to investigate the effect of gender on MDD disease classification using a panel of biomarkers. Eleven biomarkers were identified in men and eight in women, three of which were active in both genders. Gender stratification caused a (non-significant) increase of Area Under Curve (AUC) for men (AUC = 0.806) and women (AUC = 0.807) compared to non-stratification (AUC = 0.739). In conclusion, we have shown that there are differences in biomarker levels between men and women which may impact accurate disease classification of MDD when gender is not taken into account.

marker approaches in major depressive disorder evaluated in the context of current hypotheses,' which appeared in the June 2015 issue of Biomarkers in Medicine (Biomark. Med. 9[3], 277-297 [2015]), it has been brought to our attention that Henricus G Ruhé's name was presented incorrectly as Eric G Ruhé.