We have used MR to investigate the causal relationship between different anthropometric measures and depression. We first confirmed that BMI is a causal risk factor for depression, but found no significant evidence that depression causes increased BMI. These results are in line with recent MR studies reporting evidence that higher BMI causally increases the risk of depression, but not the reverse5,6,7,8.
Our main finding is that body fat mass is a causal risk factor for depression, but that body nonfat mass is not, therefore indicating that the BMI-depression causality is driven by fat. We note from Table 1 that the number of genome-wide associated SNPs for whole-body nonfat (n = 667) and the proportion of variance they explain (11.9%) are higher than the corresponding values for fat percentage (n = 336 and 4.9%) and for fat mass (n = 387 and 5.8%), indicating that MR finding no evidence for a causal relationship was not simply a power issue.
We also investigated whether the strength of the causal relationship between body fat and depression depended on the location, but these results were inconclusive; while the point estimates suggested that leg fat more strongly affects risk of depression than either trunk fat or arm fat, the difference was not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons.
The causal relationship going from fat mass to depression is likely to have both psychological and biological components. Psychologically, perceived weight discrimination, stigmatization, and body image dissatisfaction may mediate the causality;18,19,20,21 biologically, obesity is associated with several endocrine and metabolic changes that have been linked to depression, including altered glucocorticoid, adipokine, insulin, leptin, and inflammatory signaling22. Although our study was not aimed at providing insight into how fat increases the risk of depression, the finding that trunk fat mass was not more strongly associated with depression risk than fat mass on the limbs (rather we found a tendency towards the opposite), seems to be in favor of a psychological mechanism—since trunk fat is considered the more metabolically adverse13.
Observational studies have attempted to separate the psychological and physiological components in the relationship between obesity and depression. In support of a physiological component, Jokela et al.23 found that the risk of depressive symptoms associated with obesity increased almost linearly with the number of metabolic risk factors; in particular, obese individuals who were metabolically unhealthy had a higher depression risk than obese individuals who were metabolically healthy (OR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.45). However, the same study also found that metabolically-healthy individuals who were obese had a higher depression risk than metabolically-healthy individuals who were not obese (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50), indicating that metabolic factors only partially explain the increase in depression risk associated with obesity. Similar results were found by the longitudinal study of Hamer et al.24.
A recent study by Tyrrell et al.8 also sought to separate the psychological component of obesity from its adverse metabolic consequences—and employed MR to do so. Specifically, Tyrrell et al. used two genetic instruments, that both represented BMI, but one with and one without its adverse metabolic consequences. They found that both instruments were associated with increased risk of depression – suggesting that the causal association between BMI and depression is primarily driven by psychological consequences of adiposity and not by its adverse metabolic effects8. This conclusion resonates well with the results of our study.
In addition to the results on the impact of body fat on the risk of depression, we also found evidence suggesting that height (short stature) is a causal risk factor for depression. Several large observational studies have found short stature to be associated with poorer mental health25, lower health-related quality of life26, depressive symptoms in adolescents27 and adults28,29, and suicide in men30. Other studies have found no association between height and depression or suicide31 or negligible effects of height on mental health32. The association between short stature and poor mental health may be explained by confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, prenatal development, or childhood factors, or by a causal effect of height on depression risk33,34. Our results indicate that at least part of the association between short stature and depression is indeed due to a direct causal effect.
Finally, we note some limitations of our work. Firstly, the MR estimates rely on three key assumptions: (i) the SNPs used as genetic predictors for a trait are causal for that trait; (ii) these SNPs are not associated with confounders of the trait-outcome association; (iii) these SNPs only affect the outcome through the causal relationship (i.e., there is no pleiotropy). We can be confident of (i) because our genetic predictors only used SNPs robustly-associated (P < 5e−8) with the trait, while (ii) should be true due to the fact an individual’s genotypes are randomly allocated during gamete formation. It is hard to explicitly test (iii), however, our sensitivity analyses indicate that our conclusions are not the consequence of pleiotropy.
Secondly, the UK Biobank measured fat and nonfat mass via bioelectrical impedance analysis (using a Tanita BC418MA body composition analyzer), which is considered less accurate than techniques such as dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. However, we would expect measurement error to cause the estimates for fat and nonfat to become more similar, so the fact that we observed a significant difference indicates that the UK Biobank measurements were sufficiently accurate for our purpose.
Thirdly, we note that some samples were common to both the anthropometric and MDD GWAS (the PGC GWAS used approximately 30,000 individuals from the UK Biobank). Although this overlap is likely to have only a small impact35, ideally, our analysis would be repeated using summary statistics from completely independent GWAS.
Fourthly, while we found only suggestive evidence that location of fat affects risk of depression, we recognize that the high correlations between measurements taken in the trunk, arms, and legs (Supplementary Fig. 1) would have reduced our power to detect significant differences.
Fifthly, there may be sex-specific psychological and physiological factors affecting the obesity–depression relationship. While we were not able to test sex differences, because the PGC did not release results from male-only and female-only GWAS of depression, this is worthy of further study.
In conclusion, the present study provides evidence that the causal relationship between BMI and depression is driven by fat mass and height, and not by nonfat mass. These results represent important new knowledge on the role of anthropometric measures in the etiology of depression. They also suggest that reducing fat mass will decrease the risk of depression, which lends further support to public health measures aimed at reducing the obesity epidemic.
Share this post if you enjoyed! 🙂