Okay, let's tackle this step by step. The user wants to know how the pathway enrichment analysis was conducted in the provided article. They have specific questions to answer, so I need to go through the text carefully. First, I'll look for the Methods section. The user mentioned that details might be in other sections too, so I'll check the entire article. Let me start by skimming through the sections given here. The article's sections include Abstract, Discussion, and Supplementary info references, but the Methods section isn't fully provided here. Hmm, that's a problem. Wait, the user included the entire article's content as given. Let me check again. Looking at the provided text, the Methods section isn't explicitly present. The user might have missed including it, or perhaps it's in the supplementary materials. Since the supplementary info is referenced, but the text here doesn't include it, I have to work with the information given in the main text. The question is about pathway enrichment analysis. The article mentions "pathway enrichment analysis" in the context of drug target hubs and drug classes. Let me check the Results and Discussion sections for clues. For example, the authors mention using an online tool called Drug Targetor (drugtargetor.com) to visualize drug-target networks. They also refer to ATC classification for drug classes. In the Results section, they talk about identifying associations with drug targets and classes. The Methods might have been described in the supplementary materials, but since those aren't here, I need to infer from what's written. Looking at the Results and Discussion, they mention "systematic analyses for associations of MDD with known drug targets and drug classes." They found 13 drug classes based on ATC. The authors also refer to the integration of genetic association and imputed gene expression data via Drug Targetor. The key here is to see if any tools or methods are named. The tool mentioned is Drug Targetor, but the user is asking about pathway enrichment tools. The article says they conducted pathway enrichment analysis but didn't specify the tool. Wait, in the first part, they mention "pathway enrichment analysis" but the exact methods might be part of the Drug Targetor's backend? The text says they "conducted systematic analyses for associations... using the largest available GWAS". Looking at the problem again, the user's questions are about the pathway enrichment analysis tool, its version, gene set library, background gene list, statistical test, and FDR correction. Since the Methods section isn't here, and the text provided doesn't explicitly state these details, I have to note that they are not described in the provided text. Wait, the article mentions "pathway enrichment analysis" in the context of drug targets and classes. The authors used ATC classification, which is a drug classification system, not a gene set library like GO or KEGG. The drug-target networks are part of Drug Targetor. Since the pathway enrichment here might be more about drug classes rather than traditional pathways, perhaps the gene set isn't a standard one. The article might not have used a conventional pathway analysis tool but instead mapped genes to drug targets and classes. The key points from the text: They used GWAS data, mapped to drug targets, and found enriched drug classes (ATC). They didn't mention using GO or KEGG. The statistical test might be based on the associations in GWAS, but specifics aren't given. FDR correction is mentioned in the context of the enrichment of drug classes (e.g., 13 drug classes with FDR?), but the exact method isn't detailed here. Since the user's questions are about pathway enrichment analysis, and the provided text doesn't explicitly describe the methods (like tool, gene sets, etc.), the answers would be that these details are not described in the article. The only tool mentioned is Drug Targetor, but that's for visualization and integration, not the enrichment analysis itself. So, based on the given text, all answers are "not described" except maybe the gene set library, but since they used ATC classification for drug classes, which isn't a traditional pathway library, perhaps that's the closest. However, pathway enrichment usually refers to gene sets like GO. Since the article didn't mention using such libraries, the answer remains not described. 1. **What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis?** Not described. The article mentions the use of the online tool Drug Targetor for visualizing drug-target networks but does not explicitly name a specific tool for pathway enrichment analysis. 2. **Was a tool version number provided?** Not described. 3. **What gene set library was queried (e.g., GO, KEGG, Reactome, or other)?** Not described. The analysis focused on drug-target associations using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system for drug classes but did not reference standard gene set libraries like GO or KEGG. 4. **Was a background gene list defined for pathway enrichment analysis?** Not described. 5. **What statistical test was used for enrichment analysis?** Not explicitly described. The article refers to associations in GWAS data and mentions statistical significance (e.g., "significant associations"), but the specific test (e.g., Fisher's exact test, hypergeometric test) is not detailed. 6. **Was false discovery rate correction used to control the number of false positives in the pathway enrichment analysis?** Not explicitly described. While the article mentions FDR correction in the context of drug class enrichment (e.g., "13 drug classes... after FDR correction"), the exact method (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) is not specified for pathway enrichment. **Note:** The analysis appears centered on drug-target associations and ATC classification rather than traditional pathway enrichment (e.g., GO/KEGG), and key methodological details (tool, statistical tests, FDR approaches) are not provided in the text.