4.2 Article

The Aggregate Effect of Dopamine Genes on Dependence Symptoms Among Cocaine Users: Cross-Validation of a Candidate System Scoring Approach

Journal

BEHAVIOR GENETICS
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 626-635

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-012-9531-4

Keywords

Candidate gene; Cocaine dependence; Dopamine

Funding

  1. NIH Genes, Environment and Health Initiative [GEI] [U01 HG004422]
  2. Gene Environment Association Studies (GENEVA) under GEI
  3. Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) [U10 AA008401]
  4. Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND) [P01 CA089392]
  5. Family Study of Cocaine Dependence (FSCD) [R01 DA013423]
  6. NIH GEI [U01HG004438]
  7. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
  8. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  9. NIH [HHSN268200782096C, DA23668, DA21237, DA029377, GM081739, AA017444, DA026612, DA024722]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genome-wide studies of psychiatric conditions frequently fail to explain a substantial proportion of variance, and replication of individual SNP effects is rare. We demonstrate a selective scoring approach, in which variants from several genes known to directly affect the dopamine system are considered concurrently to explain individual differences in cocaine dependence symptoms. 273 SNPs from eight dopamine-related genes were tested for association with cocaine dependence symptoms in an initial training sample. We identified a four-SNP score that accounted for 0.55% of the variance in a separate testing sample (p = 0.037). These findings suggest that (1) limiting investigated SNPs to those located in genes of theoretical importance improves the chances of identifying replicable effects by reducing statistical penalties for multiple testing, and (2) considering top-associated SNPs in the aggregate can reveal replicable effects that are too small to be identified at the level of individual SNPs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available