4.7 Article

PAC1 receptor (ADCYAP1R1) genotype is associated with PTSD's emotional numbing symptoms in Chinese earthquake survivors

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 150, 期 1, 页码 156-159

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.010

关键词

PTSD; PAC1 receptor; Single-nucleotide polymorphism; Association study

资金

  1. Knowledge Innovation Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-EW-Q-18]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31271099, 30900402]
  3. Outstanding Young Investigator Foundation of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Genetic factors are important in the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following exposure to traumatic events. However, the molecular genetic underpinnings of this disorder remain largely unresolved. The present study investigated the association between ADCYAP1R1 rs2267735 genotype and PTSD symptoms in a highly traumatized sample of Chinese adults. Methods: Participants included 326 victims who experienced 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and lost their children during the disaster. PTSD symptoms were assessed with the PTSD Checklist (PCL). The ADCYAP1R1 rs2267735 SNP was genotyped with the Sequenom iPlex chemistries and the MassARRAY system. Results: The results indicated that although the rs2267735 'CC' genotype was not associated with total PTSD symptoms, it could significantly predict severity of PTSD's emotional numbing symptoms in women. Limitations: A relatively small sample exposed to specific traumatic events was used, and PTSD was assessed using a self-reported instrument. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the PACAP-PAC1 receptor pathway may play an important role in female human responses to traumatic stress, and carry implications for better understanding and treating of posttraumatic psychopathology. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据