4.6 Article

Schizophrenia-Related Neuregulin-1 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Lead to Deficient Smooth Eye Pursuit in a Large Sample of Young Men

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 822-831

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbp150

关键词

schizophrenia candidate genes; oculomotor; saccade; antisaccade; NRG1; endophenotypes

资金

  1. General Secretariat of Research and Technology of the Greek Ministry of Development [EKBAN 97]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) variations have been shown to modulate schizophrenia candidate endophenotypes related to brain structure and function. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of NRG1 on several oculomotor schizophrenia endophenotypes. The effects of 5 core single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the NRG1 gene to oculomotor parameters in a battery of oculomotor tasks (saccade, antisaccade, smooth eye pursuit, fixation) were investigated in a sample of 2243 young male military conscripts. Additive regression models, bootstrap and permutation techniques, were used as well as structural equation modeling and haplotype analysis. A deficit in global smooth eye pursuit performance measured using the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was related to the risk allele of SNP8NRG243177, and a deficit in global smooth eye pursuit performance measured using the saccade frequency was related with the risk allele of SNP8NRG433E1006. Structural equation modeling confirmed a global effect of NRG1 genotype on smooth eye pursuit performance using the RMSE, while the effect on saccade frequency was not confirmed. Haplotype analysis further confirmed the prediction from the structural equation modeling that a combination of alleles corresponding to the Icelandic high-risk haplotype was related to a deficit in global pursuit performance. NRG1 genotype variations were related to smooth eye pursuit variations both at the SNP level and at the haplotype level adding to the validation of this gene as a candidate gene for the disorder.

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

4.6
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