4.4 Article

The impact of BDNF Val66Met on cognitive skills in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 735, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.135235

关键词

PTSD; BDNF Val66Met polymorphism; Cognition; Male veterans; Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test

资金

  1. Croatian Science Foundation [IP-2014-09-4289]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a trauma-induced disorder characterized with impaired cognitive function. BDNF modulates cognition and is involved in neuroprotection and neurocognitive processing. The BDNF Val66Met polymorphism was found to influence cognitive functions. In PTSD, carriers of the BDNF GG genotype had better spatial processing of navigation performance, and lower hyperarousal and startle reaction than A allele carriers. The hypothesis was that veterans with PTSD, carriers of the BDNF Val66Met A allele, will show reduced cognitive skills. The study included 315 male Caucasian combat veterans, with (N = 199) or without (N = 116) current and chronic PTSD. Cognition was assessed using the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) test that determines visual-spatial perception and short and long-term visual memory function. The results revealed that cognitive decline measured with ROCF test was associated with PTSD. Presence of the BDNF Val66Met GG genotype in veterans with PTSD, but not in veterans without PTSD, showed protective association with visual short-term memory and visual object manipulation after few seconds (executive function), assessed with the ROCF immediate recall test, compared to the A carriers with PTSD. In conclusion, this was the first study to confirm the association between BDNF Val66Met and memory and attention performed with ROCF in male veterans with PTSD. The results corroborated that the BDNF Val66Met A allele, compared to GG genotype, is associated with poorer short-term visual memory and attention linked with executive functions, in veterans with PTSD.

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

4.4
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