4.4 Article

Genomic factors underlying sex differences in trauma-related disorders

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF STRESS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2021.100330

关键词

PTSD; Sex differences; Genetic; Genome wide association study; GWAS; Epigenetic; RNA; Transcriptomic; Sexual dimorphism; Trauma

资金

  1. Veterans Administration (VA) Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) Psychiatric Research/Neurosciences Advanced Fellowship (OYP), NIH [P50-MH115874, R01-MH108665]
  2. Frazier Institute at McLean Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a devastating illness with treatment effective in only approximately half of the population. There are clear sex differences in risk and symptom patterns of PTSD, yet genetic factors underlying sex differences remain poorly understood. Recent advancements in sequencing technology have identified genomic loci and transcriptional changes associated with post-trauma symptomatology.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a devastating illness with treatment that is effective in only approximately half of the population. This limited rate of response highlights the necessity for research into underlying individual biological mechanisms that mediate development and progression of this disease, allowing for identification of patient-specific treatments. PTSD has clear sex differences in both risk and symptom patterns. Thus, one approach is to characterize trauma-related changes between men and women who exhibit differences in treatment efficacy and response to trauma. Recent technological advances in sequencing have identified several genomic loci and transcriptional changes that are associated with post-trauma symptomatology. However, although the diagnosis of PTSD is more prevalent in women, the genetic factors underlying sex differences remain poorly understood. Here, we review recent work that highlights current understanding and limitations in the field of sex differences in PTSD and related symptomatology.

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