4.6 Article

Nitric oxide pathway genes (NOS1AP and NOS1) are involved in PTSD severity, depression, anxiety, stress and resilience

期刊

GENE
卷 625, 期 -, 页码 42-48

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2017.04.048

关键词

PTSD; Depression; Anxiety; Resilience; NOS1AP; NOS1

资金

  1. Queensland Branch of the Returned & Services League of Australia (RSL QLD)
  2. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
  3. School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nitric oxide pathway in the hippocampus is involved in the biological stress response with detrimental consequences to cells and HPA axis feedback. Hippocampal atrophy and HPA axis feedback dysfunction are associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study systematically investigates two genes of the nitric oxide pathway NOS1AP and NOS1 for a potential involvement in PTSD, comorbidities and resilience. A cohort of age and gender matched Vietnam veterans including trauma-exposed cases and controls was recruited and comprehensively assessed (n = 299). A total of 49 NOS1AP and 16 NOS1 polymorphisms were analysed and genotypes correlated with gold standard clinical measures to assess PTSD severity and related phenotypes (depression, anxiety, stress, resilience) based on diagnostic status. Multiple NOSIAP polymorphisms were associated across all measures, and NOS1 polymorphisms were associated with PTSD severity, stress and resilience. The GG genotype of NOS1 polymorphism rs10744891 was associated with PTSD severity (surviving multiple correction) while the combined TT-TG genotypes were associated with resilience (p = 0.005; p = 0.033, respectively). This study indicates that NOS1AP and NOS1 from the nitric oxide pathway are likely to play a key role in PTSD, its comorbidities and resilience. Given the essential role of NOS1AP and NOS1 in stress response they may be reliable targets for screening and intervention strategies.

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