4.8 Article

Why is there selective subcortical vulnerability in ADHD? Clues from postmortem brain gene expression data

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1787-1793

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/mp.2017.242

关键词

-

资金

  1. K.G. Jebsen Centre for Research on Neuropsychiatric Disorders, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
  2. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration [602805]
  3. NIMH [5R01MH101519, U01 MH109536-01]
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq), Brazil
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [667302]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sub-cortical volumetric differences were associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a recent multi-site, mega-analysis of 1713 ADHD persons and 1529 controls. As there was a wide range of effect sizes among the sub-cortical volumes, it is possible that selective neuronal vulnerability has a role in these volumetric losses. To address this possibility, we used data from Allen Brain Atlas to investigate variability in gene expression profiles between subcortical regions of typically developing brains. We tested the hypothesis that the expression of genes in a set of curated ADHD candidate genes and five a priori selected, biological pathways would be associated with the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) findings. Across the subcortical regions studied by ENIGMA, gene expression profiles for three pathways were significantly correlated with ADHD-associated volumetric reductions: apoptosis, oxidative stress and autophagy. These correlations were strong and significant for children with ADHD, but not for adults. Although preliminary, these data suggest that variability of structural brain anomalies in ADHD can be explained, in part, by the differential vulnerability of these regions to mechanisms mediating apoptosis, oxidative stress and autophagy.

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

4.8
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