4.7 Article

Interaction between childhood trauma and serotonin transporter gene variation in suicide

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 32, 期 9, 页码 2046-2052

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301331

关键词

suicide attempt; serotonin; transporter; gene; interaction; life-events

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) contributes to depression and suicidality in a fashion modulated by environmental stress, 5-HTTLPR has been little examined in relation to suicidal behavior in substance dependence. Recently, a third functional allele of 5-HTTLPR was discovered enabling more of the interindividual variation in serotonin transporter expression to be predicted by genotype. We examined whether the 5-HTTLPR gene alone, or interacting with childhood trauma, was predictive of suicidal behavior in substance-dependent patients, a clinical population that is at high risk of suicide, as well as childhood trauma and other stress. We interviewed 306 abstinent male African-American substance-dependent patients about whether they had ever attempted suicide and administered the 34-item Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). Patients and 132 male African-American controls were genotyped to determine the S, L-G, and L-A 5-HTTLPR alleles; some analyses grouped the S and L-G alleles on the basis of equivalent function. The distribution of 5-HTTLPR genotypes did not differ between patients and controls, nor between suicide attempters and non-attempters. However, patients with low expression 5-HTTLPR genotypes and above-median CTQ scores were more likely to have attempted suicide. Logistic regression showed increasing risk of a suicide attempt with increasing reports of childhood trauma scores; in addition, this increase was exaggerated among those with low expression forms of the 5-HTTLPR genotype. Childhood trauma interacts with low expressing 5-HTTLPR genotypes to increase the risk of suicidal behavior among patients with substance dependence.

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

4.7
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