4.8 Review

The catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT) gene as a candidate for psychiatric phenotypes:: evidence and lessons

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 446-458

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001808

关键词

COMT; gene; schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; psychosis; schizoaffective disorder

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9810900, G9309834] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [G9309834, G9810900] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G9810900, G9309834] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The enzyme catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), identified in the 1950s, is involved in catabolism of monoamines that are influenced by psychotropic medications, including neuroleptics and antidepressants. The COMT gene lies in a chromosomal region of interest for psychosis and bipolar spectrum disorder and a common polymorphism within the gene alters the activity of the enzyme. As a consequence, COMT has been one of the most studied genes for psychosis. On the basis of prior probabilities it would seem surprising if functional variation at COMT did not have some influence either on susceptibility to psychiatric phenotypes, modification of the course of illness or moderation of response to treatment. There is now robust evidence that variation at COMT influences frontal lobe function. However, despite considerable research effort, it has not proved straightforward to demonstrate and characterise a clear relationship between genetic variation at COMT and psychiatric phenotypes. It is of course, possible that COMT will turn out to be an unusually intractable case but it seems more likely that the experiences with this gene will provide a foretaste of the complexity of genotype-phenotype relationships that will be found for psychiatric traits. In this review, we consider the current state of evidence and the implications both for further studies of COMT and more generally for studies of other genes.

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