4.1 Article

Genomewide linkage scan for cocaine dependence and related traits: Significant linkages for a cocaine-related trait and cocaine-induced paranoia

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30189

关键词

cocaine dependence; genomewide linkage; complex traits; cluster analysis; cocaine-induced paranoia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk for cocaine dependence (CD) is genetically influenced. We recruited a sample of small nuclear families (528 full and 155 half sibpairs) with at least one subject affected with CD. The sample was classified via Bayesian clustering as 45.5% European American (EA) and 54.5% African American (AA). Assessment, via the Semi-Structured Assessment for Drug Dependence and Alcoholism, allowed for detailed evaluation of substance dependence-related traits. To define subgroups with increased genetic homogeneity, consistent with our a priori analytic plan, we used cluster analytic methods to identify six cocaine-related symptom clusters; membership was shown to be significantly heritable. We then completed a genomewide linkage scan (409 markers) for the CD diagnosis, cocaine-induced paranoia (CIP; an outcome that occurs in some cocaine users) and the clusters (three of which contained > 80% of the CD subjects). We observed a suggestive linkage signal on chromosome 10 for the trait of CD in the full sample; and two suggestive linkage signals at different locations on chromosome 3, in the EA part of the sample. We observed a genomewide-significant lod score of 3.65 for the trait of CIP on chromosome 9, in the AA part of the sample only. Our strongest results were observed for the cluster membership traits, including a lod score of 4.66 for membership in the Heavy Use, Cocaine Predominant cluster on chromosome 12 (in EAs only) and a lod score of 3.35 for membership in the Moderate Cocaine and Opioid Abuse cluster on chromosome 18. These results provide a basis for the identification of specific genes contributing to risk for these traits. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.1
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