4.5 Article

Dopamine D2 receptor gene polymorphisms in newborn infants of drug-using women

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2011-300235

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cornucopia Foundation
  2. Royal Hospital for Women Foundation
  3. Leslie Stevens Fund for Newborn Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine the characteristics of dopamine D2 receptor gene (DRD2) polymorphisms in drug-exposed and unexposed neonates and the relationship to neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Design Retrospective case-control analysis between drug-exposed and unexposed infants between DRD2 polymorphisms, drug exposure and NAS treatment. Patients Drug-exposed (n=48) and drug-free (n=49) infants born between March 1999 and December 2006. Methods Analysis of DNA for the Taq1A, -141Ins/Del and Ser311Cys DRD2 polymorphisms. Drug exposure was determined by antenatal maternal drug and alcohol history. Frequency measures of DRD2 polymorphisms were compared between drug-exposed infants, treatment NAS medication and with control infants. Setting Tertiary maternity hospital, Sydney, Australia. Main outcome measures All infants were born in a good condition (25.7% <37 weeks gestation). Opiates (methadone and heroin) were used by 45 (93.8%) of drug-exposed mothers. The A2A2 allele was more common in drug-exposed infants (37 (77.0%) versus 23 (46.9%), p=0.003) but the A1A2 allele was more common in control infants (23 (46.9%) versus 4 (8.3%), p=0.00002). The-ins allele was more common in control (39 (79.6%) versus 20 (41.7%), p=<0.01) and unmedicated drug-exposed (14/25 (56%) versus 5/23 (21.7%), p=0.02) infants. The majority of infants (41 (83.7%) controls versus 41 (85.4%), p=1.000) expressed the least common, Ser polymorphism. Conclusions DRD2 polymorphisms are detectable from DNA obtained from stored blood spots. The-ins allele is more common in control and unmedicated drug-exposed infants. Further study is recommended to explore postneonatal outcomes especially in relation to neuropsychiatric behaviours.

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

4.5
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