4.0 Article

Association of Serotonin Transporter Gene Polymorphisms With Poststroke Depression

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 65, 期 11, 页码 1296-1302

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.65.11.1296

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P50 AG005136, P50 AG005136-25] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINR NIH HHS [R01NR007755, R01 NR007755, R01 NR007755-04S2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter gene (SERT) have been associated with mental illness. In people with long-term medical conditions, variants of the 5-HTTLPR and STin2 VNTR polymorphisms of SERT have been shown to confer a heightened vulnerability to comorbid depression. Objective: To determine whether the 5-HTTLPR, STin2 VNTR, and rs25531 polymorphisms of SERT are associated with poststroke depression (PSD) in stroke survivors. Design: A case-control study in which stroke survivors were screened for depressive symptoms and assigned to either a depressed group or a nondepressed group. Setting: Outpatient clinic. Participants: Seventy-five stroke survivors with PSD and 75 nondepressed stroke survivors. Interventions: Blood or saliva samples were collected from each participant for DNA extraction and genotyping. Main Outcome Measures: The associations between the 5-HTTLPR, STin2 VNTR, and rs25531 polymorphisms and PSD. Results: Individuals with the 5-HTTLPR s/s genotype had 3-fold higher odds of PSD compared with l/l or l/xl genotype carriers (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-8.3). Participants with the STin2 9/12 or 12/12 genotype had 4-fold higher odds of PSD compared with STin2 10/10 genotype carriers (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-13.6). An association of rs25531 with PSD was not shown. Conclusions: The 5-HTTLPR and the STin2 VNTR, but not the rs25531, polymorphisms of SERT are associated with PSD in stroke survivors. This gives further evidence of a role of SERT polymorphisms in mediating resilience to biopsychosocial stress.

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

4.0
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