4.6 Article

RGS2 AND GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER IN AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC SAMPLE OF HURRICANE-EXPOSED ADULTS

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 309-315

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.20528

关键词

anxiety; RGS2; SNP; association analysis; trauma

资金

  1. NIMH [K08-MH070627, MH078928]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a common and sometimes disabling condition often associated with stressful life events that involve significant loss or danger. The disorder appears moderately heritable. Polymorphisms in the RGS2 (regulator of G-protein signaling 2) gene were recently associated with anxious behavior in mice and panic disorder and trait anxiety in humans. We examined whether rs4606, a single nucleotide polymorphism. (SNP) in the 3' UTR of RGS2, was associated with GAD in an epidemiologic sample of adults exposed to the 2004 Florida Hurricanes. Methods: The sample for the current study is 607 adults from the 2004 Florida Hurricane Study who returned buccal DNA samples via mail. Participants were selected via random digit dial procedures and interviewed via telephone about hurricane exposure, social support, and GAD symptoms. The outcome measure was DSM-IV diagnosis of GAD derived from structured interviews. Results: RGS2 SAT rs4606 was significantly associated with GAD in this sample. In logistic regression analyses, each C allele was associated with a 100% (P = .026) increased risk of GAD after controlling for age, sex, ancestry, hurricane exposure, and social support. Conclusions: These findings are consistent with a previously published study showing a higher prevalence of the C allele among panic disorder patients than controls. This study points toward a relevant polymorphism for GAD at the 3' end of the RGS2 gene; and suggests that studying a recently disaster-exposed sample is both feasible and may improve power to find gene-disorder associations. Depression and Anxiety 26:309-315, 2009. Publisbed 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.(dagger)

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

4.6
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