4.5 Article

Analysis of HapMap tag-SNPs in dysbindin (DTNBP1) reveals evidence of consistent association with schizophrenia

期刊

EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 314-319

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2009.11.011

关键词

Schizophrenia and psychosis; Genetics; Molecular biology; Polymorphism; Genetic association; Glutamatergic pathway; Dystrobrevin binding protein 1

资金

  1. Queensland State Government
  2. Nicol Foundation
  3. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, QUT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dystrobrevin binding protein 1 (DTNBP1), or dysbindin, is thought to be critical in regulating the glutamatergic system. While the dopamine pathway is known to be important in the aetiology of schizophrenia, it seems likely that glutamatergic dysfunction can lead to the development of schizophrenia. DTNBP1 is widely expressed in brain, levels are reduced in brains of schizophrenia patients and a DTNBP1 polymorphism has been associated with reduced brain expression. Despite numerous genetic studies no DTNBP1 polymorphism has been strongly implicated in schizophrenia aetiology. Using a haplotype block-based gene-tagging approach we genotyped 13 SNPs in DTNBP1 to investigate possible associations with DTNBP1 and schizophrenia. Four polymorphisms were found to be significantly associated with schizophrenia. The strongest association was found with an A/C SNP in intron 7 (rs9370822). Homozygotes for the C allele of rs9370822 were more than two and a half times as likely to have schizophrenia compared to controls. The other polymorphisms showed much weaker association and are less likely to be biologically significant. These results suggest that DTNBP1 is a good candidate for schizophrenia risk and rs9370822 is either functionally important or in disequilibrium with a functional SNP, although our observations should be viewed with caution until they are independently replicated. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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