4.7 Article

Gender moderates the association between 5-HTTLPR and decision-making under ambiguity but not under risk

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 423-428

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2009.09.010

关键词

Serotonin; Decision-making; Iowa gambling task

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [2 P20 RRO16479]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [201006-01]
  3. BHSU Faculty Research Committee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decisions made under ambiguity may involve a different genetic architecture than those made under risk. Because gender moderates the effect of genetic polymorphisms on serotonin function and because there are gender differences in decision-making, the present study examined potential gender moderation of associations between polymorphisms in important serotonin system candidate genes (serotonin transporter [SLC6A4] and tryptophan hydroxylase-2 [TPH21) and performance on a decision-making task (Iowa Gambling Task, IGT) in healthy, adults (N = 188; 62% women). Subjects were genotyped for the well-studied SLC6A4 promoter variant 5-HTTLPR and a TPH2 single nucleotide polymorphism in intron-8 (rs1386438). Genotype at rs1386438 was not associated with performance on the IGT. A significant gender by 5-HTTLPR genotype interaction effect was detected when decision-making was under ambiguity (i.e. the first block of 20 choices), but not under risk (blocks 2-5). Performance on the first block of 20 choices was not correlated with performance on subsequent blocks, supporting the interpretation that early performance on the IGT indexes decision-making under ambiguity, while performance on blocks 2-5 indexes decision-making under risk. These findings suggest that decision-making under ambiguity and risk may have different genetic architectures and that individual differences in decision-making under ambiguity are associated with genetic variation in SLC6A4. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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