4.6 Review

A case-control association study of the polymorphism at the promoter region of the DRD4 gene in Korean boys with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Evidence of association with the-521 C/T SNP

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.08.016

关键词

-521; attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder; dopamine receptor D4 promoter; genetics; single nucleotide polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent genetic studies at the 5' end of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene have identified several polymorphisms having a possible relationship with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study examined the association between the -521 and -376 promoter single nucleotide polymorphisms. (SNPs) of the DRD4 gene and ADHD through a case-control association study in Korean boys, who constitute a single ethnic population. Ninety-four ADHD and ninety-five control boys were enrolled in this study. All of the ADHD subjects completed a comprehensive and standardized diagnostic and psychological evaluation battery including the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ARS). Genotyping for the 2 promoter SNPs was performed. There were significant differences in the genotype and allele frequencies of the -521 C/T SNP between the ADHD and control groups (chi(2) = 6.28, p = 0.043 and chi(2) = 6.22, p = 0.013, respectively). However, the distribution of the -376 C/T genotypes and alleles were similar in the ADHD and control groups. The subtypes of ADHD were not related to either of these two SNPs. In the ADHD subjects, the -521 TT genotype group had a higher score in the inattentive subscale and a lower score in the hyperactive subscale of the parents version of ARS, although these differences did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.146, p = 0.082). In conclusion, there was a significant association between the -521 C/T SNP and ADHD in Korean boys. These results suggest a role of the -521 C/T SNP in the susceptibility for ADHD. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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