4.2 Article

C957T polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor gene is associated with motor learning and heart rate

期刊

GENES BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 677-683

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2012.00793.x

关键词

Dopaminergic; genetic polymorphism; heart rate; mirror drawing; procedural memory; recall; stress

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (Red de Trastornos Adictivos) [RD06/0001/0011]
  2. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas) [PR61/08-16415]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [SAF2008-03763, SAF2011-26818]
  4. Grupo de Investigacion UCM-Banco Santander [Grupo 940157]
  5. Accion Especial UCM [AE10/07-15503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variants that are related to the dopaminergic system have been frequently found to be associated with various neurological and mental disorders. Here, we studied the relationships between some of these genetic variants and some cognitive and psychophysiological processes that are implicated in such disorders. Two single nucleotide polymorphisms were chosen: one in the dopamine D2 receptor gene (rs6277-C957T) and one in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene (rs4680-Val158Met), which is involved in the metabolic degradation of dopamine. The performance of participants on two long-term memory tasks was assessed: free recall (declarative memory) and mirror drawing (procedural motor learning). Heart rate (HR) was also monitored during the initial trials of the mirror-drawing task, which is considered to be a laboratory middle-stress generator (moderate stress), and during a rest period (low stress). Data were collected from 213 healthy Caucasian university students. The C957T C homozygous participants showed more rapid learning than the T allele carriers in the procedural motor learning task and smaller differences in HR between the moderate- and the low-stress conditions. These results provide useful information regarding phenotypic variance in both healthy individuals and patients.

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

4.2
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