A pilot study of early onset obsessive-compulsive disorder: Symptom dimensions and association analysis with polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter gene.

Our aim was to introduce more homogenous phenotypes for studying genetic variations in the clinically heterogeneous obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) beside classical case-control analysis. Symptoms were assessed with Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), and principle component analysis of the lifetime symptom categories yielded four factors (Cleaning, Obsessive, Compulsive, Sexual). The comparison of serotonin transporter linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) in 102 OCD patients and 223 controls showed an increased L-allele frequency but no difference was observed when rs25531 was included. Intronic variants of the serotonin transporter gene did not show association with either OCD, nor with the obtained factors.

Association analysis of norepinephrine transporter polymorphisms and methylphenidate response in ADHD patients.

AIMS: Methylphenidate (MPH) is the most frequently prescribed drug in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Hitherto mostly the dopamine transporter gene has been studied in MPH-response and only a few studies analyzed the norepinephrine transporter (NET, SLC6A2) gene, although MPH is a potent inhibitor of both dopamine and norepinephrine transporters. We aimed to analyze this monoamine transporter gene in relation to ADHD per se and MPH-response in particular to gain further knowledge in ADHD pharmacogenetics using a Caucasian sample. METHODS: Six single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs28386840, rs2242446, rs3785143, rs3785157, rs5569, rs7194256 SNP) were studied across the NET gene in 163 ADHD children (age: 9.3±2.6; 86.5% male) using ADHD-RS hyperactivity-impulsivity and inattention scales. For case-control analysis 486 control subjects were also genotyped. At the MPH-response analysis responders had minimum 25% decrease of ADHD-RS total score after 2months of treatment, and chi-square test compared 90 responders and 32 non-responders, whereas ANOVA was used to assess symptom improvement after the first month among the 122 ADHD patients. RESULTS: The classical case-control analysis did not yield any association with ADHD diagnosis, which was supported by meta-analysis conducted on the available genetic data (combining previously published and the present studies). On the other hand, the intronic rs3785143 showed nominal association with inattention symptoms (p=0.01). The haplotype analysis supported this association, and indicated the importance of the first haploblock encompassing the intronic and 2 promoter SNPs. With MPH-response only the promoter rs28386840 showed nominal association: Those with at least one T-allele were overrepresented in the responder group (42% vs 19%, p=0.08), and they had better improvement on the hyperactivity-impulsivity scale compared to the AA genotype (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Although none of our single SNP findings remained significant after correcting for multiple testing, our results from the MPH-response analysis indicate the potential importance of promoter variants in the NET gene.

Individual differences in flow proneness are linked to a dopamine D2 receptor gene variant.

Flow is a special mental state characterized by deep concentration that occurs during the performance of optimally challenging tasks. In prior studies, proneness to experience flow has been found to be moderately heritable. In the present study, we investigated whether individual differences in flow proneness are related to a polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor coding gene (DRD2 C957T rs6277). This polymorphism affects striatal D2 receptor availability, a factor that has been shown to be related to flow proneness. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between this trait and a specific gene variant. In a sample of 236 healthy Hungarian adults, we found that CC homozygotes report higher flow proneness than do T allele carriers, but only during mandatory activities (i.e., studying and working), not during leisure time. We discuss implications of this result, e.g., the potential mediators of the relationship.