| Literature DB >> 12366871 |
John Fossella1, Tobias Sommer, Jin Fan, Yanhong Wu, James M Swanson, Donald W Pfaff, Michael I Posner.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current efforts to study the genetic underpinnings of higher brain functions have been lacking appropriate phenotypes to describe cognition. One of the problems is that many cognitive concepts for which there is a single word (e.g. attention) have been shown to be related to several anatomical networks. Recently, we have developed an Attention Network Test (ANT) that provides a separate measure for each of three anatomically defined attention networks.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2002 PMID: 12366871 PMCID: PMC130047 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-3-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurosci ISSN: 1471-2202 Impact factor: 3.288
Summary ANT values for large mixed population of normal subjects Summary means and standard deviations of attention network scores (ms) and overall reaction time.
| Alerting | Orienting | Executive | Reaction Time |
| 36 ± 22 | 55 ± 27 | 95 ± 43 | 540 ± 86 |
Figure 1DRD4 and executive attention The Y-axis shows normalized executive attention scores (mean ± SE). The X-axis shows distributions for each genotypic class. Panel A shows the distribution of executive attention score as a function of exon III VNTR genotype in the 4-repeat absent vs. 4-repeat present groups. Panel B shows distribution of executive attention score as a function of a single nucleotide genotype (CC, CT and TT) at position -521.
Figure 2COMT and DAT1 and executive attention Distributions of COMT and DAT1 genotypes vs. executive attention score. The Y-axis shows normalized executive attention scores (mean + SE). The X-axis shows the distribution for each genotypic class. Panel A shows the executive attention scores for each genotypic class at the COMT Valine 108/158 Methionine polymorphism. Panel B shows the relationship between normalized executive attention scores and genotypes at the DAT1 3' UTR repeat polymorphism.
Figure 3MAOA and alerting and executive attention Distributions of MAOA-LPR genotypes vs. alerting (Panel A) and executive attention (Panel B) scores. The Y-axis shows normalized alerting or executive attention scores (mean + SE). The X-axis shows the distribution for each genotypic class at the repeat polymorphism in the promoter of MAOA. Genotypic classes are a combination of males and females however only homozygous females were chosen, given the random nature of X-chromosome inactivation.
Figure 4Effect of 'high' vs. 'low' dopamine alleles on executive attention Comparison of normalized executive attention scores in genotypic classes expected to show high and low levels of dopamine. The Y-axis shows normalized executive attention scores (mean + SE). From the entire population, 30 subjects carried the COMT (Val, Val) and MAOA-LPR (4-repeat, 4-repeat) genotypes and are expected to have relatively lower dopamine levels than 20 subjects who carried the COMT (Met, Met) and MAOA-LPR (3-repeat, 3-repeat) genotypes. These distributions are referred to as 'low' dopamine and 'high' dopamine and are shown above.