BACKGROUND: Fear conditioning is a traditional model for the acquisition of fears and phobias. Studies of the genetic architecture of fear conditioning may inform gene-finding strategies for anxiety disorders. The objective of this study was to determine the genetic and environmental sources of individual differences in fear conditioning by means of a twin sample. METHODS: Classic fear conditioning data were experimentally obtained from 173 same-sex twin pairs (90 monozygotic and 83 dizygotic). Sequences of evolutionary fear-relevant (snakes and spiders) and fear-irrelevant (circles and triangles) pictorial stimuli served as conditioned stimuli paired with a mild electric shock serving as the unconditioned stimulus. The outcome measure was the electrodermal skin conductance response. We applied structural equation modeling methods to the 3 conditioning phases of habituation, acquisition, and extinction to determine the extent to which genetic and environmental factors underlie individual variation in associative and nonassociative learning. RESULTS: All components of the fear conditioning process in humans demonstrated moderate heritability, in the range of 35% to 45%. Best-fitting multivariate models suggest that 2 sets of genes may underlie the trait of fear conditioning: one that most strongly affects nonassociative processes of habituation that also is shared with acquisition and extinction, and a second that appears related to associative fear conditioning processes. In addition, these data provide tentative evidence of differences in heritability based on the fear relevance of the stimuli. CONCLUSION: Genes represent a significant source of individual variation in the habituation, acquisition, and extinction of fears, and genetic effects specific to fear conditioning are involved.
BACKGROUND: Fear conditioning is a traditional model for the acquisition of fears and phobias. Studies of the genetic architecture of fear conditioning may inform gene-finding strategies for anxiety disorders. The objective of this study was to determine the genetic and environmental sources of individual differences in fear conditioning by means of a twin sample. METHODS: Classic fear conditioning data were experimentally obtained from 173 same-sex twin pairs (90 monozygotic and 83 dizygotic). Sequences of evolutionary fear-relevant (snakes and spiders) and fear-irrelevant (circles and triangles) pictorial stimuli served as conditioned stimuli paired with a mild electric shock serving as the unconditioned stimulus. The outcome measure was the electrodermal skin conductance response. We applied structural equation modeling methods to the 3 conditioning phases of habituation, acquisition, and extinction to determine the extent to which genetic and environmental factors underlie individual variation in associative and nonassociative learning. RESULTS: All components of the fear conditioning process in humans demonstrated moderate heritability, in the range of 35% to 45%. Best-fitting multivariate models suggest that 2 sets of genes may underlie the trait of fear conditioning: one that most strongly affects nonassociative processes of habituation that also is shared with acquisition and extinction, and a second that appears related to associative fear conditioning processes. In addition, these data provide tentative evidence of differences in heritability based on the fear relevance of the stimuli. CONCLUSION: Genes represent a significant source of individual variation in the habituation, acquisition, and extinction of fears, and genetic effects specific to fear conditioning are involved.
Authors: Manuel Kuhn; Jan Haaker; Evelyn Glotzbach-Schoon; Dirk Schümann; Marta Andreatta; Marie-Luise Mechias; Karolina Raczka; Nina Gartmann; Christian Büchel; Andreas Mühlberger; Paul Pauli; Andreas Reif; Raffael Kalisch; Tina B Lonsdorf Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Ingmar Heinig; Andre Pittig; Jan Richter; Katrin Hummel; Isabel Alt; Kristina Dickhöver; Jennifer Gamer; Maike Hollandt; Katja Koelkebeck; Anne Maenz; Sophia Tennie; Christina Totzeck; Yunbo Yang; Volker Arolt; Jürgen Deckert; Katharina Domschke; Thomas Fydrich; Alfons Hamm; Jürgen Hoyer; Tilo Kircher; Ulrike Lueken; Jürgen Margraf; Peter Neudeck; Paul Pauli; Winfried Rief; Silvia Schneider; Benjamin Straube; Andreas Ströhle; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Annmarie MacNamara; Christine A Rabinak; Daniel A Fitzgerald; Xiaohong Joe Zhou; Stewart A Shankman; Mohammed R Milad; K Luan Phan Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Michael B VanElzakker; M Kathryn Dahlgren; F Caroline Davis; Stacey Dubois; Lisa M Shin Journal: Neurobiol Learn Mem Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Jeanne E Savage; Chelsea Sawyers; Roxann Roberson-Nay; John M Hettema Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.568