Jennifer S Richards1,2, Alejandro Arias Vásquez3,4, Daan van Rooij1, Dennis van der Meer5, Barbara Franke3,4, Pieter J Hoekstra5, Dirk J Heslenfeld6, Jaap Oosterlaan6, Stephen V Faraone7, Catharina A Hartman5, Jan K Buitelaar1,2. 1. a Department of Cognitive Neuroscience , Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 2. b Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatry University Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 3. c Department of Human Genetics , Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 4. d Department of Psychiatry , Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center , Nijmegen , The Netherlands. 5. e Department of Psychiatry , University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen , The Netherlands. 6. f Department of Clinical Neuropsychology , VU University Amsterdam , Amsterdam , The Netherlands. 7. g SUNY Upstate Medical University Center, Departments of Psychiatry and of Neuroscience and Physiology, Syracuse , USA and the K.G. Jebsen Centre for Research on Neuropsychiatric Disorders, University of Bergen , Bergen , Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Impaired inhibitory control is a key feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We investigated gene-environment interaction (GxE) as a possible contributing factor to response inhibition variation in context of the differential susceptibility theory. This states individuals carrying plasticity gene variants will be more disadvantaged in negative, but more advantaged in positive environments. METHODS: Behavioural and neural measures of response inhibition were assessed during a Stop-signal task in participants with (N = 197) and without (N = 295) ADHD, from N = 278 families (age M = 17.18, SD =3.65). We examined GxE between candidate plasticity genes (DAT1, 5-HTT, DRD4) and social environments (maternal expressed emotion, peer affiliation). RESULTS: A DRD4 × Positive peer affiliation interaction was found on the right fusiform gyrus (rFG) activation during successful inhibition. Further, 5-HTT short allele carriers showed increased rFG activation during failed inhibitions. Maternal warmth and positive peer affiliation were positively associated with right inferior frontal cortex activation during successful inhibition. Deviant peer affiliation was positively related to the error rate. CONCLUSIONS: While a pattern of differential genetic susceptibility was found, more clarity on the role of the FG during response inhibition is warranted before firm conclusions can be made. Positive and negative social environments were related to inhibitory control. This extends previous research emphasizing adverse environments.
OBJECTIVES: Impaired inhibitory control is a key feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We investigated gene-environment interaction (GxE) as a possible contributing factor to response inhibition variation in context of the differential susceptibility theory. This states individuals carrying plasticity gene variants will be more disadvantaged in negative, but more advantaged in positive environments. METHODS: Behavioural and neural measures of response inhibition were assessed during a Stop-signal task in participants with (N = 197) and without (N = 295) ADHD, from N = 278 families (age M = 17.18, SD =3.65). We examined GxE between candidate plasticity genes (DAT1, 5-HTT, DRD4) and social environments (maternal expressed emotion, peer affiliation). RESULTS: A DRD4 × Positive peer affiliation interaction was found on the right fusiform gyrus (rFG) activation during successful inhibition. Further, 5-HTT short allele carriers showed increased rFG activation during failed inhibitions. Maternal warmth and positive peer affiliation were positively associated with right inferior frontal cortex activation during successful inhibition. Deviant peer affiliation was positively related to the error rate. CONCLUSIONS: While a pattern of differential genetic susceptibility was found, more clarity on the role of the FG during response inhibition is warranted before firm conclusions can be made. Positive and negative social environments were related to inhibitory control. This extends previous research emphasizing adverse environments.
Entities:
Keywords:
ADHD; functional MRI; gene–environment interaction; response inhibition; social environment
Authors: Sebastian Heinzel; Thomas Dresler; Christina G Baehne; Monika Heine; Andrea Boreatti-Hümmer; Christian P Jacob; Tobias J Renner; Andreas Reif; Klaus-Peter Lesch; Andreas J Fallgatter; Ann-Christine Ehlis Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: K M Cornish; T Manly; R Savage; J Swanson; D Morisano; N Butler; C Grant; G Cross; L Bentley; C P Hollis Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Nanda N J Rommelse; Marieke E Altink; Alejandro Arias-Vásquez; Cathelijne J M Buschgens; Ellen Fliers; Stephen V Faraone; Jan K Buitelaar; Joseph A Sergeant; Barbara Franke; Jaap Oosterlaan Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Silvia Cimino; Luca Cerniglia; Giulia Ballarotto; Eleonora Marzilli; Esterina Pascale; Claudio D'Addario; Walter Adriani; Angelo Giovanni Icro Maremmani; Renata Tambelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.390