2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-016-4462-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pharmacogenetics of stimulant abuse liability: association of CDH13 variant with amphetamine response in a racially-heterogeneous sample of healthy young adults

Abstract: In concert with a previous GWAS result, this candidate gene study provides convergent evidence implicating CDH13 rs3784943 variant in d-amphetamine's drug effect profile and suggests generalization to Asian populations. CDH13 and genes coding for other cell adhesion molecules may be worthy of study in the biology of psychostimulant abuse liability.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…GWASs have also identified associations between several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CDH13 and multiple behavioral disorders as well, including ADHD (Lesch et al , 2008, Mavroconstanti et al , 2013, Neale et al , 2010, Salatino-Oliveira et al , 2015), bipolar disorder symptoms (Cho et al , 2015), schizophrenia (Borglum et al , 2014) violent behavior (Tiihonen et al , 2015) and alterations in working memory performance (Arias-Vásquez & Altink, 2011). CDH13 is also associated with subjective response to amphetamine in non-addicted subjects (Hart et al , 2012b, Leventhal et al , 2016); which may be an intermediate phenotype of drug abuse. Thus, multiple lines of evidence suggest that various alleles of CDH13 pleiotropically affect a wide array of behaviors; however, the neural and psychological mechanisms through which these behaviors are modified remain open questions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GWASs have also identified associations between several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CDH13 and multiple behavioral disorders as well, including ADHD (Lesch et al , 2008, Mavroconstanti et al , 2013, Neale et al , 2010, Salatino-Oliveira et al , 2015), bipolar disorder symptoms (Cho et al , 2015), schizophrenia (Borglum et al , 2014) violent behavior (Tiihonen et al , 2015) and alterations in working memory performance (Arias-Vásquez & Altink, 2011). CDH13 is also associated with subjective response to amphetamine in non-addicted subjects (Hart et al , 2012b, Leventhal et al , 2016); which may be an intermediate phenotype of drug abuse. Thus, multiple lines of evidence suggest that various alleles of CDH13 pleiotropically affect a wide array of behaviors; however, the neural and psychological mechanisms through which these behaviors are modified remain open questions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) Raw data were scored using standard methods of each instrument, yielding scored measures at each time point. (2) Area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated using the trapezoidal method across the eight TP of assessment on each session (AUC AMP , AUC MA , AUC PBO ) . (3) Within-subject drug effects were calculated as ΔAUC AMP = AUC AMP minus AUC PBO , and ΔAUC MA = AUC MA minus AUC PBO .…”
Section: Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study used a within-subjects design, in which participants attended a baseline session, followed by two four-hour experimental sessions at which a 20 mg dose of oral d-amphetamine or placebo was administered under double-blind conditions (session order was counterbalanced). The present findings are a secondary analysis of a larger study examining individual difference factors that predict response to the acute effects of d-amphetamine (Kirkpatrick et al, 2016;Leventhal et al, 2017;Pang et al, 2016).…”
Section: Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 20 mg d-amphetamine dose was selected based on previous studies indicating differences in acute d-amphetamine response as a function of trait personality measures (Kirkpatrick et al, 2013;White et al, 2006). This dose produces reliable subjective effects in naïve participants (see time course graphs in Leventhal et al, 2017 andPang et al, 2016), without increasing adverse effects associated with larger doses.…”
Section: Drugmentioning
confidence: 99%