BDNF Genetic Variations Increase the Risk of Alzheimer's Disease-Related Depression
Le résumé fourni par la source
The gene encoding the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been demonstrated as a candidate for Alzheimer's disease-related depression (AD-D) susceptibility. Additionally, an association between AD-D and the functional valine to methionine (Val66Met) polymorphism has been reported. The aim of this study was to assess the genetic contribution of other BDNF variants to AD-D. Two-hundred forty-five AD patients were divided into two subgroups according to the presence (AD-D) or the absence (AD-nD) of depressive symptoms. Four single-nucleotide polymorphisms within BDNF gene were considered, i.e., C270T, rs2049045 C/G, G196A (Val66Met), and G11757C. In our sample, 35.5% of patients (n = 87) reported AD-related depressive symptoms. The individual SNP analysis showed an association between G196A and G11757C genotypes and AD-D. Accordingly, considering the allele frequencies, BDNF 196*A allele was significantly overrepresented in AD-D compared to AD-nD (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.19–2.72), as well as BDNF 11757*C allele (OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.25–2.90). Haplotype analyses revealed that the alleles at four loci (C270T, rs2049045 C/G, G196A, G11757C) interacted to further increase the risk of AD-D. Compared to the most common not-at-risk C-C-G-G haplotype, C-G-A-C (OR = 3.55, 95% CI = 1.44–8.76, P = 0.006) and C-C-A-C haplotypes (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.03–2.87, P = 0.037) were overrepresented in AD-D. This study suggests that BDNF genetic variations play a role in the susceptibility to AD-related depression.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- BDNF Genetic Variations Increase the Risk of Alzheimer's Disease-Related Depression
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2015
- Éditeur
- IOS Press
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.