The Role of the Val66Met Polymorphism of the Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor Gene in Coping Strategies Relevant to Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disturbances of brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) signalling have been implicated in the evolution of depression, which likely arises, in part, as a result of diminished synaptic plasticity. Predictably, given stressor involvement in depression, BDNF is affected by recent stressors as well as stressors such as neglect experienced in early life. The effects of early life maltreatment in altering BDNF signalling may be particularly apparent among those individuals with specific BDNF polymorphisms. We examined whether polymorphisms of the Val66Met genotype might be influential in moderating how early-life events play out with respect to later coping styles, cognitive flexibility and depressive features. Among male and female undergraduate students (N = 124), childhood neglect was highly related to subsequent depressive symptoms. This outcome was moderated by the BDNF polymorphism in the sense that depressive symptoms appeared higher in Met carriers who reported low levels of neglect than in those with the Val/Val allele. However, under conditions of high neglect depressive symptoms only increased in the Val/Val individuals. In effect, the Met polymorphism was associated with depressive features, but did not interact with early life neglect in predicting later depressive features. It was further observed that among the Val/Val individuals, the relationship between neglect and depression was mediated by emotion-focused styles and diminished perceived control, whereas this mediation was not apparent in Met carriers. In contrast to the more typical view regarding this polymorphism, the data are consistent with the perspective that in the presence of synaptic plasticity presumably associated with the Val/Val genotype, neglect allows for the emergence of specific appraisal and coping styles, which are tied to depression. In the case of the reduced degree of neuroplasticity expected in the Met carriers, early life adverse experiences are not tied to coping styles, and hence less likely to be translated into depressive states.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".