Association between the NMDA glutamate receptor <i>GRIN2B</i> gene and obsessive–compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent data from neuroimaging, genetic and clinical trials and animal models suggest a role for altered glutamatergic neuro transmission in the pathogenesis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The aim of this study was to investigate whether variants in the GRIN2B gene, the gene encoding the NR2 subunit of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor, may contribute to genetic susceptibility to OCD or to different OCD subphenotypes. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2008, we performed a case-control association study in which we genotyped 10 tag single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the 3' untranslated region (3' UTR) of GRIN2B. We performed SNP association and haplotype analysis considering the OCD diagnosis and different OCD subphenotypes: early-onset OCD, comorbid tic disorders and OCD clinical symptom dimensions. RESULTS: We enrolled 225 patients with OCD and 279 controls recruited from the OCD Clinic at Bellvitge Hospital (Barcelona, Spain). No significant difference in the distribution of alleles or genotypes was detected between patients with OCD and controls. Nonetheless, on analyzing OCD subphenotypes, the rs1805476 SNP in male patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-4.22, p = 0.002) and a 4-SNP haplotype in the whole sample (rs1805476, rs1805501, rs1805502 and rs1805477; odds ratio 1.92, 95% CI 1.22-3.01; permutation p = 0.023) were significantly associated with the presence of contamination obsessions and cleaning compulsions. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations included the risk of population stratification associated with the case-control design, use of psychiatrically unscreened blood donors as the control group, reduced sample size of participants with certain OCD subphenotypes and tested polymorphisms limited to 3' UTR and exon 13 of GRIN2B. CONCLUSION: Our results converge with recent data suggesting a possible contribution of glutamatergic variants to the genetic vulnerability to OCD or at least to certain OCD manifestations. The dissection of OCD into more homogeneous subphenotypes may constitute a useful tool to disentangle the complex genetic basis of the disorder.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".