Sequence variation in the 3′‐untranslated region of the dopamine transporter gene and attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) has been reported to be associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a number of studies [Cook et al. (1995): Am J Human Genet 56(4):9993-998; Gill et al. (1997): Mol Psychiatry 2(4):311-313; Waldman et al. (1998): Am J Human Genet 63(6):1767-1776; Barr et al. (2001): Biol Psychiatry 49(4):333-339; Curran et al. (2001): Mol Psychiatry 6(4):425-428; Chen et al. (2003): Mol Psychiatry 8(4):393-396]. Specifically, the 10-repeat allele of the 40-bp variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) polymorphism located in the 3' untranslated region (UTR) of the gene has been found to be associated with ADHD. There is evidence from in vitro studies indicating that variability in the repeat number, and sequence variation in the 3'-UTR of the DAT1 gene may influence the level of the dopamine transporter protein [Fuke et al. (2001): Pharmacogenomics J 1(2):152-156; Miller and Madras (2002): Mol Psychiatry 7(1):44-55]. In this study, we investigated whether DNA variation in the DAT1 3'UTR contributed to ADHD by genotyping DNA variants around the VNTR region in a sample of 178 ADHD families. These included a MspI polymorphism (rs27072), a DraI DNA change (T/C) reported to influence DAT1 expression levels, and a BstUI polymorphism (rs3863145) in addition to the VNTR. We also screened the VNTR region by direct resequencing to determine if there was sequence variation within the repeat units that could account for the association. Our results indicate that DAT1 is associated with ADHD in our sample but not with alleles of the VNTR polymorphism. We did not find any variation in the sequence for either the 10- or 9-repeat alleles in the probands screened nor did we observe the reported DraI (T/C) variation. Our results therefore refute the possibility of the reported DraI variation or alleles of the VNTR as the functional variants contributing to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".