Candidate genes involved in neural plasticity and the risk for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis of 8 common variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an important psychiatric condition in terms of its prevalence and impact on quality of life. It has one of the highest heritabilities found in psychiatric disorders. A number of association studies exploring several candidate genes in different populations around the world have been carried out. The objective of the present study was to carry out a meta-analysis for 8 common variants located in 5 top candidate genes for ADHD (BDNF, HTR1B, SLC6A2, SLC6A4 and SNAP25); these genes are known to be involved in synaptic transmission and plasticity. METHODS: We performed a search for published genetic association studies that analyzed the candidate polymorphisms in different populations, and we applied state-of-the-art meta-analytical procedures to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and to evaluate potential basis of heterogeneity. We included 75 genetic association studies in these meta-analyses. RESULTS: A major part of the previously postulated associations were nonconsistent in the pooled odds ratios. We observed a weak significant association with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) located in the 3' UTR region of the SNAP25 gene (rs3746544, T allele, OR 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.31, p = 0.028, I(2) = 0%). In addition to the low coverage of genetic variability given by these variants, phenotypic heterogeneity between samples (ADHD subtypes, comorbidities) and genetic background may explain these differences. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of our study include the retrospective nature of our meta-analysis with the incorporation of study-level data from published articles. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, the present study is the largest meta-analysis carried out for ADHD genetics; previously proposed cumulative associations with common polymorphisms in SLC6A4 and HTR1B genes were not supported. We identified a weak consistent association with a common SNP in the SNAP25 gene, a molecule that is known to be central for synaptic transmission and plasticity mechanisms.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".