Association of the Dopamine D4 Receptor (DRD4) Gene and Approach-Related Personality Traits: Meta-Analysis and New Data

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Biological psychiatry (Impact Factor: 9.47). 02/2008; 63(2):197-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.04.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two variants in the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene have been reported to be associated with human approach-related traits such as novelty seeking and extraversion. However, the strength of evidence for this association remains uncertain.
We conducted a meta-analysis of published studies of the association between the DRD4 gene variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) and C-521T polymorphisms and human approach-related personality traits, including novelty seeking, extraversion, and impulsivity, restricted to adult samples recruited from nonpsychiatric populations, and extended on this literature by attempting to confirm any evidence of association in a replication sample (n = 309) selected for extreme scores on the extraversion subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire from a large (n = 40,090) population-based sample.
Our initial meta-analysis supported the association of the DRD4 C-521T polymorphism, but not the VNTR polymorphism, with approach-related traits. This conclusion was qualified by evidence of significant publication bias and the failure to detect association in a replication sample comprising individuals at the extremes of the trait distribution. The association of the C-521T polymorphism observed in our initial meta-analysis was robust to the inclusion of these new data, but our revised meta-analysis indicated that the association was present for measures of novelty seeking and impulsivity but not for measures of extraversion.
The DRD4 gene may be associated with measures of novelty seeking and impulsivity but not extraversion. The association of the C-521T variant with these measures, if genuine, may account for up to 3% of phenotypic variance.

Download full-text


Available from: Binnaz Yalcin, Jun 02, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humans with seven or more repeats in exon III of the DRD4 gene (long DRD4 carriers) sometimes demonstrate impaired attention, as seen in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and at other times demonstrate heightened attention, as seen in addictive behavior. Although the clinical effects of DRD4 are the focus of much work, this gene may not necessarily serve as a "risk" gene for attentional deficits, but as a plasticity gene where attention is heightened for priority items in the environment and impaired for minor items. Here we examine the role of DRD4 in two tasks that benefit from selective attention to high-priority information. We examine a category learning task where performance is supported by focusing on features and updating verbal rules. Here, selective attention to the most salient features is associated with good performance. In addition, we examine the Operation Span (OSPAN) task, a working memory capacity task that relies on selective attention to update and maintain items in memory while also performing a secondary task. Long DRD4 carriers show superior performance relative to short DRD4 homozygotes (six or less tandem repeats) in both the category learning and OSPAN tasks. These results suggest that DRD4 may serve as a "plasticity" gene where individuals with the long allele show heightened selective attention to high-priority items in the environment, which can be beneficial in the appropriate context.
    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 09/2014; 27(3):1-13. DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_00724 · 4.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: TWO CLASSIC STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO PERVADE THE BEHAVIOR OF MODERN SALESPERSONS: a sales orientation (SO) where salespersons use deception or guile to get customers to buy even if they do not need a product, and a customer orientation (CO) where salespersons first attempt to discover the customer's needs and adjust their product and selling approach to meet those needs. Study 1 replicates recent research and finds that the Taq A1 variant of the DRD2 gene is not related to either sales or CO, whereas the 7-repeat variant of the DRD4 gene is related to CO but not SO. Study 2 investigates gene × phenotype explanations of orientation of salespersons, drawing upon recent research in molecular genetics and biological/psychological attachment theory. The findings show that attachment style regulates the effects of DRD2 on CO, such that greater avoidant attachment styles lead to higher CO for persons with the A2/A2 variant but neither the A1/A2 nor A1/A1 variants. Likewise, attachment style regulates the effects of DRD4 on CO, such that greater avoidant attachment styles lead to higher CO for persons with the 7-repeat variant but not other variants. No effects were found on a SO, and secure and anxious attachment styles did not function as moderators.
    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 02/2014; 8:32. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00032 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the advent of increasingly accessible technologies for typing genetic variation, studies of gene-environment (G×E) interactions have proliferated in psychological research. Among the aims of such studies are testing developmental hypotheses and models of the etiology of behavioral disorders, defining boundaries of genetic and environmental influences, and identifying individuals most susceptible to risk exposures or most amenable to preventive and therapeutic interventions. This research also coincides with the emergence of unanticipated difficulties in detecting genetic variants of direct association with behavioral traits and disorders, which may be obscured if genetic effects are expressed only in predisposing environments. In this essay we consider these and other rationales for positing G×E interactions, review conceptual models meant to inform G×E interpretations from a psychological perspective, discuss points of common critique to which G×E research is vulnerable, and address the role of the environment in G×E interactions.
    Annual Review of Psychology 01/2014; 65:41-70. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115100 · 20.53 Impact Factor