Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19211801›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2009

Synergistic effects of genetic variation in nicotinic and muscarinic receptors on visual attention but not working memory.

P M Greenwood, M-K Lin, R Sundararajan, K J Fryxell, R Parasuraman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Neurochemistry of Visual Attention.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Executive Dysfunction in MCI: Subtype or Early Symptom.International journal of Alzheimer's disease · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2011
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

P M GreenwoodDepartment of Psychology, Arch Laboratory, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. pgreenw1@gmu.edu
M-K Lin
R Sundararajan
K J Fryxell
R Parasuraman
George Mason University · USGenomics (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Apolipoprotein E, Attention, and Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG019653 · NIA · GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY · PI PARASURAMAN, RAJA · 2007 to 2011
$2.6M
Apolipoprotein E, Cognition, and Alzheimer's DiseaseU01AG019653 · NIA · GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY · PI PARASURAMAN, RAJA · 2001 to 2005
$2.0M
NIA NIH HHS AG19653NIA NIH HHS R01 AG019653NIA NIH HHS U01 AG019653
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely appreciated that neurotransmission systems interact in their effects on human cognition, but those interactions have been little studied. We used genetics to investigate pharmacological evidence of synergisms in nicotinic/muscarinic interactions on cognition. We hypothesized that joint influences of nicotinic and muscarinic systems would be reflected in cognitive effects of normal variation in known SNPs in nicotinic (CHRNA4 rs1044396) and muscarinic (CHRM2 rs8191992) receptor genes. Exp. 1 used a task of cued visual search. The slope of the cue size/reaction time function showed a trend level effect of the muscarinic CHRM2 SNP, no effect of the nicotinic CHRNA4 SNP, but a significant interaction between the 2 SNPs. Slopes were steepest in individuals who were both CHRNA4 C/C and CHRM2 T/T homozygotes. To determine the specificity of this synergism, Exp. 2 assessed working memory for 1-3 locations over 3 s and found no significant effects on either SNP. Interpreting these results in light of Sarter's [Briand LA, et al. (2007) Modulators in concert for cognition: Modulator interactions in the prefrontal cortex. Prog Neurobiol 83:69-91] claims of tonic and phasic modes of cholinergic activity, we argue that reorienting attention to the target after invalid cues requires a phasic response, dependent on the nicotinic system, whereas orienting attention to valid cues requires a tonic response, dependent on the muscarinic system. Consistent with that, shifting and scaling after valid cues (tonic) were strongest in CHRNA4 C/C homozygotes who were also CHRM2 T/T homozygotes. This shows synergistic effects within the human cholinergic system.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttentionGenotypeHumansMemoryMiddle AgedPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReceptors, MuscarinicReceptors, NicotinicVisual PerceptionReceptors, MuscarinicReceptors, Nicotinic

Identifiers

PMID19211801
PMCPMC2651349
OpenAlexW2017059112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.