Variations in the serotonin-transporter gene are associated with attention bias patterns to positive and negative emotion faces

Abstract

Both attention biases to threat and a serotonin-transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) have been linked to heightened neural activation to threat and the emergence of anxiety. The short allele of 5-HTTLPR may act via its effect on neurotransmitter availability, while attention biases shape broad patterns of cognitive processing. We examined individual differences in attention bias to emotion faces as a function of 5-HTTLPR genotype. Adolescents (N=117) were classified for presumed SLC6A4 expression based on 5-HTTLPR--. Participants completed the dot-probe task, measuring attention biases toward or away from angry and happy faces. Biases for angry faces increased with the genotypepredicted neurotransmission (low>intermediate>high). The reverse pattern was evident for happy faces. The data indicate a linear relation between 5-HTTLPR allelic status and attention biases to emotion, demonstrating a genetic mechanism for biased attention using ecologically valid stimuli that target socioemotional adaptation.

Perception of a Naturalistic Stressor Interacts with 5-HTTLPR/rs25531 Genotype and Gender to Impact Reward Responsiveness

“…The increased reward responsiveness in L' participants under stress in our sample could thus be interpreted as a potential mechanism via which the L' allele exerts its putative protective effects. Such an interpretation is consistent with the notion that a robust reward system is an essential component of resilience [47,48] , and is further corroborated by research demonstrating that L' homozygotes show positive information processing biases absent in S' carriers [49,50] .…”

The dot-probe task to measure emotional attention: A suitable measure in comparative studies?

“…This hypothesis was confirmed by several dot-probe studies that directly compared participants' attentional biases when stimuli were presented for either 500 ms or a longer period (i.e., 1,250, 1,500, or 2,000 ms). Attention allocation in nonanxious individuals is not affected by stimulus presentation time for either threatening facial stimuli (e.g., Bradley et al, 1998;Ioannou et al, 2004;Pérez-Edgar, Bar-Haim, McDermott, Gorodetsky, et al, 2010) or threatening nonfacial stimuli (Lees et al, 2005;Mogg & Bradley, 2006;Mogg, Philippot, & Bradley, 2004). Anxious individuals initially show an attentional bias toward threat, yet when stimulus presentation time increased this bias disappeared or turned into avoidance of threat (Ioannou et al, 2004;Koster et al, 2005;Lees et al, 2005;Mogg, Philippot, & Bradley, 2004).…”

“…Overall, there seems to be a linear relationship between 5-HTTLPR genotype and attentional bias for emotional faces. Vigilance for angry faces decreases as a function of the number of long alleles, whereas vigilance for happy faces increases (Pérez-Edgar, Bar-Haim, McDermott, Gorodetsky, et al, 2010).…”

Attentional biases to threat and serotonin transporter gene promoter (5-HTLPR) polymorphisms: Evidence from a probe discrimination task with endogenous cues

“…First, the probe discrimination task used in this study was different from the tasks used in other studies. In a seminal study that described the spatial cuing task (from which the spatial discrimination task has derived), Posner [38] identified two types of cues that can direct attention to a spatial location: endogenous cues (e.g., a central arrow pointing to the right or left), which need to be processed semantically in order to guide attention; and exogenous cues (e.g., images or words and attentional biases to threat [26][27][28]30,39] included samples between N = 27 [26] and N = 144 (Study 2 in [39]). Our sample of N = 141 is close, but still below the desirable sample size.…”