5 results
P0343 - Association of NTRK3 and its interaction with NGF suggest an altered cross-regulation of the neurotrophin signaling pathway in eating disorders
- J.M. Mercader, E. Saus, Z. Agüera, M. Bayés, B. Claudette, A. Carreras, R. de Cid, M. Dierssen, F. Fernández-Aranda, L. Forcano, P. Gorwood, J. Hebebrand, A. Hinney, A. Puig, M. Ribases, M. Gratacòs, X. Estivill
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 23 / Issue S2 / April 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 April 2020, p. S182
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Eating disorders (ED) are complex psychiatric diseases that include anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, and have higher than 50% heritability. Previous studies have found association of BDNF and NTRK2 to ED, while animal models suggest that other neurotrophin genes might also be involved in eating behavior. We have performed a family based association study with 151 TagSNPs covering ten neurotrophin signaling genes: NGFB, BDNF, NTRK1, NGFR/p75, NTF4/5, NTRK2, NTF3, NTRK3, CNTF and CNTFR in 371 ED trios of Spanish, French and German origin. Besides several nominal associations, we found a strong significant association after correcting for multiple testing (p = 1.04 x 10-4) between ED and rs7180942, located in the NTRK3 gene, which followed an overdominant model of inheritance. Interestingly, HapMap unrelated individuals carrying the rs7180942 risk genotypes for ED showed higher levels of expression of NTRK3 in lymphoblastoid cell lines. Furthermore, higher expression of the orthologous murine Ntrk3 gene was also detected in the hypothalamus of the anx/anx mouse model of anorexia. Finally, variants in NGFB gene appear to modify the risk conferred by the NTRK3 rs7180942 risk genotypes (p = 4.0 x 10-5) showing a synergistic epistatic interaction. The reported data, in addition to the previous reported findings for BDNF and NTRK2, point neurotrophin signaling genes as key regulators of eating behavior and their altered cross-regulation as susceptibility factors for eating disorders.
P0330 - Personality and psychopathological traits in spanish eating disorder males: A comparative study
- Z.P. Aguera, A. Nunez-Navarro, I. Krug, S. Jimenez-Murcia, R. Granero, E. Penelo, A. Karwautz, D. Collier, J. Treasure, F. Fernandez-Aranda
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 23 / Issue S2 / April 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 April 2020, p. S178
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
To explore gender differences on personality and clinical features in patients with eating disorders (ED) and a healthy control sample.
Methods:60 ED males and 60 ED females, consecutively admitted to our Hospital and diagnosed according to DSM-IV-R criteria, were matched for age and diagnosis. A comparison group of 120 non clinical people (60 males, 60 females) were also collected. Measures: TCI-R, SCL-90-R, EDI-2.
Results:Female ED patients scored significantly higher than males on Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction, Interoceptive Awareness and total EDI (p < 0.002). However, these differences were not significant when compared with controls. ED women exhibited higher SCL-90-R Somatization, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, GSI, PSDI and PST scores (p<0.002). Regarding personality traits, high Harm Avoidance, Persistence, Cooperativeness (p<0.018) and low Self- Directedness (p=0.001) were associated with an ED diagnosis in males. Significant differences across ED subdiagnoses were also observed. Lifetime obesity was significantly associated with ED in males (p=0.008). However, when specific ED diagnosis was entered, the gender effect of obesity disappeared (p=0.081).
Conclusions:Although gender specific differences in clinical and psychopathological features across ED patients have been observed, there are important similarities in current ED features between ED males and females, suggesting that, in spite of having some gender-specific associated traits, EDs are not different with regard to gender. These data encourage our continued efforts toward using similar strategies to detect and treat EDs among men and women.
1670 – Prevalence Of Apathy And Depression In a Population Of Elderly Subjects Using Specific Diagnostic Criteria: Preliminary Results From a Multicenter Cross-sectional Study (adep Study)
- D. Bensamoun, A. Derreumaux, L.F. Aguera Ortiz, J. Lopez, K. Karsten, A. Dechamps, D. Dachesky, S. Bianchini, P. Robert, R. David
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 28 / Issue S1 / 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 April 2020, 28-E947
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Apathy and depression are the two most frequent neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related disorders. Whereas neuroimaging studies have shown different neural pathways for these two symptoms, a clinical overlap between apathy and depression is frequently described.
ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence of apathy and depression among elderly subjects with or without dementia criteria using specific diagnostic criteria for apathy and depression.
MethodSubjects from an ongoing cross-sectional study were recruited in 4 centers (France, Indonesia, Spain, Argentina). Apathy and depression were assessed using the diagnostic criteria for apathy and for depression. Additionally, the apathy and dysphoria domains of the NPI-C (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Clinician), as well as the 12 domains of the original NPI (Neuropsychiatric Inventory) were assessed.
Results431 subjects (mean age=74.6 ± 10.4 ; gender=♂ 29%) were recruited (France=100, Spain=90, Indonesia=182, Argentina=79). Among them, 25% were healthy elderly subjects, 9% had a diagnosis of MCI (Mild Cognitive Impairment), 46% had a diagnosis of dementia (including AD, Lewy body, vascular, mixed and fronto-temporal dementia). In the overall population, the prevalence of apathy and depression were respectively 41% and 25%. More specifically, the prevalence of apathy and depression in the AD sample were 67% and 25%.
ConclusionDiagnostic criteria for apathy and depression, as well as the NPI-C, are recent assessment methods in the field of dementia, developed to increase the accuracy of the clinical evaluation of BPSD. It is therefore critical to propose multicenter observational studies comparing these new tools with classical assessment methods.
Is it time to revise the diagnostic criteria for apathy in brain disorders? The 2018 international consensus group
- P. Robert, K.L. Lanctôt, L. Agüera-Ortiz, P. Aalten, F. Bremond, M. Defrancesco, C. Hanon, R. David, B. Dubois, K. Dujardin, M. Husain, A. König, R. Levy, V. Mantua, D. Meulien, D. Miller, H.J. Moebius, J. Rasmussen, G. Robert, M. Ruthirakuhan, F. Stella, J. Yesavage, R. Zeghari, V. Manera
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 54 / October 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 July 2018, pp. 71-76
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background:
Apathy is a very common behavioural and psychological symptom across brain disorders. In the last decade, there have been considerable advances in research on apathy and motivation. It is thus important to revise the apathy diagnostic criteria published in 2009. The main objectives were to: a) revise the definition of apathy; b) update the list of apathy dimensions; c) operationalise the diagnostic criteria; and d) suggest appropriate assessment tools including new technologies.
Methods:The expert panel (N = 23) included researchers and health care professionals working on brain disorders and apathy, a representative of a regulatory body, and a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. The revised diagnostic criteria for apathy were developed in a two-step process. First, following the standard Delphi methodology, the experts were asked to answer questions via web-survey in two rounds. Second, all the collected information was discussed on the occasion of the 26th European Congress of Psychiatry held in Nice (France).
Results:Apathy was defined as a quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning (criterion A). Symptoms must persist for at least four weeks, and affect at least two of the three apathy dimensions (behaviour/cognition; emotion; social interaction; criterion B). Apathy should cause identifiable functional impairments (criterion C), and should not be fully explained by other factors, such as effects of a substance or major changes in the patient’s environment (Criterion D).
Table 1 Apathy diagnostic criteria 2018. CRITERION A: A quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity either in behavioral, cognitive, emotional or social dimensions in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning in these areas. These changes may be reported by the patient himself/herself or by observation of others. CRITERION B: The presence of at least 2 of the 3 following dimensions for a period of at least four weeks and present most of the time B1. BEHAVIOUR & COGNITION Loss of, or diminished, goal-directed behaviour or cognitive activity as evidenced by at least one of the following: General level of activity: the patient has a reduced level of activity either at home or work, makes less effort to initiate or accomplish tasks spontaneously, or needs to be prompted to perform them. Persistence of activity: He/she is less persistent in maintaining an activity or conversation, finding solutions to problems or thinking of alternative ways to accomplish them if they become difficult. Making choices: He/she has less interest or takes longer to make choices when different alternatives exist (e.g., selecting TV programs, preparing meals, choosing from a menu, etc.) Interest in external issue: He/she has less interest in or reacts less to news, either good or bad, or has less interest in doing new things Personal wellbeing: He/she is less interested in his/her own health and wellbeing or personal image (general appearance, grooming, clothes, etc.). B2. EMOTION Loss of, or diminished, emotion as evidenced by at least one of the following: Spontaneous emotions: the patient shows less spontaneous (self-generated) emotions regarding their own affairs, or appears less interested in events that should matter to him/her or to people that he/she knows well. Emotional reactions to environment: He/she expresses less emotional reaction in response to positive or negative events in his/her environment that affect him/her or people he/she knows well (e.g., when things go well or bad, responding to jokes, or events on a TV program or a movie, or when disturbed or prompted to do things he/she would prefer not to do). Impact on others: He/she is less concerned about the impact of his/her actions or feelings on the people around him/her. Empathy: He/she shows less empathy to the emotions or feelings of others (e.g., becoming happy or sad when someone is happy or sad, or being moved when others need help). Verbal or physical expressions: He/she shows less verbal or physical reactions that reveal his/her emotional states. B3. SOCIAL INTERACTION Loss of, or diminished engagement in social interaction as evidenced by at least one of the following: Spontaneous social initiative: the patient takes less initiative in spontaneously proposing social or leisure activities to family or others. Environmentally stimulated social interaction: He/she participates less, or is less comfortable or more indifferent to social or leisure activities suggested by people around him/her. Relationship with family members: He/she shows less interest in family members (e.g., to know what is happening to them, to meet them or make arrangements to contact them). Verbal interaction: He/she is less likely to initiate a conversation, or he/she withdraws soon from it Homebound: He /She prefer to stays at home more frequently or longer than usual and shows less interest in getting out to meet people. CRITERION C These symptoms (A - B) cause clinically significant impairment in personal, social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. CRITERION D The symptoms (A - B) are not exclusively explained or due to physical disabilities (e.g. blindness and loss of hearing), to motor disabilities, to a diminished level of consciousness, to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug of abuse, medication), or to major changes in the patient’s environment. Conclusions:The new diagnostic criteria for apathy provide a clinical and scientific framework to increase the validity of apathy as a clinical construct. This should also help to pave the path for apathy in brain disorders to be an interventional target.
Over-the-row harvester damage evaluation in super-high-density olive orchard by on-board sensing techniques
- J. Martinez-Guanter, M. Garrido-Izard, J. Agüera, C. Valero, M. Pérez-Ruiz
-
- Journal:
- Advances in Animal Biosciences / Volume 8 / Issue 2 / July 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 June 2017, pp. 487-491
- Print publication:
- July 2017
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
New Super-High-Density (SHD) olive orchards designed for mechanical harvesting are increasing very rapidly in Spain. Most studies have focused in effectively removing the olive fruit, however the machine needs to put significant amount of energy on the canopy that could result in structural damage or extra stress on the trees. During harvest, a series of 3-axis accelerometers were installed on the tree structure in order to register vibration patterns. A LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and a camera sensing device were also mounted on a tractor. Before and after harvest measurements showed significant differences in the LiDAR and image data. A fast estimate of the damage produced by an over-the-row harvester with contactless sensing could be useful information for adjusting the machine parameters in each olive grove automatically in the future.