Genetic modulation of facial emotion recognition in borderline personality disorder

Pathophysiological aspects of complex PTSD - a neurobiological account in comparison to classic posttraumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder

Despite a great diagnostic overlap, complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) has been recognised by the ICD-11 as a new, discrete entity and recent empirical evidence points towards a distinction from simple posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD). The development and maintenance of these disorders is sustained by neurobiological alterations and studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) may further contribute to a clear differentiation of CPTSD, PTSD and BPD. However, there are no existing fMRI studies directly comparing CPTSD, PTSD and BPD. In addition to a summarization of diagnostic differences and similarities, the current review aims to provide a qualitative comparison of neuroimaging findings on affective, attentional and memory processing in CPTSD, PTSD and BPD. Our narrative review alludes to an imbalance in limbic-frontal brain networks, which may be partially trans-diagnostically linked to the degree of trauma symptoms and their expression. Thus, CPTSD, PTSD and BPD may underlie a continuum where similar brain regions are involved but the direction of activation may constitute its distinct symptom expression. The neuronal alterations across these disorders may conceivably be better understood along a symptom-based continuum underlying CPTSD, PTSD and BPD. Further research is needed to amend for the heterogeneity in experimental paradigms and sample criteria.

Catechol-O-methyltransferase activity does not influence emotional processing in men

BACKGROUND

Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) regulates cortical dopaminergic transmission and prefrontal-dependent cognitive function. However, its role in other cognitive processes, including emotional processing, is relatively unexplored. We therefore investigated the separate and interactive influences of COMT inhibition and Val¹⁵⁸Met (rs4680) genotype on performance on an emotional test battery.

METHODS

We recruited 74 healthy men homozygous for the functional COMT Val¹⁵⁸Met polymorphism. Volunteers were administered either a single 200 mg dose of the brain-penetrant COMT inhibitor tolcapone or placebo in a double-blind, randomised manner. Emotional processing was assessed using the emotional test battery, and mood was rated using visual analogue scales and the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire across the test day.

RESULTS

There were no main or interactive effects of Val¹⁵⁸Met genotype or tolcapone on any of the emotional processing measures or mood ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, at least in healthy adult men, COMT has little or no effect on emotional processing or mood. These findings contrast with several neuroimaging studies that suggest that COMT modulates neural activity during emotional processing. Thus, further studies are required to understand how COMT impacts on the relationship between behavioural output and neural activity during emotional processing. Nevertheless, our data suggest that novel COMT inhibitors under development for treating cognitive dysfunction are unlikely to have acute off target effects on emotional behaviours.