Talk:5-HTTLPR

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

why would the S/S polymorphism be associated with depression if it infact causes more serotonin in the synaptic cleft? It acts like an SSRI? What is the mechanism of this relationship?

Technically beyond the scope of a wikipedia talk page, but the "serotonergic model" of depression is not foolproof. Other neurotransmitters also take part. For example, enhancing dopamine can also successfully treat depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDED:C710:3C2D:E249:B47E:5501 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Choi.kel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected plagiarism--inappropriate writing style/tone

The penultimate sentence (specifically "we would expect that those replication studies which are closest in design to the original are the most likely to replicate—instead we find the opposite.") appears to be ripped straight out of an analysis or research article based on usage of "we" as a personal pronoun. The tone and style is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I would edit it, but I am not sufficiently versed in the subject to do so. Thor214 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention that 5-HTTLPR = SLC6A4 rs4795541

I find it to be a glaring omission that two SNPs (rs25531 and rs25532) of the SLC6A4 gene are specifically mentioned as being associated with 5-HTTLPR, but the reference sequence for 5-HTTLPR itself (rs4795541) is not provided anywhere in an article dedicated to 5-HTTLPR (rs4795541)!

https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4795541

47.42.126.4 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Parttime5HTTLPRresearcher[reply]

New Section

I plan on adding a section on Insomnia and how there are studies exploring the 5-HTTPLR genotype's association with it. There are many studies that suggest the genotype plays a role in mood, temperament affective disorders, and sleep quality. Choi.kel (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant image

What is the point of the image of chromosome 17? it should be removed and replaced with something more useful, like a genome browser screenshot of the gene with its isoforms 94.255.200.194 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border et al. (2019): this article should be completely rewritten

The current article on 5-HTTLPR continues to list numerous supposed associations between this polymorphism and various psychiatric disorders, despite large-scale studies debunking these claims. Most notably, Border et al. (2019) "No Support for Historical Candidate Gene or Candidate Gene-by-Interaction Hypotheses for Major Depression Across Multiple Large Samples" demonstrated that hundreds of previous studies linking 5-HTTLPR to depression were based on underpowered samples and publication bias, rendering their conclusions invalid. The choice made by the psychiatry research community to not adress the paper doesn't change this simple fact: most science around 5-HTTLPR is crappy science.

A major issue is that the article still gives prominence to outdated and unreliable findings. Entire subsections are dedicated to single studies with small sample sizes (e.g., Brummett et al., Deuschle et al.), each involving only a few hundred participants. These studies lack the statistical power to support the claims being made, and they should not be presented as if they represent a solid scientific consensus.

I propose the following revisions:

Adding a section explaining that large-scale studies have discredited associations between 5-HTTLPR and psychiatric disorders, citing Border et al. (2019) and other critical reviews.
Reviewing or removing certain claims that continue to suggest a major role of 5-HTTLPR in these conditions unless supported by recent and well-powered meta-analyses, notably done by geneticists rather than psychiatrists.
Reevaluating the weight given to small, isolated studies to ensure the article reflects the current scientific consensus rather than outdated or questionable findings.

TheLunarian (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]