The drug-naive comparison group and the cannabis-using comparison group did not differ on any behavioral measure, either overall or when genetic subgroups were compared directly, and for the purpose of analysis were pooled into a single comparison group. The genotype frequencies in the comparison group (ll N=21 [36%], ls N=26 [45%], ss N=11 [19%]) and the Ecstasy users (ll N=20 [30%], ls N=31 [47%], ss N=15 [23%]) did not differ from the values expected under Hardy-Weinberg assumptions (χ2=0.20, df=1, p=0.65, and χ2=0.34, df=1, p=0.56, respectively). There were no significant differences in 5-HTTLPR genotype frequency (χ2=0.56, df=2, p=0.75) and allele frequency (χ2=0.59, df=2, p=0.44) in the Ecstasy and comparison groups, suggesting that the 5-HTTLPR is not a major predictor of Ecstasy use. The genetic subgroups did not differ in terms of age, IQ, or any measure of illicit drug use in either the Ecstasy users or the comparison subjects.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine data from the Affective Go/No-Go test. There was a highly significant shift-by-genetic-subgroup interaction for commission errors in the Ecstasy users (F=6.81, df=2, 64, p<0.003) but not in the comparison subjects (F=0.16, df=2, 55, p=0.85). In the
ll subgroup of the Ecstasy users, and in all genetic subgroups in the comparison group, commission errors declined as expected from shift to nonshift blocks. However, the
ls and
ss subgroups of Ecstasy users did not make the expected reduction in errors from shift to nonshift blocks (
+Figure 1).
Since all Ecstasy users in this study also took other drugs, we conducted further analyses to control for the possible effects of non-Ecstasy illicit drug use. The ANOVA was repeated within the Ecstasy users, including non-Ecstasy illicit substance use (classed as either regular or rarely/never) as an additional between-subjects factor in separate analyses for psilocybin, LSD, amphetamine, amyl nitrate, ketamine, cocaine, and heroin. In no instance was the interaction term between drug use group, genotype group, and shift significant. However, because almost all Ecstasy users also used cannabis on a regular basis, this method was not appropriate to control for cannabis use. Instead, we conducted the analysis in the cannabis comparison subjects alone and did not find an interaction between genetic subgroup and shift.
Depression scores were not normally distributed and were analyzed in two ways. First, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare Beck Depression Inventory scores of the Ecstasy users and comparison subjects within each genetic subgroup. The Ecstasy users scored significantly higher on the Beck Depression Inventory than comparison subjects within the ss (Ecstasy group mean=11.8, SD=9.6; comparison group mean=3.9, SD=3.2) (z=2.4, p<0.02) and ls (Ecstasy group mean=8.1, SD=5.5; comparison group mean=5.2, SD=5.6) (z=2.4, p<0.02) genotype subgroups, but the difference in the ll subgroup was not significant (Ecstasy group mean=7.5, SD=6.0; comparison group mean=5.3, SD=3.1) (z=1.0, p=0.32).
Second, each individual was categorized as either not depressed or depressed on the basis of the accepted cutoff point of 9 on the Beck Depression Inventory. The proportions of individuals categorized as depressed or not depressed showed a strong tendency to differ in the Ecstasy users when classified by 5-HTTLPR genotype (χ2=5.95, df=2, p<0.06)—there were more individuals categorized as depressed in the ss subgroup of Ecstasy users. The proportions of depressed versus nondepressed individuals did not show this tendency to differ as a function of 5-HTTLPR genotype in the comparison group (χ2=0.55, df=2, p=0.76).
Adult Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy Scale scores were analyzed in a univariate ANOVA with group and genetic subgroup as between-subjects measures. The Ecstasy users scored higher than the comparison subjects on impulsiveness (F=5.8, df=1, 118, p<0.02), with no effect of genetic subgroup and no group-by-genetic-subgroup interaction (F<1, df=2, 118, for both). However, amphetamine exposure correlated highly significantly with impulsiveness in the Ecstasy users (F=15.2, df=1, 56, p<0.001), and when those who had used amphetamine regularly were removed from the analysis, the remaining Ecstasy users (N=40) were not significantly more impulsive than the comparison subjects (F<1, df=1, 96). There were no differences between the Ecstasy and non-Ecstasy groups or genetic subgroups, and there were no interaction effects on venturesomeness or empathy (p>0.1 for all).
We believe that these are the first data to suggest that the 5-HTTLPR genotype mediates emotionally related cognitive disturbance in Ecstasy users. Because Ecstasy causes long-term reductions in synaptic 5-HT release
+(18), it is of interest to note the similarities of our current results to those seen in normal subjects after acute tryptophan depletion, a dietary manipulation that lowers availability of the precursor of 5-HT to the brain and temporarily reduces synthesis
+(19). Healthy volunteers under conditions of acute tryptophan depletion show the same behavior on the Affective Go/No-Go test as the
ls and
ss groups of Ecstasy users—they fail to reduce commission errors from shift to nonshift blocks
+(15). Moreover,
ss individuals who have never suffered from depression show the greatest mood change under acute tryptophan depletion, while
ll individuals show little or no mood change
+(20), a result concordant with our finding that
ss Ecstasy users were the group that scored highest on the Beck Depression Inventory. It is possible that possession of the
s allele confers particular vulnerability to disturbances in emotional processing following 5-HT depletion, whether by acute tryptophan depletion or chronic Ecstasy use, perhaps due to low levels of tonic serotonergic neurotransmission.
This similarity with acute tryptophan depletion is intriguing, but it remains possible that the differences between the genetic subgroups among the Ecstasy users are caused by some other factor. Data from the Adult Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy Scale did not provide evidence of personality differences between the genetic subgroups. In fact, our results suggest that the greater impulsivity in Ecstasy users found in other reports may be due to concomitant use of amphetamine. However, Soar et al.
+(21) calculated that 34% of those in whom Ecstasy triggers a psychiatric disorder had a family history of psychopathology, and it may be that Ecstasy users carrying the
s allele have a family history of depression.
In summary, we have identified a test of emotional processing that is overtly abnormal in chronic Ecstasy users with specific 5-HTTLPR genotypes carrying the s allele. These data are compatible with the finding of a trend toward higher depressive scores on the Beck Depression Inventory in Ecstasy users with the ss genotype. Since such effects may have been overlooked if we had not stratified our samples by this genotype, future studies examining the long-term effects of Ecstasy use should consider the potential for gene-environment interactions at the 5-HTTLPR locus.