I found these papers super interesting. I liked how
both touched on the DA hypothesis using different models and both of these
models sought to show different aspects of the schizophrenic model. I think
it's interesting that both of the papers showed different aspects of
schizophrenia, but I have to wonder the relevance of these models since they
all show just a snapshot of the disease. For example, the D2R over expressed
model sought to only model the cognitive deficits of the disease, however this
is just such a small part of the disorder that I am wondering how it's
relevant. Is it merely to show that D2R overexpression causes this part of the
disorder and perhaps other pathology causes the other behavioral problems?
I particularly liked the Moore paper, as I found it systematic and
clear. It makes a pretty good case for the MAM-E17 model and shows clearly that
this model is due to abnormal function in the frontal cortical circuits. This
is consistent with aberrations seen in schizophrenic patients. The neurophysiology
data was insightful as it clearly showed a dysregulation of the PFC as it “directs”
information from the striatum. This, along with the behavioral data, makes a
good case for this model as it shows the dysfunction of the frontal cortex and
dopamine inputs to the striatum which is common in the pathology of
schizophrenia. Additionally, I appreciated the broadness with which this model
can be applied – it clearly showed multiple symptoms associated with
schizophrenia vs. the narrow focus of the Kellendonk paper. Overall, I’m pretty
sold on the MAM-E17 model.
No comments:
Post a Comment