This week, both papers, released in
the same year, focused around producing rodent models of schizophrenia. Both
recognized a developmental dysregulation inherent in the formation of the
disease, albeit via different mechanisms. Kellendonk et al. found overexpression
of D2 receptors in the transgenic mouse striatum to be sufficient to induce
schizophrenic symptomology such as deficits to working memory, and physically
induce changes to D1 transmission in the prefrontal cortex which may be related
to the cognitive effects seen in the model. However, Moore et al. studied
disruption of embryonic brain development in mice using methylazoxymethanol
acetate (MAM) and its usage in producing a schizophrenic model. In their study,
Moore et al. found that MAM resulted in general microencephaly and greater
deficits to motion, executive control, and prepulse inhibition, and while there
were selective decreases in cortical thickness in later exposure of MAM, early
of exposure led to general microencephaly.
Ultimately,
this week’s discussion revolves around the question of a preference between two
models of schizophrenia and whether one study provides a more thorough
argument. At first, Kellendonk appeared to be a more convincing paper as it
directly studied dopamine which has been classically associated with
schizophrenia. As well, alterations to D2R specifically in the striatum would
theoretically have an effect on the output of the corticostriatal pathway which
may be reflected in the alterations in D1 activity in the PFC which may be
cause of typical schizophrenia symptoms. Another interesting aspect uncovered
in this study was the irreversibility of effects of developmental
overexpression of D2R, if not greater severity induced by such an attempt at
regulation. While I was initially skeptical of Moore et al.’s findings as it
seemed more blunt in its focus on premature pharmacological cessation of
cortical development without focus on neurotransmitter activity, their
correlates between former findings in schizophrenia and findings in their own
study were convincing at least from a neurological standpoint, and their use of
orbitofacial activity measures was if nothing else novel and interesting. Ideally
these two models could be combined, possibly with a more specific focus on cell
identity in the Moore-style model.
No comments:
Post a Comment