4.7 Article

Differential effects of NMDA antagonists on high frequency and gamma EEG oscillations in a neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 1359-1370

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.04.006

关键词

Schizophrenia; Schizophrenia animal model; NMDA receptor antagonists; Gamma oscillations; High frequency oscillations

资金

  1. Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at Eli Lilly
  2. Lilly Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Eli Lilly and Company, UK
  3. Medical Research Council [G0501146] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0501146] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuroanatomical, electrophysiological and behavioural abnormalities following timed prenatal methylazoxymethanol acetate (MAM) treatment in rats model changes observed in schizophrenia. In particular, MAM treatment on gestational day 17 (E17) preferentially disrupts limbic cortical circuits, and is a promising animal model of schizophrenia. The hypersensitivity of this model to the NMDA receptor antagonist-induced hyperactivity has been proposed to mimic the increase in sensitivity observed in schizophrenia patients following PCP and Ketamine administration. However, how this increase in sensitivity in both patients and animals translates to differences in EEG oscillatory activity is unknown. In this study we have shown that MAM-E17 treated animals have an increased response to the hyperlocomotor and wake promoting effects of Ketamine, PCP, and MK801 but not to the competitive antagonist SDZ 220,581. These behavioural changes were accompanied by altered EEG responses to the NMDAR antagonists, most evident in the gamma and high frequency (HFO) ranges: altered sensitivity of these neuronal network oscillations in MAM-exposed rats is regionally selective, and reflects altered interneuronal function in this neurodevelopmental model. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Schizophrenia'. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据