4.6 Article

Investigating the role of glutathione in mismatch negativity: An insight into NMDA receptor disturbances in bipolar disorder

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 126, 期 6, 页码 1178-1184

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.09.025

关键词

Bipolar disorder; Glutathione; Mismatch negativity; Hippocampus; N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor; Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy

资金

  1. NHMRC Australia Fellowship award [464914]
  2. Australian Postgraduate Award
  3. NSW Health, Mental Health and Drug Alcohol Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We aim to provide a targeted integration to investigate neuronal mechanisms underlying mismatch negativity (MMN) in bipolar disorder (BD), by looking at the association between temporal MMN and in vivo hippocampal glutathione (GSH) measured via proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (H-1-MRS). Methods: Twenty-eight people with BD and 22 matched controls underwent a two-tone passive, duration deviant MMN paradigm as well as H-1-MRS. GSH concentration in the left hippocampus was determined and Pearson's correlations were used to identify associations between MMN amplitude and in vivo GSH concentration. Results: In controls MMN amplitude was negatively associated with GSH at the left temporal site (r = -0.542, 95% C.I.: -0.810, -0.060), and a similar trend at the right (r = -0.374, 95% C.I.: -0.678, 0.007). There were no significant associations in BD. Conclusions: The results provide insight into the relationship between MMN and in vivo GSH, and demonstrate that the metabolite system regulating MMN is abnormal in BD, compared to controls. This may indicate a lack of tightly regulated hippocampal NMDA functioning, or that NMDA receptor regulation in BD is mediated by other factors. Significance: These results provide insight into the underlying basis of hippocampal NMDA disturbances implicated in BD. (C) 2014 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland 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

4.6
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