4.6 Review

Migrainomics - identifying brain and genetic markers of migraine

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS NEUROLOGY
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 725-741

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.151

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APP1075175]
  2. European Union Seventh Framework Programme [602633]
  3. NIH (NINDS) [K24NS064050, R01NS0750182, RO1 NS073977]
  4. Mayday/Louis Herlands Chair for Pain Systems Science
  5. National Headache Foundation
  6. NHMRC [APP1058808, APP1083450]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Migraine is one of the world's most prevalent and disabling disorders and imposes an enormous socioeconomic burden. The exact causes of migraine are unknown, and no recognizable diagnostic pathological changes have been identified. Specific identifiable markers of migraine would aid diagnosis and could provide insight into the pathogenesis of the condition, with the potential to direct development of new therapeutics. In the past few years, advances in neuroimaging and genetic studies have provided the most substantial progress towards the identification of markers. A growing number of brain imaging studies have provided important insights into the brain mechanisms that underlie migraine symptoms during and between migraine attacks. Similarly, large-scale genome-wide association studies have identified genetic variants associated with the common forms of migraine - migraine with aura and migraine without aura. In total, 44 independent single-nucleotide polymorphism loci have been robustly associated with the risk of migraine and provide new evidence for the involvement of vascular mechanisms. Both imaging and genetics, therefore, have excellent potential as markers of migraine. In this Review, we provide a summary of results regarding current and potential neuroimaging and genetic markers of migraine, consider what conclusions can be drawn from these markers about migraine mechanisms and discuss the potential of combining imaging and genetics.

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