4.6 Review

Neural Substrates of Depression and Resilience

期刊

NEUROTHERAPEUTICS
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 677-686

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13311-017-0527-x

关键词

Major depressive disorder; Depression susceptibility; Resilience; Prefrontal cortex; Nucleus accumbens; Ventral tegmental area

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R21MH112081, R01MH051399, P50MH096890]
  2. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [R01AA022445]
  3. Brain and Behavior Research Foundation
  4. Hope for Depression Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an urgent need for more effective medications to treat major depressive disorder, as fewer than half of depressed patients achieve full remission and many are not responsive with currently available antidepressant medications or psychotherapy. It is known that prolonged stressful events are an important risk factor for major depressive disorder. However, there are prominent individual variations in response to stress: a relatively small proportion of people (10-20%) experiencing prolonged stress develop stressrelated psychiatric disorders, including depression (susceptibility to stress), whereas most stress-exposed individuals maintain normal psychological functioning (resilience to stress). There have been growing efforts to investigate the neural basis of susceptibility versus resilience to depression. An accumulating body of evidence is revealing the genetic, epigenetic, and neurophysiological mechanisms that underlie stress susceptibility, as well as the active mechanisms that underlie the resilience phenotype. In this review, we discuss, mainly based on our own work, key pathological mechanisms of susceptibility that are identified as potential therapeutic targets for depression treatment. We also review novel mechanisms that promote natural resilience as an alternative strategy to achieve treatment efficacy. These studies are opening new avenues to develop conceptually novel therapeutic strategies for depression treatment.

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