4.3 Article

Specific targeting of the GABA-A receptor α5 subtype by a selective inverse agonist restores cognitive deficits in Down syndrome mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1030-1042

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269881111405366

关键词

Down syndrome; GABA-A; inverse agonist; learning; memory; therapy

资金

  1. Foundation AMIPI Bernard Vendre
  2. EEC [LSHG-CT-2006-037627]
  3. Fondation Jerome Lejeune
  4. AMIPI - Bernard Vendre foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An imbalance between inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmission has been proposed to contribute to altered brain function in individuals with Down syndrome (DS). Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system and accordingly treatment with GABA-A antagonists can efficiently restore cognitive functions of Ts65Dn mice, a genetic model for DS. However, GABA-A antagonists are also convulsant which preclude their use for therapeutic intervention in DS individuals. Here, we have evaluated safer strategies to release GABAergic inhibition using a GABA-A-benzodiazepine receptor inverse agonist selective for the alpha 5-subtype (alpha 5IA). We demonstrate that alpha 5IA restores learning and memory functions of Ts65Dn mice in the novel-object recognition and in the Morris water maze tasks. Furthermore, we show that following behavioural stimulation, alpha 5IA enhances learning-evoked immediate early gene products in specific brain regions involved in cognition. Importantly, acute and chronic treatments with alpha 5IA do not induce any convulsant or anxiogenic effects that are associated with GABA-A antagonists or nonselective inverse agonists of the GABA-A-benzodiazepine receptors. Finally, chronic treatment with alpha 5IA did not induce histological alterations in the brain, liver and kidney of mice. Our results suggest that non-convulsant alpha 5-selective GABA-A inverse agonists could improve learning and memory deficits in DS individuals.

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

4.3
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