4.4 Article

Altered prefrontal cortical MARCKS and PPP1R9A mRNA expression in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 164, 期 1-3, 页码 100-108

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.02.005

关键词

Schizophrenia; Bipolar disorder; Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; qRT-PCR; Postmortem; Actin cytoskeleton

资金

  1. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We previously observed dendritic spine loss in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder subjects. In the current study, we sought to determine if the mRNA expression of genes known to regulate the actin cytoskeleton and spines correlated with spine loss. Methods: Five candidate genes were identified using previously obtained microarray data from the DLPFC from schizophrenia and control subjects. The relative mRNA expression of the genes linked to dendritic spine growth and function, i.e. IGF1R, MARCKS, PPP1R9A, PTPRF, and ARHGEF2, was assessed using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) in the DLPFC from a second cohort including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and control subjects. Functional pathway analysis was conducted to determine which actin cytoskeleton-regulatory pathways the genes of interest interact with. Results: MARCKS mRNA expression was increased in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder subjects. PPP1R9A mRNA expression was increased in bipolar disorder subjects. For IGF1R, mRNA expression did not differ significantly among groups; however, it did show a significant, negative correlation with dendrite length. MARCKS and PPP1R9A mRNA expression did not correlate with spine loss, but they interact with NMDA receptor signaling pathways that regulate the actin cytoskeleton and spines. Conclusions: MARCKS and PPP1R9A might contribute to spine loss in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through their interactions, possibly indirect ones, with NMDA signaling pathways that regulate spine structure and function. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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