4.3 Review

Epilepsy research methods update: Understanding the causes of epileptic seizures and identifying new treatments using non-mammalian model organisms

期刊

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 44-51

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2014.09.018

关键词

Epilepsy; Epileptogenesis; Ictogenesis; Anti epileptic drugs; Non-mammalian; Animal research

资金

  1. Eisai Limited (UK)
  2. MRC [MC_G0802527] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Epilepsy Research UK [PGE1303] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_G0802527] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) [G0900775/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This narrative review is intended to introduce clinicians treating epilepsy and researchers familiar with mammalian models of epilepsy to experimentally tractable, non-mammalian research models used in epilepsy research, ranging from unicellular eukaryotes to more complex multicellular organisms. The review focuses on four model organisms: the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum, the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the zebrafish Danio redo. We consider recent discoveries made with each model organism and discuss the importance of these advances for the understanding and treatment of epilepsy in humans. The relative ease with which mutations in genes of interest can be produced and studied quickly and cheaply in these organisms, together with their anatomical and physiological simplicity in comparison to mammalian species, are major advantages when researchers are trying to unravel complex disease mechanisms. The short generation times of most of these model organisms also mean that they lend themselves particularly conveniently to the investigation of drug effects or epileptogenic processes across the lifecourse. (C) 2014 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier 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

4.3
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