4.7 Review

Genetic association studies of glutamate, GABA and related genes in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A decade of advance

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 958-977

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.01.002

关键词

Schizophrenia; Bipolar disorder; Glutamate; Glutamatergic

资金

  1. NHG [SIG/05028, SIG/05004]
  2. SBIC [RP C-009/2006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) are debilitating neurobehavioural disorders likely influenced by genetic and non-genetic factors and which can be seen as complex disorders of synaptic neurotransmission. The glutamatergic and GABAergic neurotransmission systems have been implicated in both diseases and we have reviewed extensive literature over a decade for evidence to support the association of glutamate and GABA genes in SZ and BD. Candidate-gene based population and family association studies have implicated some ionotrophic glutamate receptor genes (GRIN1, GRIN2A, GRIN2B and GRIK3), metabotropic glutamate receptor genes (such as GRM3), the G72/G30 locus and GABAergic genes (e.g. GAD1 and GABRB2) in both illnesses to varying degrees, but further replication studies are needed to validate these results. There is at present no consensus on specific single nucleotide polymorphisms or halpotypes associated with the particular candidate gene loci in these illnesses. The genetic architecture of glutamate systems in bipolar disorder need to be better studied in view of recent data suggesting an overlap in the genetic aetiology of SZ and BD. There is a pressing need to integrate research platforms in genomics, epistatic models, proteomics, metabolomics, neuroimaging technology and translational studies in order to allow a more integrated understanding of glutamate and GABAergic signalling processes and aberrations in SZ and BD as well as their relationships with clinical presentations and treatment progress over time. (C) 2010 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

4.7
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