4.5 Review

Optogenetic insights on the relationship between anxiety-related behaviors and social deficits

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00241

关键词

social deficits; optogenetics; basolateral maygdala; ventral hippocampus; mouse models of affective disorders; social interaction; autism

资金

  1. BCS department
  2. Picower Institute
  3. PIIF Funds from the JPB Foundation
  4. Whitehall Foundation
  5. Klingenstein Foundation
  6. Whitehead Career Development Professorship
  7. NARSAD
  8. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  9. NIH [DP2-DK-102256-01]
  10. NIMH [R01-MH102441-01]
  11. Henry E Singleton Fund
  12. NIGMS [T32(GM007484)]
  13. NWO Rubicon Program
  14. Simons Center for the Social Brain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many psychiatric illnesses are characterized by deficits in the social domain. For example, there is a high rate of co-morbidity between autism spectrum disorders and anxiety disorders. However, the common neural circuit mechanisms by which social deficits and other psychiatric disease states, such as anxiety, are co-expressed remains unclear. Here, we review optogenetic investigations of neural circuits in animal models of anxiety-related behaviors and social behaviors and discuss the important role of the amygdala in mediating aspects of these behaviors. In particular, we focus on recent evidence that projections from the basolateral amygdala (BLA) to the ventral hippocampus (vHPC) modulate anxiety-related behaviors and also alter social interaction. Understanding how this circuit influences both social behavior and anxiety may provide a mechanistic explanation for the pathogenesis of social anxiety disorder, as well as the prevalence of patients co-diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and anxiety disorders. Furthermore, elucidating how circuits that modulate social behavior also mediate other complex emotional states will lead to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which social deficits are expressed in psychiatric disease.

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

4.5
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