4.6 Article

Pimavanserin treatment increases plasma brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in rats

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1237726

关键词

Pimavanserin; Fluoxetine; BDNF; Parkinson's Disease psychosis; neuroplasticity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that the therapeutic effectiveness of Pimavanserin in Parkinson's Disease psychosis may be related to its ability to increase mature BDNF levels.
BackgroundPimavanserin, a serotonin 5HT-2A receptor inverse agonist is the first-line, FDA-approved treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's Disease psychosis (PDP), which occurs in up to 50% of PD patients. The neurobiological mechanism underlying the therapeutic effectiveness of Pimavanserin in PDP remains unknown. Several earlier studies have shown that treatment with 5HT-2A antagonists and other drugs acting on the serotonergic system such as SSRIs increase Brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels in rodents. BDNF is synthesized as the precursor proBDNF, that undergoes cleavage intra or extracellularly to produce a mature BDNF (mBDNF) protein. mBDNF is believed to play a key role in neuroplasticity and neurogenesis. The present study tested the hypothesis that treatment with Pimavanserin is associated with higher and sustained elevations of mBDNF.MethodsAdult Sprague-Dawley male rats were treated with Pimavanserin, Fluoxetine or vehicle for 4 weeks (chronic) or 2 h (acute). BDNF levels were determined by enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsWe found significant increases in plasma mBDNF levels in rats following chronic Pimavanserin treatment, but not in Fluoxetine-treated rats. No significant changes in mBDNF levels were found in the prefrontal cortex or hippocampus following Pimavanserin or Fluoxetine treatment.ConclusionThese findings suggest that increase in mBDNF levels could be a contributing mechanism for the neuroprotective potential of Pimavanserin.

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

4.6
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