4.6 Article

Impaired Intracortical Transmission in G2019S Leucine Rich-Repeat Kinase Parkinson Patients

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 750-756

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.26931

关键词

Parkinson disease; LRRK2; TMS; cortical plasticity; levodopa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: A mutation in leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 is the most common cause of hereditary Parkinson's disease (PD), yet the neural mechanisms and the circuitry potentially involved are poorly understood. Methods: We used different transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols to explore in the primary motor cortex the activity of intracortical circuits and cortical plasticity (long-term potentiation) in patients with the G2019S leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 gene mutation when compared with idiopathic PD patients and age-matched healthy subjects. Paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to investigate short intracortical inhibition and facilitation and short afferent inhibition. Intermittent theta burst stimulation, a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, was used to test long-term potentiation-like cortical plasticity. Leucinerich repeat kinase 2 and idiopathic PD were tested both in ON and in OFF L-dopa therapy. Results: When compared with idiopathic PD and healthy subjects, leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 PD patients showed a remarkable reduction of short intracortical inhibition in both ON and in OFF L-dopa therapy. This reduction was paralleled by an increase of intracortical facilitation in OFF L-dopa therapy. Leucinerich repeat kinase 2 PD showed abnormal long-term potentiation-like cortical plasticity in ON L-dopa therapy. Discussion: The motor cortex in leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 mutated PD patients is strongly disinhibited and hyperexcitable. These abnormalities could be a result of an impairment of inhibitory (gamma-Aminobutyric acid) transmission eventually related to altered neurotransmitter release. (C) 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

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