4.4 Review

Animal models in psychiatric research: The RDoC system as a new framework for endophenotype-oriented translational neuroscience

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF STRESS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 47-56

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2017.03.003

关键词

RDoC; Translational research; Animal models; Endophenotypes; Basic studies; Normality and psychopathology continuum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recently proposed Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) system defines psychopathologies as phenomena of multilevel neurobiological existence and assigns them to 5 behavioural domains characterizing a brain in action. We performed an analysis on this contemporary concept of psychopathologies in respect to a brain phylogeny and biological substrates of psychiatric diseases. We found that the RDoC system uses biological determinism to explain the pathogenesis of distinct psychiatric symptoms and emphasises exploration of endophenotypes but not of complex diseases. Therefore, as a possible framework for experimental studies it allows one to evade a major challenge of translational studies of strict disease-to-model correspondence. The system conforms with the concept of a normality and pathology continuum, therefore, supports basic studies. The units of analysis of the RDoC system appear as a novel matrix for model validation. The general regulation and arousal, positive valence, negative valence, and social interactions behavioural domains of the RDoC system show basic construct, network, and phenomenological homologies between human and experimental animals. The nature and complexity of the cognitive behavioural domain of the RDoC system deserve further clarification. These homologies in the 4 domains justifies the validity, reliably and translatability of animal models appearing as endophenotypes of the negative and positive affect, social interaction and general regulation and arousal systems' dysfunction. (c) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

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

4.4
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