4.7 Review

Some distorted thoughts about ketamine as a psychedelic and a novel hypothesis based on NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 30-40

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.06.008

关键词

Psychedelics; Ketamine; Phencyclidine; PCP; NMDA receptors; GluN2D subunit; Short-term potentiation; STP; Long-term potentiation; LTP; Memory; Working memory

资金

  1. Royal Society [RSG\R1\180384]
  2. CIHR
  3. MRC [MR/K023098/1]
  4. MRC [MR/K023098/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketamine, a channel blocking NMDA receptor antagonist, is used off-label for its psychedelic effects, which may arise from a combination of several inter-related actions. Firstly, reductions of the contribution of NMDA receptors to afferent information from external and internal sensory inputs may distort sensations and their processing in higher brain centres. Secondly, reductions of NMDA receptor mediated excitation of GABAergic interneurons can result in glutamatergic overactivity. Thirdly, limbic cortical disinhibition may indirectly enhance dopaminergic and serotonergic activity. Fourthly, inhibition of NMDA receptor mediated synaptic plasticity, such as short-term potentiation (STP) and long-term potentiation (LTP), could lead to distorted memories. Here, for the first time, we compared quantitatively the effects of ketamine on STP and LTP. We report that ketamine inhibits STP in a double sigmoidal fashion with low (40 nM) and high (5.6 mu M) IC50 values. In contrast, ketamine inhibits LTP in a single sigmoidal manner (IC50 value similar to 15 mu M). A GIuN2D-subunit preferring NMDA receptor antagonist, UBP145, has a similar pharmacological profile. We propose that the psychedelic effects of ketamine may involve the inhibition of STP and, potentially, associated forms of working memory. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Psychedelics: New Doors, Altered Perceptions'. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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