4.7 Article

Evidence for Impaired Neocortical Synaptic Plasticity in Bipolar II Disorder

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 68-74

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.09.026

关键词

Bipolar disorders; depression; long-term depression; long-term potentiation; synaptic plasticity; visual evoked potential

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [167153/V50]
  2. Thematically Organized Psychosis (TOP) study group
  3. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority
  4. Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Synaptic plasticity might play an important role in the pathophysiology and treatment of bipolar disorders. There is, however, a paucity of human evidence supporting this hypothesis, mainly due to a lack of methods for noninvasive assessment of synaptic plasticity. It has recently been demonstrated that plasticity of the visual evoked potential (VEP) induced by repeated visual stimulation might reflect synaptic plasticity. In this study, we examined VEP plasticity in healthy control subjects and patients with bipolar II disorder (BD-II). Methods: Forty healthy control subjects and 26 individuals with a DSM-IV diagnosis of BD-II matched for age and gender participated. The VEPs were evoked by checkerboard reversal stimulation before and after a modulation block of prolonged (10 min) visual stimulation. Results: The modulation block resulted in significant VEP plasticity in healthy control subjects. The VEP plasticity was significantly impaired in patients with BD-II. Explorative analyses indicated a trend toward a less severe impairment in medicated than in unmedicated patients. Conclusions: Visual evoked potential plasticity might represent a reliable and robust assay for studies of synaptic plasticity in vivo in humans. In addition, our findings support the hypothesis of impaired synaptic plasticity in BD-II. Longitudinal studies are needed to fully clarify the effects of medication and mood state on VEP plasticity.

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