4.6 Review

Low striatal glutamate levels underlie cognitive decline in the elderly: Evidence from in vivo molecular spectroscopy

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 2241-2250

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhm250

关键词

aging; cognition; frontostriatal circuitry; glutamate; human; imaging

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG017919]
  2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [AA012388, AA005965]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG017919] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [R01AA012388, R01AA005965, R37AA005965] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutamate (Glu), the principal excitatory neurotransmitter of prefrontal cortical efferents, potentially mediates higher order cognitive processes, and its altered availability may underlie mechanisms of age-related decline in frontally based functions. Although animal studies support a role for Glu in age-related cognitive deterioration, human studies, which require magnetic resonance spectroscopy for in vivo measurement of this neurotransmitter, have been impeded because of the similarity of Glu's spectroscopic signature to those of neighboring spectral brain metabolites. Here, we used a spectroscopic protocol, optimized for Glu detection, to examine the effect of age in 3 brain regions targeted by cortical efferents-the striatum, cerebellum, and pons-and to test whether performance on frontally based cognitive tests would be predicted by regional Glu levels. Healthy elderly men and women had lower Glu in the striatum but not pons or cerebellum than young adults. In the combined age groups, levels of striatal Glu (but no other proton metabolite also measured) correlated selectively with performance on cognitive tests showing age-related decline. The selective relations between performance and striatal Glu provide initial and novel, human in vivo support for age-related modification of Glu levels as contributing to cognitive decline in normal aging.

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