4.6 Article

Lamina-Specific Alterations in Cortical GABAA Receptor Subunit Expression in Schizophrenia

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 999-1011

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhq169

关键词

inhibition; in situ hybridization; interneurons; postmortem; prefrontal cortex

资金

  1. National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression
  2. National Institutes of Health [MH043784, MH084053]
  3. BMS Foundation
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Curridium Ltd
  6. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dysfunction of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in schizophrenia is associated with lamina-specific alterations in particular subpopulations of interneurons. In pyramidal cells, postsynaptic gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA(A)) receptors containing different alpha subunits are inserted preferentially in distinct subcellular locations targeted by inputs from specific interneuron subpopulations. We used in situ hybridization to quantify the laminar expression of alpha 1, alpha 2, alpha 3, and alpha 5 subunit, and of beta 1-3 subunit, mRNAs in the DLFPC of schizophrenia, and matched normal comparison subjects. In subjects with schizophrenia, mean GABA(A) alpha 1 mRNA expression was 17% lower in layers 3 and 4, alpha 2 expression was 14% higher in layer 2, alpha 5 expression was 15% lower in layer 4, and alpha 3 expression did not differ relative to comparison subjects. The mRNA expression of beta 2, which preferentially assembles with alpha 1 subunits, was also 20% lower in layers 3 and 4, whereas beta 1 and beta 3 mRNA levels were not altered in schizophrenia. These expression differences were not attributable to medication effects or other potential confounds. These findings suggest that GABA neurotransmission in the DLPFC is altered at the postsynaptic level in a receptor subunit- and layer-specific manner in subjects with schizophrenia and support the hypothesis that GABA neurotransmission in this illness is predominantly impaired in certain cortical microcircuits.

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