4.5 Article

Prospects for Improving Brain Function in Individuals with Down Syndrome

期刊

CNS DRUGS
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 679-702

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-013-0089-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Colorado Clinical and Translational Institute (CCTSI)
  2. Instituto Alana
  3. Forest Research Institute [NAM-58]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Down syndrome (DS), which results from an extra copy of chromosome 21 (trisomy 21), is the most common genetically defined cause of intellectual disability. Although no pharmacotherapy aimed at counteracting the cognitive and adaptive deficits associated with this genetic disorder has been approved at present, there have been several new promising studies on pharmacological agents capable of rescuing learning/memory deficits seen in mouse models of DS. Here, we will review the available mouse models for DS and provide a comprehensive, albeit not exhaustive review of the following preclinical research strategies: (1) SOD1 and antioxidant agents; (2) APP and gamma-secretase inhibitors; (3) DYRK1A and the polyphenol epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG); (4) GIRK2 and fluoxetine; (5) adrenergic receptor agonists; (6) modulation of GABA(A) and GABA(B) receptors; (7) agonism of the hedgehog signaling pathway; (8) nerve growth factor (NGF) and other neurotrophic factors; (9) anticholinesterase (AChE) agents; and (10) antagonism of NMDA receptors. Finally, we will review briefly five different strategies in DS that have led to clinical studies that either have been concluded or are currently underway: (1) antioxidant therapy; (2) AChE therapy; (3) green tea extract therapy; (4) RG1662 therapy; and (5) memantine therapy. These are exciting times in DS research. Within a decade or so, it is well into the realm of possibility that new forms of pharmacotherapies might become valuable tools in the armamentarium of developmental clinicians, as adjutants to more traditional and proven forms of habilitative interventions aimed at improving the quality of life of individuals with DS.

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

4.5
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