Volume 26, Issue 5

Multiple players are involved in the brain integrative action besides the classical neuronal and astrocyte networks. In the past, the concept of complex cellular networks has been introduced to indicate that all the cell types in the brain can play roles in its integrative action. Intercellular communication in the complex cellular networks depends not only on well-delimited communication channels (wiring transmission) but also on diffusion of signals in physically poorly delimited extracellular space pathways (volume transmission). Thus, the extracellular space and the extracellular matrix are the main players in the intercellular communication modes in the brain. Hence, the extracellular matrix is an ‘intelligent glue’ that fills the brain and, together with the extracellular space, contributes to the building-up of the complex cellular networks. In addition, the extracellular matrix is part of what has been defined as the global molecular network enmeshing the entire central nervous system, and plays important roles in synaptic contact homeostasis and plasticity. From these premises, a concept is introduced that the global molecular network, by enmeshing the central nervous system, contributes to the brain holistic behavior. Furthermore, it is suggested that plastic ‘brain compartments’ can be detected in the central nervous system based on the astrocyte three-dimensional tiling of the brain volume and on the existence of local differences in cell types and extracellular space fluid and extracellular matrix composition. The relevance of the present view for neuropsychiatry is discussed. A glossary box with terms and definitions is provided.

Long-term potentiation (LTP) remains the most widely accepted model for learning and memory. In accordance with this belief, the temporal differentiation of LTP into early and late phases is accepted as reflecting the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory. Moreover, during the past 30 years, protein synthesis inhibitors have been used to separate the early, protein synthesis-independent (E-LTP) phase and the late, protein synthesis-dependent (L-LTP) phase. However, the role of these proteins has not been formally identified. Additionally, several reports failed to show an effect of protein synthesis inhibitors on LTP. In this review, a detailed analysis of extensive behavioral and electrophysiological data reveals that the presumed correspondence of LTP temporal phases to memory phases is neither experimentally nor theoretically consistent. Moreover, an overview of the time courses of E-LTP in hippocampal slices reveals a wide variability ranging from <1 h to more than 5 h. The existence of all these conflictual findings should lead to a new vision of LTP. We believe that the E-LTP vs. L-LTP distinction, established with protein synthesis inhibitor studies, reflects a false dichotomy. We suggest that the duration of LTP and its dependency on protein synthesis are related to the availability of a set of proteins at synapses and not to the de novo synthesis of plasticity-related proteins. This availability is determined by protein turnover kinetics, which is regulated by previous and ongoing electrical activities and by energy store availability.

Success in treating patients with atypical parkinsonism remains exceedingly low. It is particularly important for both neurologists and general practicians to have a guideline in the actual possible cure options. This study reviews the limited available literature reporting treatment trials about treatment in parkinsonism. Various therapeutical approaches have been tried with rasagiline, immunoglobulin, autologous mesenchymal stem cells, davunetide, lithium, and tideglusib. Recently, the transdermal rotigotine has been proposed for the treatment of atypical parkinsonism, as well as deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the peduncolopontine nucleus alone or combined with globus pallidus internus stimulation. The outcomes reviewed here highlight the need for the development of randomized, placebo-controlled trials to validate outcomes about rotigotine, DBS, and all other new therapies directed at altering the underlying biological mechanisms involved in the disease process.

Stress is a state of threatened homeostasis during which a variety of adaptive processes are activated to produce physiological and behavioral changes. Stress induction methods are pivotal for understanding these physiological or pathophysiological changes in the body in response to stress. Furthermore, these methods are also important for the development of novel pharmacological agents for stress management. The well-described methods to induce stress in humans include the cold pressor test, Trier Social Stress Test, Montreal Imaging Stress Task, Maastricht Acute Stress Test, CO 2 challenge test, Stroop test, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task, noise stress, and Mannheim Multicomponent Stress Test. Stress assessment in humans is done by measuring biochemical markers such as cortisol, cortisol awakening response, dexamethasone suppression test, salivary α-amylase, plasma/urinary norepinephrine, norepinephrine spillover rate, and interleukins. Physiological and behavioral changes such as galvanic skin response, heart rate variability, pupil size, and muscle and/or skin sympathetic nerve activity (microneurography) and cardiovascular parameters such as heart rate, blood pressure, and self-reported anxiety are also monitored to assess stress response. This present review describes these commonly employed methods to induce stress in humans along with stress assessment methods.

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is one of the common causes of low back pain. Similar to many other multifactorial diseases, it is affected by environmental and genetic factors. Although not completely understood, genetic factors include a wide spectrum of variations, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms, which could play a significant role in the etiology of this disease. Besides, the interactions with environmental factors could make the role of genetic factors more complicated. Genetic variations in disc components could participate in developing degenerative disc disease through altering the normal homeostasis of discs. Gene polymorphisms in disc proteins (collagens I, II, III, IX, and XI), proteoglycans (aggrecan), cytokines (interleukins I, VI, and X), enzymes (matrix metalloproteinases II, III, and IX), and vitamin D receptor seem to play considerable roles in the pathology of this disease. There are also many other investigated genes that could somehow take part in the process. However, it seems that more studies are needed to clarify the exact role of genetics in IVDD.