Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Neural basis of major depressive disorder: Beyond monoamine hypothesis
Boku S, Nakagawa S, Toda H, Hishimoto A.. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2017-10-19
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
The monoamine hypothesis has been accepted as the most common hypothesis of major depressive disorder (MDD) for a long period because of its simplicity and understandability. Actually, most currently used antidepressants have been considered to act based on the monoamine hypothesis. However, an important problem of the monoamine hypothesis has been pointed out as follows: it fails to explain the latency of response to antidepressants. In addition, many patients with MDD have remained refractory to currently used antidepressants. Therefore, monoamine-alternate hypotheses are required to explain the latency of response to antidepressants. Such hypotheses have been expected to contribute to identifying hopeful new therapeutic targets for MDD. Past studies have revealed that the volume of the hippocampus is decreased in patients with MDD, which is likely caused by the failure of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and following elevation of glucocorticoids. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the volume of the hippocampus: (i) the neuroplasticity hypothesis; and (ii) the neurogenesis hypothesis. The neuroplasticity hypothesis explains how the hippocampal volume is decreased by the morphological changes of hippocampal neurons, such as the shortening length of dendrites and the decreased number and density of spines. The neurogenesis hypothesis explains how the hippocampal volume is decreased by the decrease of neurogenesis in the hippocampal dentate gyrus. These hypotheses are able to explain the latency of response to antidepressants. In this review, we first overview how the neuroplasticity and neurogenesis hypotheses have been developed. We then describe the details of these hypotheses.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Boku, S., Nakagawa, S., Toda, H., & Hishimoto, A. (2018). Neural basis of major depressive disorder: Beyond monoamine hypothesis. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12604
Vancouver
Boku S, Nakagawa S, Toda H, Hishimoto A. Neural basis of major depressive disorder: Beyond monoamine hypothesis. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2018. doi:10.1111/pcn.12604. PMID: 28926161.
BibTeX
@article{boku2018-28926161,
author = {Boku, S. and Nakagawa, S. and Toda, H. and Hishimoto, A.},
title = {{Neural basis of major depressive disorder: Beyond monoamine hypothesis}},
journal = {Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1111/pcn.12604},
pmid = {28926161},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12604}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Past studies have revealed that the volume of the hippocampus is decreased in patients with MDD, which is likely caused by the failure of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and following elevation of glucocorticoids.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28926161) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “disorder”
492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.