Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Postmortem Alterations of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors across Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review
Kani R, Kaku T, Arai Y, Etani T, Huh S, Saito K, Homma S, Takahashi K et al.. bioRxiv, 2026-09-03
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
Metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) regulate glutamatergic transmission and have been implicated in diverse neuropsychiatric disorders, but human postmortem evidence remains fragmented. We aimed to map these findings across diagnoses, receptor subtypes, brain regions, and measurement modalities. Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to August 8, 2026, for studies assessing GRM transcripts, as well as mGluR protein abundance, localization, assembly, or receptor binding in human postmortem brain tissue. Of 532 records identified, 57 reports met eligibility criteria. Findings were synthesized narratively because of substantial heterogeneity in diagnoses, brain regions, receptor subtypes, and assays. Postmortem evidence was concentrated on mGluR5, mGluR2/3, and mGluR1, and on the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus. mGluR-related alterations were reported across disorders, including schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, Alzheimer disease, autism spectrum disorder, and alcohol use disorder. Although most analyses yielded null findings, the direction and magnitude of mGluR alterations varied across brain regions, receptor subtypes, and molecular endpoints. This inconsistency may partly reflect the distinct biological levels captured by transcript abundance, total protein, receptor assembly, localization, and ligand binding, together with regional, cell-type, disease-stage, and clinical heterogeneity. The available evidence therefore suggests context-dependent alterations in mGluR biology but not a uniform or disorder-specific molecular signature. Integration of postmortem findings with other approaches, including in vivo imaging, may clarify their biological and clinical significance.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kani, R., Kaku, T., Arai, Y., Etani, T., Huh, S., Saito, K., et al. (2026). Postmortem Alterations of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors across Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.29.748003
Vancouver
Kani R, Kaku T, Arai Y, Etani T, Huh S, Saito K, et al. Postmortem Alterations of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors across Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review. bioRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.08.29.748003.
BibTeX
@article{kani2026-65d6a8d2,
author = {Kani, R. and Kaku, T. and Arai, Y. and Etani, T. and Huh, S. and Saito, K. and Homma, S. and Takahashi, K. and others},
title = {{Postmortem Alterations of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors across Neuropsychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {bioRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.08.29.748003},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.29.748003}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We aimed to map these findings across diagnoses, receptor subtypes, brain regions, and measurement modalities.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (bioRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Prevention and risk
Also tagged “dendritic”
287 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dendritic”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 287 tagged studies.