Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T12:05:51.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of glutamatergic antagonism on motor variability, and comparison to findings in schizophrenia patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

Erik Johnsen ,
Ole Bernt Fasmer ,
Heidi van Wageningen ,
Kenneth Hugdahl ,
Erik Hauge  and
Hugo A. Jørgensen
Erik Johnsen*
Affiliation:
Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Psychiatry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Ole Bernt Fasmer
Affiliation:
Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Psychiatry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Heidi van Wageningen
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Kenneth Hugdahl
Affiliation:
Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Erik Hauge
Affiliation:
Olaviken Psychiatric Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Hugo A. Jørgensen
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Medicine, Section for Psychiatry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
*
Dr Erik Johnsen, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Sandviksleitet 1, N‐5035 Bergen, Norway. Tel: +47 55958400; Fax: +47 55958436; E‐mail: erik.johnsen@helse-bergen.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The primary aim of this explorative study was to investigate the influence of the glutamatergic N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist memantine on motor activity in healthy subjects. Secondarily, we wanted to compare these data to findings in a sample of schizophrenia patients.

Methods

The healthy subjects acted as their own controls in an open‐within‐subject design. Motor activity was recorded with an actigraph worn for 24 h in the drug‐free, and steady‐state memantine conditions, respectively. Motor activity levels for 1‐min intervals were analysed by means of both linear and nonlinear methods. The schizophrenia patients were monitored only once, without memantine manipulation.

Results

The root mean square successive differences (RMSSD) and the RMSSD/SD ratio were increased by memantine, and memantine was also associated with lower autocorrelation (lag 1) but in recordings from the right arm only. These movement patterns partly corresponded to those found in a sample of drug‐treated schizophrenia patients. Total activity level, standard deviation (SD) and sample entropy were not significantly different in the memantine versus drug‐free condition.

Conclusion

The findings suggest a role for the NMDA receptor in the regulation of motor activity in healthy individuals as memantine increased the variability in the motor recordings and the alterations between adjacent motor recordings. It is suggested that the findings may be relevant to the role played by glutamate and the NMDA receptor functioning to the motor disturbances in schizophrenia.

Keywords

glutamate antagonistsmotor activityschizophrenia
Type
Original Articles
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 105 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Scandinavian College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Tzschentke, TM. Glutamatergic mechanisms in different disease states: overview and therapeutical implications – an introduction. Amino Acids 2002;23:147–152.Google Scholar
2Kalia, LV, Kalia, SK, Salter, MW. NMDA receptors in clinical neurology: excitatory times ahead. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:742–755.Google Scholar
3Sukhanov, IM, Zakharova, ES, Danysz, W, Bespalov, AY. Effects of NMDA receptor channel blockers, MK‐801 and memantine, on locomotor activity and tolerance to delay of reward in Wistar‐Kyoto and spontaneously hypertensive rats. Behav Pharmacol 2004;15:263–271.Google Scholar
4Mares, P, Mikulecka, A. Different effects of two N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate receptor antagonists on seizures, spontaneous behavior, and motor performance in immature rats. Epilepsy Behav 2009;14:32–39.Google Scholar
5Andreassen, OA, Aamo, TO, Joorgensen, HA. Inhibition by memantine of the development of persistent oral dyskinesias induced by long‐term haloperidol treatment of rats. Br J Pharmacol 1996;119:751–757.Google Scholar
6Andreassen, OA, Waage, J, Finsen, B, Jorgensen, HA. Memantine attenuates the increase in striatal preproenkephalin mRNA expression and development of haloperidol‐induced persistent oral dyskinesias in rats. Brain Res 2003;994:188–192.Google Scholar
7Schwenkreis, P, Witscher, K, Pleger, B, Malin, JP, Tegenthoff, M. The NMDA antagonist memantine affects training induced motor cortex plasticity–a study using transcranial magnetic stimulation. BMC Neurosci 2005;6:35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Rammsayer, TH. NMDA receptor activity and the transmission of sensory input into motor output in introverts and extraverts. Q J Exp Psychol B 2003;56:207–221.Google Scholar
9Morrens, M, Hulstijn, W, Sabbe, B. Psychomotor slowing in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2007;33:1038–1053.Google Scholar
10Pappa, S, Dazzan, P. Spontaneous movement disorders in antipsychotic‐naive patients with first‐episode psychoses: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2009;39:1065–1076.Google Scholar
11Berle, JO, Hauge, ER, Oedegaard, KJ, Holsten, F, Fasmer, OB. Actigraphic registration of motor activity reveals a more structured behavioural pattern in schizophrenia than in major depression. BMC Res Notes 2010;3:149.Google Scholar
12Di Mascio, M, Di Giovanni, G, Di Matteo, V, Esposito, E. Decreased chaos of midbrain dopaminergic neurons after serotonin denervation. Neuroscience 1999;92:237–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Ehlers, CL. Chaos and complexity. Can it help us to understand mood and behavior? Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:960–964.Google Scholar
14Huikuri, HV, Makikallio, TH, Peng, CK, Goldberger, AL, Hintze, U, Moller, M. Fractal correlation properties of R‐R interval dynamics and mortality in patients with depressed left ventricular function after an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2000;101:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ilias, I, Vgontzas, AN, Provata, A, Mastorakos, G. Complexity and non‐linear description of diurnal cortisol and growth hormone secretory patterns before and after sleep deprivation. Endocr Regul 2002;36:63–72.Google Scholar
16Kramlinger, KG, Post, RM. Ultra‐rapid and ultradian cycling in bipolar affective illness. Br J Psychiatry 1996;168:314–323.Google Scholar
17Liu, PY, Iranmanesh, A, Keenan, DM, Pincus, SM, Veldhuis, JD. A noninvasive measure of negative‐feedback strength, approximate entropy, unmasks strong diurnal variations in the regularity of LH secretion. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2007;293:E1409–E1415.Google Scholar
18Tuzcu, V, Nas, S, Borklu, T, Ugur, A. Decrease in the heart rate complexity prior to the onset of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2006;8:398–402.Google Scholar
19Aboy, M, Cuesta‐Frau, D, Austin, D, Mico‐Tormos, P. Characterization of sample entropy in the context of biomedical signal analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:5943–5946.Google Scholar
20Hauge, ER, Berle, JO, Oedegaard, KJ, Holsten, F, Fasmer, OB. Nonlinear analysis of motor activity shows differences between schizophrenia and depression: a study using Fourier analysis and sample entropy. PLoS One 2011;6:e16291.Google Scholar
21Rhoades, HM, Overall, JE. The semistructured BPRS interview and rating guide. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:101–104.Google Scholar
22Nose, M, Tansella, M, Thornicroft, G, et al. Is the Defined Daily Dose system a reliable tool for standardizing antipsychotic dosages? Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;23:287–290.Google Scholar
23Parsons, CG, Danysz, W, Quack, G. Memantine is a clinically well tolerated N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist–a review of preclinical data. Neuropharmacology 1999;38:735–767.Google Scholar
24Richman, JS, Moorman, JR. Physiological time‐series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000;278:H2039–H2049.Google Scholar
25Goldberger, AL, Amaral, LA, Glass, L, et al. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation 2000;101:E215–E220.Google Scholar
26Fink, M, Shorter, E, Taylor, MA. Catatonia is not schizophrenia: Kraepelin's error and the need to recognize catatonia as an independent syndrome in medical nomenclature. Schizophr Bull 2010;36:314–320.Google Scholar
27Tandon, R, Jibson, MD. Extrapyramidal side effects of antipsychotic treatment: scope of problem and impact on outcome. Ann Clin Psychiatry 2002;14:123–129.Google Scholar
28Howes, OD, Kapur, S. The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia: version III–the final common pathway. Schizophr Bull 2009;35:549–562.Google Scholar
29Korchounov, A, Meyer, MF, Krasnianski, M. Postsynaptic nigrostriatal dopamine receptors and their role in movement regulation. J Neural Transm 2010;117:1359–1369.Google Scholar
30Abi‐Dargham, A, Laruelle, M. Mechanisms of action of second generation antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: insights from brain imaging studies. Eur Psychiatry 2005;20:15–27.Google Scholar
31Leucht, S, Corves, C, Arbter, D, Engel, RR, Li, C, Davis, JM. Second‐generation versus first‐generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta‐analysis. Lancet 2009;373:31–41.Google Scholar
32Walther, S, Horn, H, Razavi, N, Koschorke, P, Muller, TJ, Strik, W. Quantitative motor activity differentiates schizophrenia subtypes. Neuropsychobiology 2009;60:80–86.Google Scholar