Contingent Tunes of Neurochemical Ensembles in the Norm and Pathology: Can We See the Patterns?

Abstract

Background/Aims: Progress in the development of DSM/ICD taxonomies has revealed limitations of both label-based and dimensionality approaches. These approaches fail to address the contingent, nonlinear, context-dependent, and transient nature of those biomarkers linked to specific symptoms of psychopathology or to specific biobehavioural traits of healthy people (temperament). The present review aims to highlight the benefits of a functional constructivism approach in the analysis of neurochemical biomarkers underlying temperament and psychopathology. Method: A review was performed. Results: Eight systems are identified, and 7 neurochemical ensembles are described in detail. None of these systems is represented by a single neurotransmitter; all of them work in ensembles with each other. The functionality and relationships of these systems are presented here in association with their roles in action construction, with brief examples of psychopathology. The review introduces formal symbols for these systems to facilitate their more compact analysis in the future. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates the possibility of constructivism-based unifying taxonomies of temperament (in the framework of the neurochemical model functional ensemble of temperament) and classifications of psychiatric disorders. Such taxonomies would present the biobehavioural individual differences as consistent behavioural patterns generated within a formally structured space of parameters related to the generation of behaviour.

Functional Constructivism Approach to Multilevel Nature of Bio-Behavioral Diversity

“…The three emotionality-related traits [Neuroticism, Impulsivity and (a disposition for) Satisfaction] are emotional dispositions, linked to dysregulation of opioid receptor density. They amplify the three key regulatory aspects described in the FET columns: sensory-orientational mobilization; selective acceleration of actions and subjective comfort and security ( 24 – 26 ). A consistent dysregulation within these teamed relationships can induce behavioral dispositions to act a certain way (for example, either to have more orientation than performance or to have more performance than orientation; either have more verbal than physical behavior or vice versa).…”

“…The goal of this review is to highlight the correspondence of functionality of neurochemical systems with the universal functional aspects of the common tasks that are shaped by bio-social environment. Aspects of this functionality have been presented earlier as the neurochemical model Functional Ensemble of Temperament (FET) (24)(25)(26)(27)(28). This review highlights only few, primarily global aspects of behavioral regulation, omitting a big number of more detailed functional relationships within these neurochemical systems.…”

“…A detailed justification of the OR-related components of the FET model is given elsewhere (24)(25)(26). Here note that the OR are classified into four groups, three of which are most relevant here: mu (MOR) binding endorphins; kappa (KOR) reacting to dynorphins, and delta (DOR) binding enkephalins (41,149,186).…”

“…Regardless of the degree, the dynamics of OR-activation cycles can be a factor in emotional behavioral dispositions that persist even in the absence of triggering events that could explain them. In light of these arguments, the FET model includes three OR-driven CBPs: Neuroticism (as KOR suppression of MOR systems and DA release), dispositional Satisfaction (as the opposite pattern) and Spontaneity (Impulsivity, as DOR dysregulation) (24)(25)(26).…”

“…These levels correspond to distinctions between physical, socio-relational and abstract-probabilistic regulators. The FET model organizes temperament traits and symptoms of mental illness in a 3 × 4 matrix categorized by formal functional aspects of human behavior (FET rows are highlighted in gray) [ Table 2 , Figure 3 ( 3 , 24 – 26 , 28 )]. Nine out of 12 components within the FET represent traits regulating behavioral endurance, integration and expansion of d.f.…”