2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.04.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translating Neurogenomics Into New Medicines

Abstract: Brain disorders remain one of the defining challenges of modern medicine and among the most poorly served with new therapeutics. Advances in human neurogenetics have begun to shed light on the genomic architecture of complex diseases of mood, cognition, brain development, and neurodegeneration. From genome-wide association studies to rare variants, these findings hold promise for defining the pathogenesis of brain disorders that have resisted simple molecular description. However, the path from genetics to new… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These concerns have stimulated increasing research activity in genetics (Gandal and Geschwind, 2016;Szyf, 2015;Wendland and Ehlers, 2016), systems biology (Davidov et al, 2003;Yeo and Eickhoff, 2016), neuroimaging (Bolkan et al, 2016;Fox et al, 2009;McArthur, 2012) and biomarker development (Bakhtiar, 2008;Goff et al, 2016;Gururajan et al, 2016;Javitt et al, 2008;Wendler and Wehling, 2010). This activity is focused on the understanding of how genetics and genetic/environment factors combine to trigger and maintain psychopathology (Caspi and Moffitt, 2006;Lesch, 2004), and placing more emphasis on the developmental aspects and plasticity of neuropsychiatric disorders.…”
Section: Phase Ii-iii Failures In Cns Drug Developmentmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…These concerns have stimulated increasing research activity in genetics (Gandal and Geschwind, 2016;Szyf, 2015;Wendland and Ehlers, 2016), systems biology (Davidov et al, 2003;Yeo and Eickhoff, 2016), neuroimaging (Bolkan et al, 2016;Fox et al, 2009;McArthur, 2012) and biomarker development (Bakhtiar, 2008;Goff et al, 2016;Gururajan et al, 2016;Javitt et al, 2008;Wendler and Wehling, 2010). This activity is focused on the understanding of how genetics and genetic/environment factors combine to trigger and maintain psychopathology (Caspi and Moffitt, 2006;Lesch, 2004), and placing more emphasis on the developmental aspects and plasticity of neuropsychiatric disorders.…”
Section: Phase Ii-iii Failures In Cns Drug Developmentmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Neurogenomics research applies genomic strategies to identify and analyze genes that are involved in the function of nervous system. One of the main goals is to build a really systemic approach that contributes to explain the brain development, function, plasticity, and associated diseases [6,7,28,29]. Figure 1, the major goal in functional neurogenomics is to analyze the global gene expression among different structures of the brain in order to identify the normal regulation of transcription and characterize genes associated with several neurological pathologies with cognitive and intellectual disabilities phenotypes [28][29][30][31].…”
Section: Functional Neurogenomics: the Systemic Integration Of Brain mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NF emerges as an integrative research approach which applies several methods of computational sciences and OS strategies, to get understanding of how their gene-product interacts in complex networks and regulates the brain homeostasis. The information derived from the functional neurogenomics approach, could serve in the future, to develop new promising therapeutic protocols and genome editing strategies for trustworthy cognitive rehabilitation based on the hippocampal neuroplasticity [6][7][8][9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The success of this approach continues to astound many observers and there have been various explanations put forth to explain why these approaches appear to have been more productive than our modern efforts (Scannell & Bosley, ). Recently, there has been dwindling interest in using primarily symptom‐based screening in favor of developing more “authentic” genetic models of disease (for example, as championed by Wendland & Ehlers, ); however, we (and others [Pangalos, Schecter, & Hurko, ]) believe that there are certain advantages to symptom‐based screening that may help to overcome some of the shortcomings of the alternative “pathological” or “mechanism‐based” approach which is predicated on the assumption that identifying key molecular abnormalities and reversing them is the most actionable path toward identifying clinically effective therapies.…”
Section: Complementary Approaches Of Pathology/mechanism‐ and Symptommentioning
confidence: 99%