Paul J Fitzgerald1. 1. The Zanvyl Krieger Mind/Brain Institute, Solomon H. Snyder Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. pfitz@mbi.mb.jhu.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prefrontal cortex (PFC) receives serotonergic input from the dorsal raphe nucleus of the brainstem, as well as noradrenergic input from another brainstem nucleus, the locus coeruleus. A large number of studies have shown that these two neurotransmitter systems, and drugs that affect them, modulate the functional properties of the PFC in both humans and animal models. RESULTS: Here I examine the hypothesis that serotonin (5-HT) plays a general role in activating the PFC, whereas norepinephrine (NE) plays a general role in deactivating this brain region. In this manner, the two neurotransmitter systems may have opposing effects on PFC-influenced behavior. To assess this hypothesis, three primary lines of evidence are examined comprising the effects of 5-HT and NE on impulsivity, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. DISCUSSION: While all of the existing data do not unequivocally support the activation/deactivation hypothesis, there is a large body of support for it.
INTRODUCTION: The prefrontal cortex (PFC) receives serotonergic input from the dorsal raphe nucleus of the brainstem, as well as noradrenergic input from another brainstem nucleus, the locus coeruleus. A large number of studies have shown that these two neurotransmitter systems, and drugs that affect them, modulate the functional properties of the PFC in both humans and animal models. RESULTS: Here I examine the hypothesis that serotonin (5-HT) plays a general role in activating the PFC, whereas norepinephrine (NE) plays a general role in deactivating this brain region. In this manner, the two neurotransmitter systems may have opposing effects on PFC-influenced behavior. To assess this hypothesis, three primary lines of evidence are examined comprising the effects of 5-HT and NE on impulsivity, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. DISCUSSION: While all of the existing data do not unequivocally support the activation/deactivation hypothesis, there is a large body of support for it.
Authors: Youngjee Choi; John C Novak; Ashleigh Hillier; Nicholas A Votolato; David Q Beversdorf Journal: Cogn Behav Neurol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Alan C Swann; Daniel Birnbaum; Ashley A Jagar; Donald M Dougherty; F Gerard Moeller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: L A Fairbanks; M B Fontenot; J E Phillips-Conroy; C J Jolly; J R Kaplan; J J Mann Journal: Brain Behav Evol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.808
Authors: Christopher D Verrico; Laurie Lynch; Michele A Fahey; Ashley-Kay Fryer; Gregory M Miller; Bertha K Madras Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Caroline A Browne; Joachim Hanke; Claudia Rose; Irene Walsh; Tara Foley; Gerard Clarke; Herbert Schwegler; John F Cryan; Deniz Yilmazer-Hanke Journal: Stress Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.493
Authors: Michael M Havranek; Matthias Vonmoos; Christian P Müller; Jessica R Büetiger; Eve Tasiudi; Lea M Hulka; Katrin H Preller; Rainald Mössner; Edna Grünblatt; Erich Seifritz; Boris B Quednow Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Alan C Swann; Marijn Lijffijt; Scott D Lane; Blake Cox; Joel L Steinberg; F Gerard Moeller Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Janelle H P van Wel; Kim P C Kuypers; Eef L Theunissen; Wendy M Bosker; Katja Bakker; Johannes G Ramaekers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: André Schmidt; Felix Müller; Patrick C Dolder; Yasmin Schmid; Davide Zanchi; Matthias E Liechti; Stefan Borgwardt Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 5.176