Posted by SLS on March 5, 2006, at 10:23:47
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on March 5, 2006, at 9:47:01
Hi Larry.
Nice to see your smiling face.
:-)
> > CSF might be a better source of chemical markers.
> Keyword "might". I only wish cerebro-spinal fluid was more accessible. The risks attaching to lumbar puncture are far too great to be adopted as part of routine practise. Unless some real evidence is available that way.
LPs ain't much fun (unless they're made of vinyl). I had a handful performed on me when I was a research patient at the NIMH. You are right. I don't see any putative markers yet identified in CSF to act as a practicable test for anything relating to the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders. There are some associations between low MHPG and the effectiveness of NE reuptake inhibitors (TCAs), but not much else when last I looked, and I don't know what the coefficient of correlation was. Actually, I think low urine MHPG might be just as reliable (or unreliable) a marker.
> > If it is found that the etiologies of some mental illnesses are to be found in abnormal gene expression, perhaps microarrays will be helpful in diagnosing and determining treatment. We really aren't all that far from that now. (I guess it's all relative. It is still too far away to suit me).
> If it's genetic, though, blood suits as a test medium. Saliva, even. Those genes, they be everywhere.Yes. However, it might be necessary to assay gene activity in a site-specific manner, which would mean taking samples of brain tissue. A gene can be turned on in one cell but not in another. In addition, the proteins expressed by changes in gene activity might never appear extracellularly. I really don't know enough about this stuff to speculate any further regarding the need to sample specific tissues to assay gene activity.
Maybe I'm way off...
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:613775
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060304/msgs/616154.html