Transcriptional changes in the rat brain induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Abstract

Introduction:

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive technique that uses pulsed magnetic fields to affect the physiology of the brain and central nervous system. Repetitive TMS (rTMS) has been used to study and treat several neurological conditions, but its complex molecular basis is largely unexplored.

Methods:

Utilizing three experimental rat models (in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo) and employing genome-wide microarray analysis, our study reveals the extensive impact of rTMS treatment on gene expression patterns.

Results:

These effects are observed across various stimulation protocols, in diverse tissues, and are influenced by time and age. Notably, rTMS-induced alterations in gene expression span a wide range of biological pathways, such as glutamatergic, GABAergic, and anti-inflammatory pathways, ion channels, myelination, mitochondrial energetics, multiple neuron-and synapse-specific genes.

Discussion:

This comprehensive transcriptional analysis induced by rTMS stimulation serves as a foundational characterization for subsequent experimental investigations and the exploration of potential clinical applications.

Introduction

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive technique that uses pulsed magnetic fields to affect the physiology of the brain and the central nervous system (Wagner et al., 2007). Repetitive TMS (rTMS) has been shown to alter higher-order biological processes including neuronal plasticity (Ferreri and Rossini, 2013), cortical excitability (Cavaleri et al., 2017), and cognition (Cheng et al., 2017). rTMS has been used in the study and treatment of neurological conditions including stroke (Smith and Stinear, 2016; McDonnell and Stinear, 2017), epilepsy (Chen et al., 2016), dystonia (Lozeron et al., 2016), schizophrenia (Kaskie and Ferrarelli, 2017), multiple sclerosis (Simpson and Macdonell, 2015), Parkinson’s (Chung and Mak, 2016) and Alzheimer’s disease (Nardone et al., 2014; Weiler et al., 2020), as well as other neurological and non-neurological disorders (Weiler et al., 2021), and was approved for clinical use for treatment-resistant depression by the FDA in 2008.

Remarkably, given its extensive clinical application, the complex molecular basis of rTMS remains largely unexplored. Only a limited number of transcripts and proteins have been previously reported altered following rTMS (Lee et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Cirillo et al., 2017) including Fos (Legrand et al., 2018), Caspase-3 (Grehl et al., 2015), Gfap (Grehl et al., 2015), the MAPK signaling pathway (Cui et al., 2019), and the miR-409-3p/CTR3/AMPK/Sirt1 axis (Wu et al., 2022). However, a systematic genome-wide transcriptional analysis has not been performed to date (Ikeda et al., 2017, 2018), and the underlying molecular basis of the clinical effects of rTMS treatment remains unknown.

Here, using three experimental models in rats, in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo, using genome-wide microarray analysis, we show that rTMS treatment results in broad-based alterations in gene expression patterns using different stimulation protocols, in different tissues, over time, and with age. Gene expression was altered due to rTMS stimulation in numerous biological pathways including glutamatergic and GABAergic pathways, ion channels, myelination, mitochondrial energetics, cellular tight junction gene expression, as well as in multiple neuron and synapse-specific genes. Strikingly, in some circumstances rTMS had strong anti-inflammatory effects with broad down regulation of pathways involved in the classical complement cascade, Toll-like receptors, and other inflammatory pathways. This global transcriptional analysis induced by rTMS stimulation provides a baseline characterization for further experimental analysis and exploring potential clinical applications.

Materials and methods

Animals

Long–Evans rats (Charles River Laboratories), used for the ex vivo and in vivo experiments, were individually housed and maintained under specific pathogen-free conditions on a 12-h light/dark cycle at the National Institute on Aging/National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIA/NIDA) animal facilities in the Biomedical Research Center (Baltimore, MD). Standard rat chow and water were available ad libitum throughout the experiments. All procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Intramural Research Program of the NIA.

Background behavioral characterization

To establish the baseline cognitive status of the animals used in the ex vivo experiment, rats were tested in a ‘place’ version of the Morris water maze task, as previously described (Gallagher et al., 1993). The Morris water maze is a widely recognized tool for investigating spatial memory and learning in rodents, and the procedure used here has been extensively validated as a test for neurocognitive aging (Rapp et al., 1987; Rapp and Gallagher, 1996; Haberman et al., 2012; Gallagher et al., 2015; Tomás Pereira and Burwell, 2015).

Training continued over 8 consecutive days, three training trials per day. Every other day, the third trial was a probe in which the platform was inaccessible for 30 s. A learning index score was calculated for each animal from their average proximity to the escape platform during training; lower scores indicate better task performance. Aged rats that performed on par with young animals were denoted aged unimpaired (AU), while rats that scored greater than the young were classified as aged impaired (AI; Spiegel et al., 2013; Supplementary Figure 1). To control for non-mnemonic deficits, rats were tested in a single session of a hippocampus-independent cued water maze protocol the following day. No animals that performed outside the normal range on this version of the task were included in the present experiments.

Tissue preparation

In vitro

Primary cultures of hippocampal neurons were prepared using hippocampi collected from E18 Sprague Dawley rats as previously described (Mazucanti et al., 2018). Dissociated cells were counted and plated (10⁶ cells/dish) in polyethyleneimine (Sigma-Aldrich) pre-coated coverslips on 35 mm dishes (zero days in vitro). Neurons were maintained in Neurobasal medium (GIBCO) supplemented with B27 (GIBCO), 2 mM glutamine, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, and 0.25 μg/ml amphotericin B. The cultures were placed in an incubator with extra insulation to prevent CO² loss and decrease in temperature. The plates were placed centered directly on the inverted coil and received either 1 Hz, intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation (iTBS), or sham stimulation. Stimulation intensity was set at 15% of the machine’s maximum output (stimulation intensity for in vitro and ex vivo experiments was chosen as the average intensity for all groups in the in vivo experiment, detailed below). Neuronal cultures received either 1 Hz, iTBS, or sham stimulation. For the sham treatment, the plate was placed in the incubator with the coil approximately 20 cm away. Following stimulation, the plates were returned to the home incubator without the coil. RNA was isolated at 0, 2, 8 24, and 48 h after the end of stimulation.

Ex vivo

Four young (5–6 months), 4 AU, and 4 AI (24–25 months) male Long-Evans rats were sacrificed. Under RNase-free conditions, brains were removed, and the hippocampi were isolated and placed in cold, artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF; 120 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM KCl, 1 mM NaH₂PO₄, 26 mM NaHCO₃, 1.3 mM MgSO₄, 10 mM D-Glucose, 3.3 mM CaCl₂) saturated with 100% O₂. The hippocampi were then quickly cut into approximately 7 to 9, 1 mm-thick slabs using a McIlwain tissue chopper (Pt#: MTC/2E; The Mickle Laboratory Engineering Co.), yielding approximately 15–18 hippocampal slices for each brain. Serial slices were distributed equally into 3 separate dishes (1 Hz, iTBS, sham) and incubated in fresh aCSF for 1 h at 32°C before administering rTMS. Hippocampal slices from young, AU, and AI rats were arranged 1 cm under the center of the coil and received either 1 Hz, iTBS, or sham stimulation, with the stimulation intensity set to 15% of the machine’s maximum output. Sham stimulation was applied to hippocampal slices arranged 20 cm from the coil. Hippocampal slices from one given animal were equally distributed across conditions (1 Hz, iTBS, and sham) and rested in aCSF for 2 h before RNA collection.

In vivo

Before rTMS administration, eight aged (26–27 months, 714–1,150 g) and eight young male rats (6–7 months, 502–788 g) were lightly anesthetized with isoflurane to reduce restraint stress and head movement during the stimulation procedure. The rats then received an intra-muscular injection of Dexmedetomidine (aged: 0.03 mg kg⁻¹ body weight; young: 0.035 mg kg⁻¹ body weight, the minimum required to prevent movement throughout the stimulation period). Antisedan (aged: 0.03 mg kg⁻¹ body weight; young: 0.035 mg kg⁻¹ body weight) was given after stimulation to reverse the sedation. Physiological parameters (heart rate, arterial blood oxygen saturation, body temperature) were monitored during anesthesia (Starr Life Sciences MouseOx Plus, Starr Life Sciences Corp. Oakmont, PA, USA) to ensure light and consistent anesthetic depth throughout stimulation. Rats were positioned on a heating pad and body temperature was maintained within 2°C of the initial measurement.

Young and aged rats received either iTBS or sham stimulation. Similar to procedures described in previous studies (Trippe et al., 2009; Mix et al., 2010, 2015; Benali et al., 2011; Hoppenrath et al., 2016), the coil was centered 8 mm above the rat’s skull, oriented with the handle to the left of the rat to produce a mediolaterally oriented electric field, aimed towards maximally stimulating the axons of the corpus callosum. The rat’s head was elevated with a small plastic conical ramp to ensure the skull was roughly parallel with the coil base and to minimize head movement and off-target body stimulation. Stimulator output intensity was adjusted to just below the level that elicited muscle twitching in the neck and head [aged: 15.0 ± 0.9% (11–17%); young: 15.3 ± 1.4% (12–19%) of maximal stimulator output], consistent with earlier preclinical studies in rats (Hoppenrath and Funke, 2013; Mix et al., 2015). Sham stimulation was performed with the coil 20 cm away from the rats’ heads.

Forty-eight hours post-stimulation animals in all conditions were deeply anesthetized with 5% isoflurane and sacrificed. Under RNase-free conditions, the brains were removed and freshly microdissected areas of the neocortex and dorsal hippocampus under the center of the TMS coil during stimulation were immediately frozen and stored at −80°C.

rTMS protocols

rTMS was applied using a Magstim Rapid² stimulator with a 70-mm figure-eight coil (The Magstim Company, Whitland, Dyfed, UK). 1 Hz stimulation was applied in 5 blocks of 600 pulses lasting 10 min repeated at 15-min intervals for a total of 3,000 pulses in 70 min. iTBS was administered in 5 blocks repeated every 15 min with each block consisting of 20 trains of 3 50-Hz pulse bursts repeated at 5 Hz for 2 s with a 10-s inter-train interval as described elsewhere (Huang et al., 2005). Each iTBS block consisted of 600 pulses in 192 s for a total of 3,000 pulses delivered in 63.2 min.

Genome-wide gene expression analysis

RNA extraction

Total RNA was extracted by adding frozen individual hippocampi or hippocampal sections into prechilled tubes containing 1.0 mm glass beads (BioSpec Products, Bartlesville, OK) and RLT buffer and homogenized with a single 30 s 5,500 rpm cycle on a Precellys 24 homogenizer (Bertin Corp., Rockville, MD). The homogenate was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min, the cleared lysate was transferred to a new tube, and RNA was column-purified according to the Qiagen RNeasy mini protocol (Qiagen, Germantown, MD). RNA concentration and quality were measured by Nanodrop (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA USA) and the Agilent Bioanalyzer RNA 6000 Chip (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA).

Agilent microarray experiments

Two-hundred ng total RNA was labeled using the Agilent one-color Low-Input QuickAmp Labeling Kit (5190-2305, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA), purified on Qiagen columns, and quantified according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. A total of 600 ng Cy3-labeled cRNA was hybridized for 17 h to Agilent SurePrint G3 Rat Gene Expression v2 8x60K oligo microarrays (G4858-074036). Following post-hybridization rinses, arrays were scanned using an Agilent SureScan microarray scanner at 3-micron resolution, and hybridization intensity data was extracted from the scanned images using Agilent’s Feature Extraction Software. Raw and normalized microarray data have been deposited in the GEO data repository as SuperSeries GSE230150, with SubSeries GSE230147 (in vitro, N = 56 samples), GSE230148 (ex vivo, N = 40 samples), and GSE230149 (in vivo, N = 56 samples).

Microarray data analysis

The resulting dataset was analyzed with DIANE 6.0, a JMP microarray analysis program. The results were normalized with a z-score transformation (Cheadle et al., 2003). Z-normalized data were then analyzed with principal component analysis and sample hierarchical cluster to investigate the possible outliner samples and global genotype/treatment effects. To determine the gene expression changes within each specific RNA comparison, we first filtered probes by ANOVA test, then the pairwise statistical analysis is done by the z-test between different investigated groups with multiple comparison correction. The significant probes are determined by the cut off (Wagner et al., 2007) one way ANOVA p < 0.05 (Ferreri and Rossini, 2013) the z-test p < 0.05 and false discovery rate < 0.30 (Cavaleri et al., 2017) |z-ratio| > 1.5 (Cheng et al., 2017) average z-score for the pairwise sample > 0 (Cheadle et al., 2003). In other words, every differential expression effect of rTMS reported throughout this manuscript meets these statistical selection criteria.

Network analysis

The entire expression changes (z-ratio) result for each comparison are used as input. Gene set analysis using GO gene sets with the Parametric Analysis of Gene Set Enrichment (PAGE) algorithm was performed as previously described (Kim and Volsky, 2005). Protein interaction diagrams were generated from significant differentially expressed genes with the STRING interaction database. Functional grouping is denoted by colors, network nodes represent proteins and edges represent protein–protein relationships.

In addition to gene sets for functional gene groups, gene set analysis was also performed using highly specific Gene-Disease Associations (GAD) database (De et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2010), in which every gene in each gene set has been statistically associated with a specific human disease or disorder through a population-based genetic association study. Noteworthy, an increase or decrease in a specific disease gene set simply means the aggregate values of the genes that have been associated with that disease have increased or decreased in expression, not that the disorder itself has increased or decreased or can be altered by rTMS treatment.

Results

In this global microarray-based gene expression analysis we used three distinct experimental modalities (Figure 1) to identify gross transcriptional changes induced by rTMS, each having specific advantages and limitations; (a) in vitro: purified rat embryonal hippocampal neuronal cultures allowed identification of transcriptional changes over a 48-h time course using two stimulation protocols (1 Hz and iTBS); (b) ex vivo: hippocampal slices from a well-established rat model of aging (Gallagher et al., 1993; Gallagher and Rapp, 1997) enabled testing two different stimulation protocols (1 Hz and iTBS), in a short-term response model (2 h) across cognitive status in the context of complex cellular organization; and (c) in vivo: young and aged animals allowed the identification of the global transcriptional response to rTMS, in a long-term response model (48 h), in two different brain regions (hippocampus and cerebral cortex), across age. In this way, we identified rTMS-induced transcriptional changes in multiple contexts. As a starting point for hypothesis generation, this report focuses on the effects of rTMS within each model and group, rather than on comparisons between models, cognitive status, or age groups. Detailed results of the transcriptional changes due to rTMS treatment in the context of age, cognition, and brain region will be presented elsewhere. Here the effects of TMS are evaluated as differential gene expression in contrasts between stimulated samples and corresponding sham controls within each experimental condition.

Figure 1

rTMS produces broad transcriptional changes

As shown in Table 1, stimulation resulted in hundreds of significant transcriptional changes between rTMS and sham-treated controls in all experimental models, with both increases and decreases in each treatment group. While there are considerable overlaps between rTMS treatments, each sample-treatment combination produced a complex pattern of transcriptional response (Figure 2). This was evident in the in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental models. The transcriptional response was quite dynamic, often with both increases and decreases in the same gene and gene families with time, stimulation protocol, and relative to brain region. The complete set of statistically significant transcriptional changes due to rTMS can be found here (Supplementary Table 1).

Figure 2

rTMS alters the transcription of genes involved in complex neural processes

Table 2 (in vitro), Table 3 (ex vivo), and Table 4 (in vivo) show groups of selected genes with altered transcription (|z-ratio| > 1.5) implicated in complex neuronal processes in all three models tested. The categories of these genes include neurotransmission, synaptic function, inflammation, myelination, and cell–cell adhesion among other functional gene classes.

With the in vitro model using rat hippocampal neuronal cultures, genes involved in inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmission were altered, both upregulated and downregulated (Table 2), which included multiple GABA (Figure 3A) and glutamate receptors (Figure 3B) such as Gabbr1,2; Grik1,4; Grm3-7, and Gabra4 (Heidelberg et al., 2013) as well as genes involved in learning and memory-related plasticity. In addition, the transcriptional response was altered in oxidative phosphorylation pathways including shared genes involved in Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease (Figures 4A,B). In the ex vivo and in vivo models (Tables 3, 4) altered transcription of additional neuronal genes was shown to include genes involved in neurotransmission [Ptk2b (Brys et al., 2013), Slc6a13 (Christiansen et al., 2007)]; choline transport [Slc5a7 (Ribeiro et al., 2006), Ryr2 (Abu-Omar et al., 2017), Chrna5 (Proulx et al., 2014)]; synaptic function [Grin3a (Glun3a; Perez-Otano et al., 2016)]; plasticity (Arc; Tomas Pereira et al., 2015, Cnp; Barmashenko et al., 2014); learning and memory [Arc; Morin et al., 2015; Tomas Pereira et al., 2015), Grin2d, (Glun2d; Jacobs et al., 2014)], and cognition (Ryr2; Liu et al., 2012, Arc; Morin et al., 2015, Sorl1; Li et al., 2017), among others.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Coordinate transcriptional upregulation occurred in a cohort of myelin regulatory genes at 2 h post-rTMS stimulation in the ex vivo model (Table 3). These include increases in Mobp, Mog, Cnp, Erbb3 Klk6, Cadm4, and transferrin (Tf). However, the myelin regulatory factor Sox10 was downregulated in the iTBS-stimulated ex vivo samples. Myelin-related transcriptional induction was not statistically significant at 48 h for in vivo or at 2 h for in vitro cultures. Moreover, gene expression from nine Claudin family members was both increased and decreased in the ex vivo model (Table 3). Claudins mediate cell–cell contact and blood–brain barrier integrity. A shared protein domain network showing interrelationships between the TMS transcriptionally altered Claudins is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

rTMS results in a broad-based anti-inflammatory transcriptional response

rTMS produced a substantial reduction in transcripts involved in immune and inflammatory processes in the ex vivo and in vivo samples. Most striking was the coordinate downregulation of many members of the classical complement pathway in the ex vivo rTMS model with both 1 Hz and iTBS (Table 3) stimulation after 2 h. In addition, the expression of complement factors C1s and C2 was reduced in the in vivo model in the young hippocampus at 48 h (Table 4). In contrast, C1qb, C1qc, C2, C3, C4a, and C4b were increased in the AI hippocampus using iTBS in the ex vivo model (Table 3). Although generally thought of as mediators of innate immunity, members of the complement cascade have also been shown to be important in synaptic remodeling (Presumey et al., 2017), and have been associated with schizophrenia (Nimgaonkar et al., 2017), age-related macular degeneration (Lu et al., 2018), and Alzheimer’s disease (Torvell et al., 2021).

Additional inflammatory genes that were transcriptionally repressed by rTMS included Il1b, Il1rn, Cd74, and Il12b in the ex vivo model following iTBS (Table 3), and Tlr3, Cd74, and RT1-Da in the in vivo model (Table 4). Moreover, the gene for S100b, a marker of neuroinflammation and neuronal damage, was markedly downregulated by rTMS in all in vivo samples (Table 4). Importantly, immune regulatory molecules as a group were not significantly altered by rTMS in the in vitro model using purified neuronal cultures suggesting that modulation of immune transcripts in both ex vivo and in vivo models (both complex tissue intact samples) were from non-neuronal cells including resident glial cell populations.

rTMS affects the transcription of genes implicated in disorders for which it is used clinically

Notably, expression was altered among multiple genes that have been studied in disorders for which rTMS is used clinically, including depression [Slc6a4 (Lam et al., 2018), S100b (Schroeter et al., 2014), Il18 (Prossin et al., 2011; Bufalino et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2017), Il1b (Bufalino et al., 2013), Htr2c (Brummett et al., 2014), Gabra6 (Inoue et al., 2015)], epilepsy [Grin2d (GluN2D; Li D. et al., 2016), Gabra6 (Prasad et al., 2014), Scn1b (Ramadan et al., 2017), Scn3a (Lamar et al., 2017), Kcnt1 (Evely et al., 2017)], schizophrenia [Rgs4 (Schwarz, 2017), Grin1 (Zhao et al., 2006), Grm5 (Matosin et al., 2017), Pde10a (Boden et al., 2017), C4a (Nimgaonkar et al., 2017)], bipolar disorder [Pde10a (McDonald et al., 2012); S100b (da Rosa et al., 2016)], Parkinson’s disease [Nr4a2 (Liu et al., 2017)], Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias [Ptk2b (Li Y. Q. et al., 2016), Ttr (Silva et al., 2017), Nr4a2 (Montarolo et al., 2016), Ryr2 (Briggs et al., 2017), Mobp (Irwin et al., 2014), Cd40 (Giunta et al., 2010), Grn (Sudre et al., 2017), Hmo1 (Sung et al., 2016), Arc (Bi et al., 2017)], stroke [Lgals3 (Gal3; He et al., 2017), Ace (Wei et al., 2017), Cd40 (Huang et al., 2017), Cxcl12 (Shen et al., 2017), Hmgb1 (Choi et al., 2017)], as well as substance abuse [Slc6a4 (Bauer et al., 2015), Penk (Moeller et al., 2015), Rgs4 (Ho et al., 2010), Chrna5 (Lassi et al., 2016; Olfson et al., 2016)]. Overlap between the complex functional processes, disorders, and genes mentioned here highlights a central role of shared fundamental neuronal pathways in multiple processes and distinct neurological disorders (Brainstorm et al., 2018; Gandal et al., 2018).

Moreover, TMS altered the expression of genes studied in other disorders, suggesting additional potential clinical applications of TMS. These include hereditary motor neuropathy [Slc5a7 (Barwick et al., 2012)], congenital myasthenic syndrome (Slc5a7; Bauche et al., 2016), age-related hearing loss (Gabra6; Sun et al., 2014), Canavan disease (Gabra6; Surendran et al., 2003), gout (Abcg2; Yu et al., 2017), pancreatitis (Cldn2; Giri et al., 2016), as well as numerous genes involved in inflammatory and immune disorders. Additionally, TMS alters the transcription of many genes of unknown function. These can be found in Supplementary Table 1.

Gene set analysis of rTMS transcriptional changes

Gene set analysis is based on gene expression changes in functionally related groups of genes, as opposed to individual genes, resulting in statistically significant aggregate scores for each gene group. Figure 6 displays a marked reduction in Gene Ontology (GO) inflammatory gene sets in the ex vivo young hippocampus using 1 Hz stimulation versus the unstimulated sham. These include reductions in Innate Immune Response, Complement pathways, as well as Chemokine and Cytokine GO gene sets. Broad-based immune suppression was found in the ex vivo young hippocampus model using iTBS versus sham as well, including gene sets for Inflammatory Response, Chemotaxis, Antigen Processing and Presentation, Immunoglobulin Mediated Immune Response, among others (Figure 7). In addition to marked immune suppression, upregulated GO gene sets in the iTBS ex vivo model included a theme of mitochondrial and energy-related GO gene groups. Immune suppression is evident in the in vivo model in the cortex after iTBS stimulation: GO gene sets such as Immune Response, Complement Activation, and Chemokine activity, among others, were downregulated, and upregulated gene sets included Synaptic Vesicle, Synaptic Transmission, and Neurite Development (Figure 8). In the in vivo model in the hippocampus, a theme of translation and ribosomal-related gene sets were upregulated after iTBS (Figure 9). For the in vivo iTBS model, alterations in GAD sets for inflammatory disorders such as Scleroderma, Crohn’s disease, and Lupus, were found in both cortex and hippocampus, as well as disorders specifically relevant to TMS treatment including mood disorders, seasonal affective disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, substance use related disorders, among others (Supplementary Figures 2–5).

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Discussion

The last decade has witnessed a significant increase in pre-clinical and clinical research on rTMS as a therapeutic tool to treat several neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the molecular basis of rTMS effects remains largely unexplored. Here, using three experimental rat models, we show that the transcriptional response to rTMS treatment is complex and dynamic. Widespread transcriptional responses were apparent in the neuronal in vitro culture model, in the ex vivo hippocampal slice model, and in different brain regions in the in vivo model. Our results have implications for both research and clinical settings focused on the use of rTMS as a treatment for neurological conditions.

Alterations in glutamatergic and GABAergic signaling pathways following rTMS are specifically relevant to neuropsychiatric disorders

Using rat hippocampal neuronal cultures, we observed that rTMS regulated the expression of genes involved in inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmission mediated in part by glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses. The evidence supporting this argument can be found in Table 2 and Figures 3A,B. In Table 2, we present results highlighting the specific genes that exhibit alterations following rTMS. These findings demonstrate that rTMS had a notable impact on the expression of various glutamatergic and GABAergic genes. In addition, Figures 3A,B depict the changes in gene expression induced by rTMS. These figures illustrate the specific genes in the glutamatergic and GABAergic pathways that are significantly modulated by rTMS. The observed alterations support the suggestion that rTMS is positioned to potently influence inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmission.

Alterations in the glutamatergic system can promote excitotoxic cell death, comprising a potential mechanism of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (Mufson et al., 2008; Wang and Reddy, 2017). Early aberrant excitatory neurotransmission is frequently observed in both animal models of Alzheimer’s disease (Palop et al., 2007) and patients (Scott et al., 2002), and blocking the action of glutamate and targeting excitatory synapses has been exploited as a potential pharmacological treatment for the disease. Altered oscillatory rhythmic activity and network hypersynchrony are also features of Alzheimer’s disease (Koch et al., 2022) and may contribute to cognitive impairment (Busche and Konnerth, 1700; Palop and Mucke, 2016). However, while a major emphasis in prior research has focused on dysfunction of the glutamatergic system, accumulating evidence links inhibitory GABAergic interneurons to excitatory/inhibitory imbalance as a potential early contributor to cognitive impairment in both aging (Oh et al., 2010; Gallagher et al., 2019) and disease (Li Y. et al., 2016; Govindpani et al., 2017).

Disruption in excitatory/inhibitory balance has also been associated with other neuropsychiatric and neurological conditions such as chronic stress (Varga et al., 2017), major depression disorder (Pehrson and Sanchez, 2015; Fee et al., 2017; Fogaca and Duman, 2019), autism spectrum disorder (Schur et al., 2016), bipolar disorder (Bialer, 2012), epilepsy (Ye and Kaszuba, 2017; Losi et al., 2019) and schizophrenia (Metzner et al., 2019), and normalizing altered inhibitory function represents a promising target for therapeutic intervention. rTMS has been identified as a modifier of GABAergic (Trippe et al., 2009; Jazmati et al., 2018) and glutamatergic (Yang et al., 2014) systems previously and preventing or reversing disease-related imbalance by targeting either system with rTMS could be of both symptomatic and disease-modifying value.

Transcriptional changes related to immunosuppression are relevant to inflammatory effects in depression and Alzheimer’s disease

A major insight from our analysis is the broad transcriptional change related to immunosuppression, observed as early as 2 h after stimulation in hippocampal slices. Neuroinflammation has emerged as a key feature in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease, potentially playing a causative role rather than simply as a secondary consequence of the pathological cascade (Sheng et al., 2003). Given the failure of amyloidogenic drugs to provide therapeutic benefit, scientific interest has shifted to other features of neurodegeneration including neuroinflammation (Castello et al., 2014). Similarly, major depressive disorder has been associated with increased activation of the immune system (Lee and Giuliani, 2019), and many front-line pharmaceutical treatments for depression have been shown to reduce inflammatory activation and lower circulating cytokine levels (Galecki et al., 2018).

rTMS has proven effective in animal models as a therapeutic tool targeting the inflammatory response (Sasso et al., 2016). Our results are consistent with a potential anti-inflammatory benefit, demonstrating that stimulation-induced downregulation of genes related to immunosuppression in young hippocampal slices 48 h following treatment. Strikingly, however, while decreased neuroinflammatory gene transcription was the predominant effect in young, rTMS had the opposite effect in hippocampal slices from aged animals with cognitive impairment (AI), inducing a potential proinflammatory transcriptional response. Given that aging itself is associated with chronic increases in circulating levels of inflammatory markers (Singh and Newman, 2011) – a phenomenon exacerbated by age-associated diseases (Chung et al., 2009) – our results suggest that rTMS might exacerbate age-related pathological immune activity. Thus, rTMS treatments with demonstrated anti-inflammatory benefits in young adults may have unanticipated effects in older recipients. Future studies focusing on the neuroinflammatory effects of rTMS specifically in the context of aging will be needed to move this technology forward in the clinical setting.

Although the mechanisms that mediate neuroinflammation are not fully understood, it is well-accepted that microglia play a key role (DiSabato et al., 2016; Dokalis and Prinz, 2019). In our study, the comparative analysis of purified hippocampal neuronal culture preparations versus the ex vivo or in vivo complex tissue samples, where glial cells are present, suggests that the observed influence on inflammatory response genes likely arises from the non-neuronal compartment. Taking advantage of the unique dataset generated in these experiments, future analyses directly comparing the transcriptional response to rTMS as a function of experimental preparation, temporal kinetics, age, and cognitive status will provide a rich source of insight into the complex molecular consequences underlying the phenotypic response to intervention.

Our ex vivo experiments provide an approach to systematically test rTMS-drug interactions

Although FDA-approved as a stand-alone treatment for non-responsive major depressive disorder, in clinical practice rTMS is typically used as a supplementary therapy, together with psychotropic medication. A therapeutic benefit of combined rTMS and adjunctive drug treatment for major depression has been confirmed previously (Wei et al., 2017), but evidence fully exploring the interaction between rTMS and anti-depressants is scarce. Psychotropic drugs affect cortical excitability and plasticity (Minzenberg and Leuchter, 2019) and medications commonly used to treat neurological conditions change neural circuit and network activation (Borchert et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017). The use of concomitant medication may impact rTMS treatment outcome favorably or unfavorably, depending on the drug category or mechanism of action (Hunter et al., 2019). For example, while still in their infancy, studies in pharmaco-TMS have shown that medications that block voltage-gated sodium channels increase the evoked motor threshold to TMS, i.e., a common metric used to normalize and titrate stimulation intensity across individuals (a readout for TMS dosage; Ziemann, 2004; Ziemann et al., 2015).

The idea that the effects of rTMS vary depending on the use of concurrent medication aligns with the ‘state-dependency’ concept of TMS (Silvanto and Pascual-Leone, 2008). Among the factors that might influence the outcomes of TMS, the pharmacological ‘state’ of the brain has received relatively limited attention, likely because patients treated with rTMS for neuropsychiatric conditions are typically receiving concurrent pharmacological treatment. In this context, our ex vivo experiments point to one potentially useful approach for research aimed at identifying drug-rTMS interactions. Overall, while recognizing that the barriers to successful translation are substantial, properly designed basic research can nonetheless inform therapeutic development toward safer and more effective TMS application in a variety of conditions.

The complex transcriptional profiles induced by rTMS in the context of age, tissue, and cognitive status are relevant to the clinical status of individual patients

It has been over a decade since the first rTMS application was approved by the FDA for the treatment of major depressive disorder, and since then the range of potential applications under investigation with rTMS has skyrocketed. The research on rTMS as a therapy includes patients with a variety of disorders and pathological signatures, from all ages and different cognitive statuses. Recent in vivo data points to the potential translational relevance of findings in animal models demonstrating effects on behavior and structural plasticity (Cambiaghi et al., 2022) and the potential implication for clinical application in neurodegenerative diseases (Weiler et al., 2020). In our results, we observed that rTMS induced unique gene expression profiles in each experiment, all of which reflected a variety of biological conditions and different stimulation parameters. In addition, the gene expression response following rTMS was highly complex. Whereas previous studies investigating the effects of rTMS have focused on alterations in only a handful of priori-selected genes (Lee et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Grehl et al., 2015; Cirillo et al., 2017; Legrand et al., 2018; Cui et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022), our large-scale analysis of gene expression detected several complex different pathways that are altered after stimulation.

Any non-invasive brain stimulation protocol intended to target a specific gene set or mechanism in the context of treating a given condition may have unexpected consequences in a different context, e.g., in other brain regions, or as a function of the cognitive status and age of the recipients. For example, clinical trials of rTMS (Turriziani et al., 2012) have reported that the same stimulation protocol that yields cognitive improvement in some subjects at risk for Alzheimer’s disease has detrimental effects in cognitively healthy individuals. Likewise, stimulation aiming at targeting a specific pathway or mechanism may induce changes in other genes and unintended downstream pathways. The findings reported here also highlight that the transcriptional response can be temporally dynamic, resulting in both increases and decreases in the same gene families across time, suggesting that a protocol chosen for its acute effects may lead to unpredictable long-term changes in expression.

Taken together, our results suggest that patterns of gene expression following rTMS are complex, dynamic, and dependent on the brain region, age, cognitive status, and potentially many other subject variables not examined here. Given the current and growing clinical application of rTMS, it is timely that greater attention turns to basic research aimed at understanding the underlying basis of reported therapeutic benefits, with the goal of optimizing treatment in the context of the individual patient.

The limitations of research on non-invasive brain stimulation in experimental animal models are significant. A primary limitation from a translational perspective is that, although we analyzed multiple stimulation protocols, we only studied the effects of one stimulation session, while clinical rTMS approaches employ treatments over the course of days or weeks. Further studies investigating the effects of rTMS on a long-term basis should be conducted. Another limitation is that although in some cases we used a diverse parametric setting such as different ages and cognitive states, our initial report is predominantly focused on the effects of rTMS itself. Here, each rTMS-stimulated sample group was statistically compared to its own unstimulated sham control, as opposed to comparisons across age and between cognitive groups. Detailed results of the transcriptional changes due to rTMS treatment in the context of age, cognition, and brain region will be presented elsewhere.

References

• 1

  Abu-OmarN.DasJ.SzetoV.FengZ. P. (2017). Neuronal ryanodine receptors in development and aging. Mol. Neurobiol.55, 1183–1192. doi: 10.1007/s12035-016-0375-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BarmashenkoG.ButtgereitJ.HerringN.BaderM.OzcelikC.Manahan-VaughanD.et al. (2014). Regulation of hippocampal synaptic plasticity thresholds and changes in exploratory and learning behavior in dominant negative NPR-B mutant rats. Front. Mol. Neurosci.7:95. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2014.00095

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BarwickK. E.WrightJ.Al-TurkiS.McEntagartM. M.NairA.ChiozaB.et al. (2012). Defective presynaptic choline transport underlies hereditary motor neuropathy. Am. J. Hum. Genet.91, 1103–1107. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.09.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BaucheS.O'ReganS.AzumaY.LaffargueF.McMackenG.SternbergD.et al. (2016). Impaired presynaptic high-affinity choline transporter causes a congenital myasthenic syndrome with episodic apnea. Am. J. Hum. Genet.99, 753–761. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.06.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BauerI. E.GrahamD. P.SoaresJ. C.NielsenD. A. (2015). Serotonergic gene variation in substance use pharmacotherapy: a systematic review. Pharmacogenomics16, 1307–1314. doi: 10.2217/pgs.15.72

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BenaliA.TrippeJ.WeilerE.MixA.Petrasch-ParwezE.GirzalskyW.et al. (2011). Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation alters cortical inhibition. J. Neurosci.31, 1193–1203. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1379-10.2011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BiR.KongL. L.XuM.LiG. D.ZhangD. F.Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Iet al. (2017). The arc gene confers genetic susceptibility to Alzheimer's disease in Han Chinese. Mol. Neurobiol.55, 1217–1226. doi: 10.1007/s12035-017-0397-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BialerM. (2012). Why are antiepileptic drugs used for nonepileptic conditions?Epilepsia53, 26–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03712.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BodenR.PerssonJ.WallA.LubberinkM.EkseliusL.LarssonE. M.et al. (2017). Striatal phosphodiesterase 10A and medial prefrontal cortical thickness in patients with schizophrenia: a PET and MRI study. Transl. Psychiatry7:e 1050. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BorchertR. J.RittmanT.PassamontiL.YeZ.SamiS.JonesS. P.et al. (2016). Atomoxetine enhances connectivity of prefrontal networks in Parkinson's Disease. Neuropsychopharmacology41, 2171–2177. doi: 10.1038/npp.2016.18

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BrainstormC.AnttilaV.Bulik-SullivanB.FinucaneH. K.WaltersR. K.BrasJ.et al. (2018). Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain. Science360. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8757

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BriggsC. A.ChakrobortyS.StutzmannG. E. (2017). Emerging pathways driving early synaptic pathology in Alzheimer's disease. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.483, 988–997. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.09.088

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BrummettB. H.BabyakM. A.WilliamsR. B.HarrisK. M.JiangR.KrausW. E.et al. (2014). A putatively functional polymorphism in the HTR2C gene is associated with depressive symptoms in white females reporting significant life stress. PLoS One9:e114451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114451

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BrysZ.PluharA.KisJ. T.BudaB.SzaboA. (2013). Network analysis of neurotransmitter related human kinase genes: possible role of SRC, RAF1, PTK2B?Neuropsychopharmacol. Hung.15, 165–171. PMID:

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BufalinoC.HepgulN.AgugliaE.ParianteC. M. (2013). The role of immune genes in the association between depression and inflammation: a review of recent clinical studies. Brain Behav. Immun.31, 31–47. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2012.04.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BuscheM. A.KonnerthA. (1700). Impairments of neural circuit function in Alzheimer's disease. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci.371:20150429. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0429

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CambiaghiM.InfortunaC.GualanoF.ElsamadisiA.MalikW.BuffelliM.et al. (2022). High-frequency rTMS modulates emotional behaviors and structural plasticity in layers II/III and V of the mPFC. Front. Cell. Neurosci.16:1082211. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2022.1082211

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  CastelloM. A.JeppsonJ. D.SorianoS. (2014). Moving beyond anti-amyloid therapy for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. BMC Neurol.14:169. doi: 10.1186/s12883-014-0169-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CavaleriR.SchabrunS. M.ChipchaseL. S. (2017). The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst. Rev.6:48. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0440-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  CheadleC.VawterM. P.FreedW. J.BeckerK. G. (2003). Analysis of microarray data using Z score transformation. J. Mol. Diagn.5, 73–81. doi: 10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60455-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ChenR.SpencerD. C.WestonJ.NolanS. J. (2016). Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.8:CD011025. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011025.pub2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChengC. P. W.WongC. S. M.LeeK. K.ChanA. P. K.YeungJ. W. F.ChanW. C. (2017). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on improvement of cognition in elderly patients with cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry33. doi: 10.1002/gps.4726

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ChoiJ. Y.CuiY.ChowdhuryS. T.KimB. G. (2017). High-mobility group box-1 as an autocrine trophic factor in white matter stroke. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.114, E4987–E4995. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702035114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ChristiansenB.MeinildA. K.JensenA. A.Brauner-OsborneH. (2007). Cloning and characterization of a functional human gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transporter, human GAT-2. J. Biol. Chem.282, 19331–19341. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M702111200

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  ChungH. Y.CesariM.AntonS.MarzettiE.GiovanniniS.SeoA. Y.et al. (2009). Molecular inflammation: underpinnings of aging and age-related diseases. Ageing Res. Rev.8, 18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2008.07.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ChungC. L.MakM. K. (2016). Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on physical function and motor signs in Parkinson's Disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Brain Stimul.9, 475–487. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  CirilloG.Di PinoG.CaponeF.RanieriF.FlorioL.TodiscoV.et al. (2017). Neurobiological after-effects of non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul.10, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.11.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  CuiM.GeH.ZengH.YanH.ZhangL.FengH.et al. (2019). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation promotes neural stem cell proliferation and differentiation after intracerebral hemorrhage in mice. Cell Transplant.28, 568–584. doi: 10.1177/0963689719834870

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  da RosaM. I.SimonC.GrandeA. J.BarichelloT.OsesJ. P.QuevedoJ. (2016). Serum S100B in manic bipolar disorder patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord.206, 210–215. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  DeS.ZhangY.GarnerJ. R.WangS. A.BeckerK. G. (2010). Disease and phenotype gene set analysis of disease-based gene expression in mouse and human. Physiol. Genomics42A, 162–167. doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00008.2010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  DiSabatoD. J.QuanN.GodboutJ. P. (2016). Neuroinflammation: the devil is in the details. J. Neurochem.139, 136–153. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13607

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DokalisN.PrinzM. (2019). Resolution of neuroinflammation: mechanisms and potential therapeutic option. Semin. Immunopathol.41, 699–709. doi: 10.1007/s00281-019-00764-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  EvelyK. M.PryceK. D.BhattacharjeeA. (2017). The Phe 932Ile mutation in KCNT1 channels associated with severe epilepsy, delayed myelination and leukoencephalopathy produces a loss-of-function channel phenotype. Neuroscience351, 65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.03.035

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  FeeC.BanasrM.SibilleE. (2017). Somatostatin-positive gamma-aminobutyric acid interneuron deficits in depression: cortical microcircuit and therapeutic perspectives. Biol. Psychiatry82, 549–559. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.05.024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  FerreriF.RossiniP. M. (2013). TMS and TMS-EEG techniques in the study of the excitability, connectivity, and plasticity of the human motor cortex. Rev. Neurosci.24, 431–442. doi: 10.1515/revneuro-2013-0019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  FogacaM. V.DumanR. S. (2019). Cortical GABAergic dysfunction in stress and depression: new insights for therapeutic interventions. Front. Cell. Neurosci.13:87. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00087

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  GaleckiP.Mossakowska-WojcikJ.TalarowskaM. (2018). The anti-inflammatory mechanism of antidepressants - SSRIs, SNRIs. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry80, 291–294. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.03.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  GallagherM.BurwellR.BurchinalM. (1993). Severity of spatial learning impairment in aging: development of a learning index for performance in the Morris water maze. Behav. Neurosci.107, 618–626. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.107.4.618

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  GallagherM.BurwellR.BurchinalM. (2015). Severity of spatial learning impairment in aging: development of a learning index for performance in the Morris water maze. Behav. Neurosci.129, 540–548. doi: 10.1037/bne0000080

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  GallagherM.OkonkwoO. C.ResnickS. M.JagustW. J.BenzingerT. L. S.RappP. R. (2019). What are the threats to successful brain and cognitive aging?Neurobiol. Aging83, 130–134. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.04.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  GallagherM.RappP. R. (1997). The use of animal models to study the effects of aging on cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol.48, 339–370. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.339

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  GandalM. J.HaneyJ. R.ParikshakN. N.LeppaV.RamaswamiG.HartlC.et al. (2018). Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap. Science359, 693–697. doi: 10.1126/science.aad6469

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  GiriA. K.MidhaS.BanerjeeP.AgrawalA.MehdiS. J.DhingraR.et al. (2016). Common variants in CLDN2 and MORC4 genes confer Disease susceptibility in patients with chronic pancreatitis. PLoS One11:e0147345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147345

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  GiuntaB.Rezai-ZadehK.TanJ. (2010). Impact of the CD40-CD40L dyad in Alzheimer's disease. CNS Neurol. Disord. Drug Targets9, 149–155. doi: 10.2174/187152710791012099

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  GovindpaniK.Calvo-Flores GuzmanB.VinnakotaC.WaldvogelH. J.FaullR. L.KwakowskyA. (2017). Towards a better understanding of GABAergic remodeling in Alzheimer's Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci.18:1813. doi: 10.3390/ijms18081813

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  GrehlS.ViolaH. M.Fuller-CarterP. I.CarterK. W.DunlopS. A.HoolL. C.et al. (2015). Cellular and molecular changes to cortical neurons following low intensity repetitive magnetic stimulation at different frequencies. Brain Stimul.8, 114–123. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.09.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  HabermanR.QuigleyC.GallagherM. (2012). Characterization of CpG island DNA methylation of impairment-related genes in a rat model of cognitive aging. Epigenetics7, 1008–1019. doi: 10.4161/epi.21291

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  HeX. W.LiW. L.LiC.LiuP.ShenY. G.ZhuM.et al. (2017). Serum levels of galectin-1, galectin-3, and galectin-9 are associated with large artery atherosclerotic stroke. Sci. Rep.7:40994. doi: 10.1038/srep40994

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  HeidelbergL. S.WarrenJ. W.FisherJ. L. (2013). SB-205384 is a positive allosteric modulator of recombinant GABAA receptors containing rat alpha 3, alpha 5, or alpha 6 subunit subtypes coexpressed with beta 3 and gamma 2 subunits. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.347, 235–241. doi: 10.1124/jpet.113.207324

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  HoA. M.Mac KayR. K.DoddP. R.LewohlJ. M. (2010). Association of polymorphisms in RGS4 and expression of RGS transcripts in the brains of human alcoholics. Brain Res.1340, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.049

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  HoppenrathK.FunkeK. (2013). Time-course of changes in neuronal activity markers following iTBS-TMS of the rat neocortex. Neurosci. Lett.536, 19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.01.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HoppenrathK.HärtigW.FunkeK. (2016). Intermittent Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation alters electrical properties of fast-spiking neocortical interneurons in an age-dependent fashion. Front. Neural Circ.10:22. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2016.00022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  HuangY. Z.EdwardsM. J.RounisE.BhatiaK. P.RothwellJ. C. (2005). Theta burst stimulation of the human motor cortex. Neuron45, 201–206. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.12.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  HuangH. T.GuoJ.XiangY.ChenJ. M.LuoH. C.MengL. Q.et al. (2017). A SNP in 5′ untranslated region of CD40 gene is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a Chinese population: a case-control study. Genet. Mol. Biol.40, 442–449. doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2016-0212

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  HunterA. M.MinzenbergM. J.CookI. A.KrantzD. E.LevittJ. G.RotsteinN. M.et al. (2019). Concomitant medication use and clinical outcome of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment of major depressive disorder. Brain Behav.9:e01275. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1275

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  IkedaT.KobayashiS.MorimotoC. (2017). Gene expression microarray data from mouse cerebrum treated with rTMS for 30 days. Data Brief15, 948–969. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.10.034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  IkedaT.KobayashiS.MorimotoC. (2018). Gene expression microarray data from mouse CBS treated with rTMS for 30 days, mouse cerebrum and CBS treated with rTMS for 40 days. Data Brief17, 1078–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.01.079

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  InoueA.AkiyoshiJ.MuronagaM.MasudaK.AizawaS.HirakawaH.et al. (2015). Association of TMEM132D, COMT, and GABRA6 genotypes with cingulate, frontal cortex and hippocampal emotional processing in panic and major depressive disorder. Int. J. Psychiatry Clin. Pract.19, 192–200. doi: 10.3109/13651501.2015.1043133

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  IrwinD. J.McMillanC. T.SuhE.PowersJ.RascovskyK.WoodE. M.et al. (2014). Myelin oligodendrocyte basic protein and prognosis in behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia. Neurology83, 502–509. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000668

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  JacobsS.CuiZ.FengR.WangH.WangD.TsienJ. Z. (2014). Molecular and genetic determinants of the NMDA receptor for superior learning and memory functions. PLoS One9:e111865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111865

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  JazmatiD.NeubacherU.FunkeK. (2018). Neuropeptide Y as a possible homeostatic element for changes in cortical excitability induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimul.11, 797–805. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.02.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  KaskieR. E.FerrarelliF. (2017). Investigating the neurobiology of schizophrenia and other major psychiatric disorders with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Schizophr. Res.192, 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2017.04.045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KimT. K.KimJ. E.ChoiJ.ParkJ. Y.LeeJ. E.LeeE. H.et al. (2017). Local Interleukin-18 system in the basolateral amygdala regulates susceptibility to chronic stress. Mol. Neurobiol.54, 5347–5358. doi: 10.1007/s12035-016-0052-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KimS. Y.VolskyD. J. (2005). PAGE: parametric analysis of gene set enrichment. BMC Bioinform.6:144. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-6-144

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KochG.CasulaE. P.BonnìS.BorghiI.AssognaM.MineiM.et al. (2022). Precuneus magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Brain145, 3776–3786. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac285

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  LamD.AncelinM. L.RitchieK.Freak-PoliR.SafferyR.RyanJ. (2018). Genotype-dependent associations between serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) DNA methylation and late-life depression. BMC Psychiatry18:282. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1850-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LamarT.VanoyeC. G.CalhounJ.WongJ. C.DuttonS. B.JorgeB. S.et al. (2017). SCN3A deficiency associated with increased seizure susceptibility. Neurobiol. Dis.102, 38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.02.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LassiG.TaylorA. E.TimpsonN. J.KennyP. J.MatherR. J.EisenT.et al. (2016). The CHRNA5-A3-B4 gene cluster and smoking: from discovery to therapeutics. Trends Neurosci.39, 851–861. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2016.10.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LeeC. H.GiulianiF. (2019). The role of inflammation in depression and fatigue. Front. Immunol.10:1696. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01696

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LeeS. A.OhB. M.KimS. J.PaikN. J. (2014). The molecular evidence of neural plasticity induced by cerebellar repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rat brain: a preliminary report. Neurosci. Lett.575, 47–52. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.05.029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LegrandM.TroubatR.BrizardB.Le GuisquetA. M.BelzungC.El-HageW. (2018). Prefrontal cortex rTMS reverses behavioral impairments and differentially activates c-Fos in a mouse model of post-traumatic stress disorder. Brain Stimul.12, 87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.09.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LiH.LvC.YangC.WeiD.ChenK.LiS.et al. (2017). SORL1 rs 1699102 polymorphism modulates age-related cognitive decline and gray matter volume reduction in non-demented individuals. Eur. J. Neurol.24, 187–194. doi: 10.1111/ene.13182

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LiY.SunH.ChenZ.XuH.BuG.ZhengH. (2016). Implications of GABAergic neurotransmission in Alzheimer's disease. Front. Aging Neurosci.8:31. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  LiY. Q.TanM. S.WangH. F.TanC. C.ZhangW.ZhengZ. J.et al. (2016). Common variant in PTK2B is associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease: a replication study and meta-analyses. Neurosci. Lett.621, 83–87. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.04.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LiD.YuanH.Ortiz-GonzalezX. R.MarshE. D.TianL.McCormickE. M.et al. (2016). GRIN2D recurrent De novo dominant mutation causes a severe epileptic encephalopathy treatable with NMDA receptor channel blockers. Am. J. Hum. Genet.99, 802–816. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.07.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  LiuX.BetzenhauserM. J.ReikenS.MeliA. C.XieW.ChenB. X.et al. (2012). Role of leaky neuronal ryanodine receptors in stress-induced cognitive dysfunction. Cells150, 1055–1067. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LiuH.LiuH.LiT.CuiJ.FuY.RenJ.et al. (2017). NR4A2 genetic variation and Parkinson's disease: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Lett.650, 25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.01.062

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  LosiG.Gomez-GonzaloM.ZontaM.ChiavegatoA.CarmignotoG. (2019). Cellular and molecular mechanisms of new onset seizure generation. Aging Clin. Exp. Res.33, 1713–1716. doi: 10.1007/s40520-019-01396-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LozeronP.PoujoisA.RichardA.MasmoudiS.MeppielE.WoimantF.et al. (2016). Contribution of TMS and rTMS in the understanding of the pathophysiology and in the treatment of dystonia. Front. Neural Circ.10:90. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2016.00090

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  LuF.LiuS.HaoQ.LiuL.ZhangJ.ChenX.et al. (2018). Association between complement factor C2/C3/CFB/CFH polymorphisms and age-related macular degeneration: a Meta-analysis. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers22, 526–540. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2018.0110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MatosinN.NewellK. A.QuideY.AndrewsJ. L.TeroganovaN.GreenM. J.et al. (2017). Effects of common GRM5 genetic variants on cognition, hippocampal volume and mGluR5 protein levels in schizophrenia. Brain Imaging Behav.12, 509–517. doi: 10.1007/s11682-017-9712-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MazucantiC. H.KawamotoE. M.MattsonM. P.ScavoneC.CamandolaS. (2018). Activity-dependent neuronal Klotho enhances astrocytic aerobic glycolysis. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab.39, 1544–1556. doi: 10.1177/0271678X18762700

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  McDonaldM. L.Mac MullenC.LiuD. J.LealS. M.DavisR. L. (2012). Genetic association of cyclic AMP signaling genes with bipolar disorder. Transl. Psychiatry2:e169. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.92

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  McDonnellM. N.StinearC. M. (2017). TMS measures of motor cortex function after stroke: a meta-analysis. Brain Stimul.10, 721–734. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.03.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  MetznerC.ZurowskiB.SteuberV. (2019). The role of Parvalbumin-positive interneurons in auditory steady-state response deficits in schizophrenia. Sci. Rep.9:18525. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53682-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  MinzenbergM. J.LeuchterA. F. (2019). The effect of psychotropic drugs on cortical excitability and plasticity measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation: implications for psychiatric treatment. J. Affect. Disord.253, 126–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.067

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  MixA.BenaliA.EyselU. T.FunkeK. (2010). Continuous and intermittent transcranial magnetic theta burst stimulation modify tactile learning performance and cortical protein expression in the rat differently. Eur. J. Neurosci.32, 1575–1586. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07425.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  MixA.HoppenrathK.FunkeK. (2015). Reduction in cortical parvalbumin expression due to intermittent theta-burst stimulation correlates with maturation of the perineuronal nets in young rats. Dev. Neurobiol.75, 1–11. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22205

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  MoellerS. J.Beebe-WangN.SchneiderK. E.KonovaA. B.ParvazM. A.Alia-KleinN.et al. (2015). Effects of an opioid (proenkephalin) polymorphism on neural response to errors in health and cocaine use disorder. Behav. Brain Res.293, 18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.07.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  MontaroloF.PergaS.MartireS.NavoneD. N.MarchetA.LeottaD.et al. (2016). Altered NR4A subfamily gene expression level in peripheral blood of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease patients. Neurotox. Res.30, 338–344. doi: 10.1007/s12640-016-9626-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  MorinJ. P.Guzman-RamosK.Bermudez-RattoniF. (2015). New insights on retrieval-induced and ongoing memory consolidation: lessons from arc. Neural Plast.2015:184083. doi: 10.1155/2015/184083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MufsonE. J.CountsS. E.PerezS. E.GinsbergS. D. (2008). Cholinergic system during the progression of Alzheimer's disease: therapeutic implications. Expert. Rev. Neurother.8, 1703–1718. doi: 10.1586/14737175.8.11.1703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  NardoneR.TezzonF.HollerY.GolaszewskiS.TrinkaE.BrigoF. (2014). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)/repetitive TMS in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neurol. Scand.129, 351–366. doi: 10.1111/ane.12223

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  NimgaonkarV. L.PrasadK. M.ChowdariK. V.SeveranceE. G.YolkenR. H. (2017). The complement system: a gateway to gene-environment interactions in schizophrenia pathogenesis. Mol. Psychiatry22, 1554–1561. doi: 10.1038/mp.2017.151

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  OhM. M.OliveiraF. A.DisterhoftJ. F. (2010). Learning and aging related changes in intrinsic neuronal excitability. Front. Aging Neurosci.2:2. doi: 10.3389/neuro.24.002.2010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  OlfsonE.SacconeN. L.JohnsonE. O.ChenL. S.CulverhouseR.DohenyK.et al. (2016). Rare, low frequency and common coding variants in CHRNA5 and their contribution to nicotine dependence in European and African Americans. Mol. Psychiatry21, 601–607. doi: 10.1038/mp.2015.105

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  PalopJ. J.ChinJ.RobersonE. D.WangJ.ThwinM. T.Bien-LyN.et al. (2007). Aberrant excitatory neuronal activity and compensatory remodeling of inhibitory hippocampal circuits in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. Neuron55, 697–711. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  PalopJ. J.MuckeL. (2016). Network abnormalities and interneuron dysfunction in Alzheimer disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.17, 777–792. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.141

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  PehrsonA. L.SanchezC. (2015). Altered gamma-aminobutyric acid neurotransmission in major depressive disorder: a critical review of the supporting evidence and the influence of serotonergic antidepressants. Drug Des. Devel. Ther.9, 603–624. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S62912

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Perez-OtanoI.LarsenR. S.WesselingJ. F. (2016). Emerging roles of Glu N3-containing NMDA receptors in the CNS. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.17, 623–635. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.92

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  PrasadD. K.ShaheenU.SatyanarayanaU.PrabhaT. S.JyothyA.MunshiA. (2014). Association of GABRA6 1519 T>C (rs 3219151) and Synapsin II (rs 37733634) gene polymorphisms with the development of idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Epilepsy Res.108, 1267–1273. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.07.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  PresumeyJ.BialasA. R.CarrollM. C. (2017). Complement system in neural synapse elimination in development and Disease. Adv. Immunol.135, 53–79. doi: 10.1016/bs.ai.2017.06.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  ProssinA. R.KochA. E.CampbellP. L.McInnisM. G.ZalcmanS. S.ZubietaJ. K. (2011). Association of plasma interleukin-18 levels with emotion regulation and mu-opioid neurotransmitter function in major depression and healthy volunteers. Biol. Psychiatry69, 808–812. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.10.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  ProulxE.PivaM.TianM. K.BaileyC. D.LambeE. K. (2014). Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in attention circuitry: the role of layer VI neurons of prefrontal cortex. Cell. Mol. Life Sci.71, 1225–1244. doi: 10.1007/s00018-013-1481-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  RamadanW.PatelN.AnaziS.KentabA. Y.BashiriF. A.HamadM. H.et al. (2017). Confirming the recessive inheritance of SCN1B mutations in developmental epileptic encephalopathy. Clin. Genet.92, 327–331. doi: 10.1111/cge.12999

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  RappP. R.GallagherM. (1996). Preserved neuron number in the hippocampus of aged rats with spatial learning deficits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.93, 9926–9930. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.18.9926

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  RappP. R.RosenbergR. A.GallagherM. (1987). An evaluation of spatial information processing in aged rats. Behav. Neurosci.101, 3–12. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.101.1.3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  RibeiroF. M.BlackS. A.PradoV. F.RylettR. J.FergusonS. S.PradoM. A. (2006). The "ins" and "outs" of the high-affinity choline transporter CHT1. J. Neurochem.97, 1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03695.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  SassoV.BisicchiaE.LatiniL.GhiglieriV.CacaceF.CarolaV.et al. (2016). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces remote apoptotic cell death and inflammation after focal brain injury. J. Neuroinflammation13:150. doi: 10.1186/s12974-016-0616-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  SchroeterM. L.SteinerJ.SchonknechtP.MuellerK. (2014). Further evidence for a role of S100B in mood disorders: a human gene expression mega-analysis. J. Psychiatr. Res.53, 84–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.02.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SchurR. R.DraismaL. W.WijnenJ. P.BoksM. P.KoevoetsM. G.JoelsM.et al. (2016). Brain GABA levels across psychiatric disorders: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of (1) H-MRS studies. Hum. Brain Mapp.37, 3337–3352. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23244

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SchwarzE. (2017). A gene-based review of RGS4 as a putative risk gene for psychiatric illness. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet.177, 267–273. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32547

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  ScottH. L.PowD. V.TannenbergA. E.DoddP. R. (2002). Aberrant expression of the glutamate transporter excitatory amino acid transporter 1 (EAAT1) in Alzheimer's disease. J. Neurosci.22:Rc206. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-03-j0004.2002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  ShenJ.ChenB.ZhengG. R.QiuS. Z.YinH. M.MaoW.et al. (2017). Detection of high serum concentration of CXC chemokine ligand-12 in acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Clin. Chim. Acta471, 55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2017.05.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  ShengJ. G.BoraS. H.XuG.BorcheltD. R.PriceD. L.KoliatsosV. E. (2003). Lipopolysaccharide-induced-neuroinflammation increases intracellular accumulation of amyloid precursor protein and amyloid beta peptide in APPswe transgenic mice. Neurobiol. Dis.14, 133–145. doi: 10.1016/S0969-9961(03)00069-X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  SilvaC. S.EiraJ.RibeiroC. A.OliveiraA.SousaM. M.CardosoI.et al. (2017). Transthyretin neuroprotection in Alzheimer's disease is dependent on proteolysis. Neurobiol. Aging59, 10–14. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.07.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  SilvantoJ.Pascual-LeoneA. (2008). State-dependency of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr.21, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10548-008-0067-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  SimpsonM.MacdonellR. (2015). The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in diagnosis, prognostication and treatment evaluation in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord.4, 430–436. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.06.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  SinghT.NewmanA. B. (2011). Inflammatory markers in population studies of aging. Ageing Res. Rev.10, 319–329. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2010.11.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  SmithM. C.StinearC. M. (2016). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in stroke: ready for clinical practice?J. Clin. Neurosci.31, 10–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  SpiegelA. M.KohM. T.VogtN. M.RappP. R.GallagherM. (2013). Hilar interneuron vulnerability distinguishes aged rats with memory impairment. J. Comp. Neurol.521, 3508–3523. doi: 10.1002/cne.23367

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  SudreC. H.BocchettaM.CashD.ThomasD. L.WoollacottI.DickK. M.et al. (2017). White matter hyperintensities are seen only in GRN mutation carriers in the GENFI cohort. Neuroimage Clin.15, 171–180. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.04.015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  SunW.FuQ.ZhangC.ManoharS.KumaraguruA.LiJ. (2014). Loudness perception affected by early age hearing loss. Hear. Res.313, 18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  SungH. Y.ChoiB. O.JeongJ. H.KongK. A.HwangJ.AhnJ. H. (2016). Amyloid beta-mediated hypomethylation of heme oxygenase 1 correlates with cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One11:e0153156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153156

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  SurendranS.RadyP. L.Michals-MatalonK.QuastM. J.RassinD. K.CampbellG. A.et al. (2003). Expression of glutamate transporter, GABRA6, serine proteinase inhibitor 2 and low levels of glutamate and GABA in the brain of knock-out mouse for Canavan disease. Brain Res. Bull.61, 427–435. doi: 10.1016/S0361-9230(03)00158-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Tomás PereiraI.BurwellR. D. (2015). Using the spatial learning index to evaluate performance on the water maze. Behav. Neurosci.129, 533–539. doi: 10.1037/bne0000078

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  Tomas PereiraI.GallagherM.RappP. R. (2015). Head west or left, east or right: interactions between memory systems in neurocognitive aging. Neurobiol. Aging36, 3067–3078. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.07.024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  TorvellM.CarpaniniS. M.DaskoulidouN.ByrneR. A. J.SimsR.MorganB. P. (2021). Genetic insights into the impact of complement in Alzheimer's Disease. Genes (Basel)12:1990. doi: 10.3390/genes12121990

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  TrippeJ.MixA.Aydin-AbidinS.FunkeK.BenaliA. (2009). theta burst and conventional low-frequency rTMS differentially affect GABAergic neurotransmission in the rat cortex. Exp. Brain Res.199, 411–421. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-1961-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  TurrizianiP.SmirniD.ZappalàG.ManganoG. R.OliveriM.CipolottiL. (2012). Enhancing memory performance with rTMS in healthy subjects and individuals with mild cognitive impairment: the role of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Front. Hum. Neurosci.6:62. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00062

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  VargaZ.CsabaiD.MisetaA.WiborgO.CzehB. (2017). Chronic stress affects the number of GABAergic neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex of rats. Behav. Brain Res.316, 104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.08.030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  WagnerT.Valero-CabreA.Pascual-LeoneA. (2007). Noninvasive human brain stimulation. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.9, 527–565. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.061206.133100

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  WangR.ReddyP. H. (2017). Role of glutamate and NMDA receptors in Alzheimer's Disease. J. Alzheimers Dis.57, 1041–1048. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160763

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  WangH. N.WangL.ZhangR. G.ChenY. C.LiuL.GaoF.et al. (2014). Anti-depressive mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in rat: the role of the endocannabinoid system. J. Psychiatr. Res.51, 79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2014.01.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  WeiL. K.AuA.MenonS.GriffithsL. R.KooiC. W.IreneL.et al. (2017). Polymorphisms of MTHFR, eNOS, ACE, AGT, Apo E, PON1, PDE4D, and ischemic stroke: meta-analysis. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis.26, 2482–2493. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.05.048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  WeiY.ZhuJ.PanS.SuH.LiH.WangJ. (2017). Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry29, 328–342. doi: 10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.217106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  WeilerM.Moreno-CastillaP.StarnesH. M.MelendezE. L. R.StiegerK. C.LongJ. M.et al. (2021). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in aged rats depend on pre-treatment cognitive status: toward individualized intervention for successful cognitive aging. Brain Stimul.14, 1219–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  WeilerM.StiegerK. C.LongJ. M.RappP. R. (2020). Transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: are we ready?eNeuro7, ENEURO.0235–ENEU19.2019. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0235-19.2019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  WuT.TangC.FanJ.TaoJ. (2022). Administration of rTMS alleviates stroke-induced cognitive deficits by modulating mi R-409-3p/CTRP3/AMPK/Sirt 1 axis. J. Mol. Neurosci.72, 507–515. doi: 10.1007/s12031-021-01924-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  YangX. R.KirtonA.WilkesT. C.PradhanS.LiuI.JaworskaN.et al. (2014). Glutamate alterations associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation in youth depression: a case series. J. ECT30, 242–247. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000094

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  YeH.KaszubaS. (2017). Inhibitory or excitatory? Optogenetic interrogation of the functional roles of GABAergic interneurons in epileptogenesis. J. Biomed. Sci.24:93. doi: 10.1186/s12929-017-0399-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  YuK. H.ChangP. Y.ChangS. C.Wu-ChouY. H.WuL. A.ChenD. P.et al. (2017). A comprehensive analysis of the association of common variants of ABCG2 with gout. Sci. Rep.7:9988. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10196-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  ZhangY.DeS.GarnerJ. R.SmithK.WangS. A.BeckerK. G. (2010). Systematic analysis, comparison, and integration of disease based human genetic association data and mouse genetic phenotypic information. BMC Med. Genet.3:1. doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-3-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  ZhaoX.LiH.ShiY.TangR.ChenW.LiuJ.et al. (2006). Significant association between the genetic variations in the 5′ end of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor subunit gene GRIN1 and schizophrenia. Biol. Psychiatry59, 747–753. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.10.023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  ZhengL.LiuW.HeW.YuS.ZhongG. (2017). Altered effective brain connectivity at early response of antipsychotics in first-episode schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations. Clin. Neurophysiol.128, 867–874. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.02.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  ZiemannU. (2004). TMS and drugs. Clin. Neurophysiol.115, 1717–1729. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  ZiemannU.ReisJ.SchwenkreisP.RosanovaM.StrafellaA.BadawyR.et al. (2015). TMS and drugs revisited 2014. Clin. Neurophysiol.126, 1847–1868. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.08.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar