Cortical origin of functional recovery in the somatosensory cortex of the adult mouse after thalamic lesion

Neuroplasticity related to chronic pain and its modulation by microglia

Neuropathic pain is often chronic and can persist after overt tissue damage heals, suggesting that its underlying mechanism involves the alteration of neuronal function. Such an alteration can be a direct consequence of nerve damage or a result of neuroplasticity secondary to the damage to tissues or to neurons. Recent studies have shown that neuroplasticity is linked to causing neuropathic pain in response to nerve damage, which may occur adjacent to or remotely from the site of injury. Furthermore, studies have revealed that neuroplasticity relevant to chronic pain is modulated by microglia, resident immune cells of the central nervous system (CNS). Microglia may directly contribute to synaptic remodeling and altering pain circuits, or indirectly contribute to neuroplasticity through property changes, including the secretion of growth factors. We herein highlight the mechanisms underlying neuroplasticity that occur in the somatosensory circuit of the spinal dorsal horn, thalamus, and cortex associated with chronic pain following injury to the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS. We also discuss the dynamic functions of microglia in shaping neuroplasticity related to chronic pain. We suggest further understanding of post-injury ectopic plasticity in the somatosensory circuits may shed light on the differential mechanisms underlying nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic-type pain. While one of the prominent roles played by microglia appears to be the modulation of post-injury neuroplasticity. Therefore, future molecular- or genetics-based studies that address microglia-mediated post-injury neuroplasticity may contribute to the development of novel therapies for chronic pain.

Development of disease-modifying treatment of schizophrenia

Development of disease-modifying therapies requires an innovative approach to drug development where novel drugs are designed to target mechanisms of interest rather than to produce preclinical effects similar to those of currently used antipsychotics. Application of such novel strategy will undoubtedly require a very deep understanding of the disease biology that is just starting to emerge. Alternatively, one may let environmental experiences of the diseased individual guide the repair process and use drugs only to facilitate the effects of experience. Such an approach would bring together functional experience that is age-, environment- and disease-dependent with the plasticity resources that may otherwise not be available. There are currently no preclinical drug-environment interaction models that can be claimed to have significant degrees of validity. Therefore, from a drug development perspective, principles that combine acute symptomatic and disease-modifying properties are clearly preferred. The question arises then how such treatments can be differentiated from those that have only symptomatic effects (i.e., most currently used antipsychotic medications). One expectation is that the former will show superior and broader efficacy (especially with longer treatment duration). Another possibility is that disease-modifying drugs will be particularly useful at the very earliest stages of the disease. Society and medical communities may not be ready yet to initiate the treatment as early as during the prodromal phase, but the situation may change by the time the science advances enough to bring a convincing case of a drug with disease-modification potential.