2023
DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.0625-23.2023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multimodal Imaging for Validation and Optimization of Ion Channel-Based Chemogenetics in Nonhuman Primates

Yuki Hori,
Yuji Nagai,
Yukiko Hori
et al.

Abstract: Chemogenetic tools provide an opportunity to manipulate neuronal activity and behavior selectively and repeatedly in nonhuman primates (NHPs) with minimal invasiveness. Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs are one example that is based on mutated muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Another channel-based chemogenetic system available for neuronal modulation in NHPs uses Pharmacologically Selective Actuator Modules (PSAMs), which are selectively activated by Pharmacologically Selective Effe… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 29 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, similar to ICMS, optogenetics requires an invasive surgical procedure to generate neuromodulation effects in the brain. In contrast, chemogenetic methods are minimally invasive (Berglund et al, 2016; Dimidschstein et al, 2016; Gomez-Ramirez et al, 2020; Hori et al, 2023; Song et al, 2022; Urban and Roth, 2015; Vlasov et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2022), and provide broad coverage of activation that is particularly useful for modulating activity in large-brain animals such as non-human primates (Cushnie et al, 2023; Hori et al, 2023; Raper and Galvan, 2022). However, chemogenetics has less temporal precision, in comparison to optogenetics and ICMS, with some methods producing effects that last hours (and sometimes days) as in the case of designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs (DREADDs).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, similar to ICMS, optogenetics requires an invasive surgical procedure to generate neuromodulation effects in the brain. In contrast, chemogenetic methods are minimally invasive (Berglund et al, 2016; Dimidschstein et al, 2016; Gomez-Ramirez et al, 2020; Hori et al, 2023; Song et al, 2022; Urban and Roth, 2015; Vlasov et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2022), and provide broad coverage of activation that is particularly useful for modulating activity in large-brain animals such as non-human primates (Cushnie et al, 2023; Hori et al, 2023; Raper and Galvan, 2022). However, chemogenetics has less temporal precision, in comparison to optogenetics and ICMS, with some methods producing effects that last hours (and sometimes days) as in the case of designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs (DREADDs).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%