SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Motor cortical plasticity and its correlation with motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease.

eNeurologicalSci · 2022-09-01

DOI: 10.1016/j.ensci.2022.100422PMID: 36097517

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundThe relationship between abnormal cortical plasticity and parkinsonian symptoms remains unclear in Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectiveWe studied the relationship between their symptoms and degree of Long-term potentiation (LTP)-like effects induced by quadripulse magnetic stimulation (QPS) over the primary motor cortex, which has a small inter-individual variability in humans.MethodsParticipants were 16 PD patients (drug-naïve or treated with L-DOPA monotherapy) and 13 healthy controls (HC). LTP-like effects by QPS were compared between three conditions (HC、PD with or without L-DOPA). In PD, correlation analyses were performed between clinical scores (MDS-UPDRS, MMSE and MoCA-J) and the degree of LTP-like effects induced by QPS.ResultsIn PD, QPS-induced LTP-like effect was reduced and restored by L-DOPA. The degree of the LTP was negatively correlated with MDS-UPDRS Part I and III scores, but not with MMSE and MoCA-J. In the sub-scores, upper limb bradykinesia and rigidity showed a negative correlation with the LTP-like effect whereas the tremor had no correlation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that motor cortical plasticity relate with mechanisms underlying bradykinesia and rigidity in the upper limb muscles. LTP induced by QPS may be used as an objective marker of parkinsonian symptoms.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.