SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Immune involvement in neuropsychiatric disorders: Insights from single-cell transcriptomic studies.

Psychiatry Clin Neurosci · 2025-12-27

DOI: 10.1111/pcn.70018PMID: 41454738

Open accessother; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Neuropsychiatric disorders pose profound challenges to both research and treatment, largely due to their clinical heterogeneity and the limited understanding of their underlying biological mechanisms. While bulk RNA sequencing (bulk RNA-seq) has been widely used to study gene expression, it cannot resolve cell-type-specific signals or detect rare cellular subpopulations. In contrast, single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) have emerged as transformative technologies, enabling transcriptomic profiling at single-cell resolution. These approaches have revealed immunological alterations across a wide range of disorders. This review introduces recent findings from sc/snRNA-seq studies of immune-related mechanisms in psychiatric disorders-including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-as well as in neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, multiple sclerosis, and anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. While sc/snRNA-seq overcome averaging effects of bulk RNA-seq by resolving cell types, these methods still face challenges. We outline a roadmap that integrates bulk RNA-seq and sc/snRNA-seq to mitigate the remaining gaps.

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.