A Trial of D-Cycloserine to Treat the Social Deficit in Older Adolescents and Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Publication: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorders are difficult for older adolescents and young adults as impaired social communication affects the transition to adult life. d-Cycloserine, a partial glycine agonist at the N-methyl-d-aspartic acid receptor, was tested in a double-blind randomized trial in 20 older adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders using two dosing strategies (50 mg daily versus 50 mg weekly) for 8 weeks with a 2-week follow-up after discontinuation. d-Cycloserine caused statistically and clinically significant improvement with no differentiation between dosing strategies on the Social Responsiveness Scale and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist before and after d-cycloserine administration.
Social communication deficits, manifested by poor knowledge of social skills or the inappropriate use of these skills, are a core symptom domain of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs); there are few effective treatments that target this domain.1 Older adolescents and young adults with ASDs are especially affected by these deficits as they transition to adult life; moreover, they are a severely underserved population, despite a recent surge in research and treatment services for patients with ASDs.2
Finding medications to treat core symptom domains of ASDs, such as impaired sociability and stereotypic behaviors, has been difficult.3 A role for glutamatergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of ASDs has been shown.3,4 For example, transgenic mice with deficient expression of N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor subunit NR1 or an up to fivefold diminished affinity of the NMDA receptor for the obligatory glycine coagonist have impaired sociability.5–7 GlycineB site agonists work cooperatively with glutamate to promote channel opening and Ca2+ conductance. Importantly, d-cycloserine (DCS), a partial glycineB agonist, improved sociability in several mouse models of ASDs in a standard social paradigm and was also reported to improve sociability in children with ASDs.8–12 DCS has been used in multiple other human child and adult studies with dosages ranging from 30 mg to 500 mg daily.13 No therapeutic responses were observed with doses <50 mg, whereas doses >250 mg were without any greater therapeutic effect and were associated with intolerable side effects, including exacerbation of psychosis in patients with schizophrenia. This latter side effect may reflect antagonism of the strychnine-insensitive glycine binding site by DCS at the higher doses.13–16
The sensitivity of the obligatory glycineB coagonist binding site may change with daily administration of DCS as a result of “agonist-induced desensitization.”14,17 Thus, in this pilot investigation, we compared the efficacy of a pulsed once-weekly administration versus daily administration of DCS in order to address the important issue of tachyphylaxis or receptor desensitization, which is a loss of efficacy due to tonic exposure to DCS as a result of daily administration.17 Importantly, a pulsed administration has been shown to be effective in terms of facilitating extinction in human subjects treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder with cognitive-behavioral therapeutic interventions.18 In addition, a pulsed administration has been studied in patients with schizophrenia, a disorder in which DCS has been administered in order to target presumed NMDA receptor hypofunction.14,19
Specific aims included replication of the preliminary findings of Posey et al.10 in older adolescents and young adults with ASD whose total IQs were ≥70 and possessed sufficient expressive language to describe effects on social ability. In addition, we wished to determine whether there were any advantages of daily dosing over a once-weekly pulsed administration of DCS. Thus, the two dosing regimens were explored using a double-blind randomized design (i.e., 50 mg daily versus 50 mg weekly).
Methods
Participants
Male and female participants (aged 14–25 years) with a documented DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of ASD from their treating psychologist/psychiatrist whose symptoms met a cutoff on the ASD Checklist based on DSM-IV-TR criteria completed by the parent were enrolled. The checklist was developed by one of the coauthors (K.H.) and served to assure that groups were comparable with equivalent numbers of discrete symptoms but were not necessarily similar with respect to symptom severity. All subjects were required to provide documentation of a normal physical examination and laboratory screening (comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count) as well as an ECG and IQ test (IQ>70) within a year before starting the study. IQs were measured using the Wechsler Abbreviated Score for Intelligence.20 Medication and therapy regimens were required to remain stable for 4 weeks before beginning the study.
Individuals were ineligible for the study if they had active suicidal thoughts or major medical problems (liver disease, kidney disease, seizure disorder, heart disease, severe anxiety or depression, or psychosis), were pregnant or breastfeeding, or were taking isoniazids or ethionamides.
Participants agreed to maintain their stable treatment regimen (including medications and/or therapy) while enrolled in the study and to refrain from drinking alcohol for the duration of the trial. All female participants were given a pregnancy test at the start of the study and were excluded if the test yielded a positive result. Subjects with abnormal ECG results were referred to their cardiologist/primary care physician for medical clearance before starting the study.
All subjects or guardians (legally appointed representatives) provided voluntary informed consent or assent, as appropriate. This study was approved by the Eastern Virginia Medical School Institutional Review Board.
Design
The study was a double-blind randomized 10-week trial, consisting of 8 weeks of active drug at either weekly or daily dosing and a 2-week follow-up visit, conducted between August 2010 and March 2012. Two dosing strategies, 50 mg weekly (placebo taken for the remaining 6 days of the week) and 50 mg daily, were compared. Subjects were required to attend four visits: baseline, midpoint of active drug administration at 4 weeks, end of active drug administration at 8 weeks, and follow-up at 10 weeks. The study measures were completed at each visit. Treatment compliance was monitored by a diary card, which subjects and/or caregivers completed on a daily basis.
Study Measures
The Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), which has been used to assess drug and other treatment effects (psychopharmacologic, behavioral, and other) in severely intellectually disabled individuals and persons with ASDs, was administered at every visit.21–24 The ABC is normed from childhood to adulthood and has 58 items rated on a Likert scale. Factor analyses of the ABC resulted in five factor subscales: 1) irritability, agitation, or crying; 2) lethargy/social withdrawal; 3) stereotypic behavior; 4) hyperactivity or noncompliance; and 5) inappropriate speech. The five subscales were analyzed independently in this study. The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) was administered at every visit. The SRS measures the severity of autism in an individual’s natural setting and focuses on social awareness, social information processing, capacity for reciprocal social communication, social anxiety/avoidance, and autism preoccupation.25–27 The following social perception tests of the Advanced Clinical Solutions cognitive test battery28 were administered at every visit: 1) in the affect naming test, subjects shown pictures of adults experiencing various emotions are tasked with pointing to which of several affective terms best describe the emotions (e.g., happy, sad, angry, afraid, surprised, disgusted, or no feeling/neutral); and 2) in the prosody-face matching test, subjects listening to audiotapes of people speaking are tasked with pointing to which of several faces best represents the feeling expressed by the audiotape.
Statistical Analysis
Summary statistics included means and standard deviations for continuous variables as well as frequencies for categorical variables. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess changes in clinical outcomes over time according to group assignment by testing for the additive effects of group and time as well as group × time interaction. The t test was used to test for differences in baseline demographics between the two groups. Fisher’s exact test was used to test for differences in gender and number of clinical responders between the two groups. Principal component analysis was used to produce exploratory biplots of baseline measures and patient improvement from baseline to week 8 to look for patient subpopulations that may be particularly receptive to treatment. A significance level of alpha=0.05 was used for all analyses. The p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. SAS software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.
Results
Twenty-one subjects were enrolled in the study and randomized to either the daily or weekly dosage of DCS using a block randomization procedure. Twenty subjects completed the study. One subject discontinued DCS after the baseline visit due to minor depression, resulting in 20 total subjects in trial. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographics of subjects in the trial by dosage group. All subjects maintained a stable medication and therapy regimen throughout the trial. Most subjects were taking a serotonin-enhancing drug such as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, buspirone, or clomipramine (N=13) and/or a stimulant such as extended-release methylphenidate, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or dextroamphetamine/amphetamine (N=9). Three subjects were taking low-dose risperidone or aripiprazole, one subject was taking clonidine, and one subject was taking oxcarbazepine.
| Demographic | Daily Dosing | Weekly Dosing | t Score | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 17.9 (2.51) | 17.3 (2.83) | 0.48 | 0.64 |
| IQ | 105.8 (14.49) | 98.7 (20.26) | 0.89 | 0.39 |
| ASD checklist | 16.4 (4.5) | 15.7 (6.14) | 0.28 | 0.78 |
| Gender | – | 1.00 | ||
| Male | 6 | 8 | ||
| Female | 3 | 3 |
a
Means and standard deviations for continuous measures are reported. There were no significant differences in demographics between dosage strategy groups. Fisher’s exact test was used to test for an association between gender and dosage strategy. ASD, autism spectrum disorder.
Linear mixed-effects models were fit to each of the scores to assess change from baseline to week 8 (end of medication). Figure 1 shows box plots of response over time from baseline to week 10 for both dosage conditions for the SRS, ABC subscale II, and affect naming test with mean trend lines added for each group. Our primary outcome measure of efficacy was the SRS, which was used to assess severity of social impairment.27 Both daily and weekly dosing strategies showed a significant downward trend when modeled separately (p=0.004 and p=0.001, respectively). However, we were unable to detect a significant group × time interaction between the two groups when included in the same model (p=0.34). If we instead define a threshold for clinical response equal to change >1 SD (16 points), we again see no difference in the proportion of clinical responders in each group (three of nine in the daily group, seven of 11 in the weekly group) as assessed by Fisher’s exact test (p=0.37).
FIGURE 1. Response Profiles by Dosage Strategya
aBox plots of patient scores are given over time for Social Responsiveness Score (A), Aberrant Behavior Checklist subscale II (B), and the affect naming test (C). Mean trend lines added for each group visually confirm statistical tests finding no significant group × time interactions. ABC, Aberrant Behavior Checklist; AN, affect naming.
All other measures similarly showed statistically significant decreasing linear time effects but all group × time interactions were not statistically significant. Because there were no significant differences in efficacy between dosing strategies, the groups were combined and results are shown in Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed to test for a significant positive association between the SRS and ABC subscale II (r=0.55, p<0.001). The SRS and the ABC subscale II are two major scales used in conjunction to assess social function in multiple studies of treatment response in patients with ASD.
| Outcome | Slope | F Test | p Value | Adjusted p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRS | –2.15 | 21.2 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| ABC subscale | ||||
| I (irritability) | –0.21 | 11.8 | 0.001 | 0.01 |
| II (lethargy) | –0.27 | 13.7 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| III (stereotypy) | –0.20 | 8.7 | 0.003 | 0.03 |
| IV (hyperactivity) | –0.23 | 10.1 | 0.002 | 0.02 |
| V (speech) | –0.09 | 7.5 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
| AN | 0.11 | 18.7 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| PFM | 0.10 | 3.4 | 0.07 | 0.57 |
a
Slope, results from test for linear association for both groups combined, and Bonferroni-adjusted p values are reported. There were no significant differences in slopes between dosage strategies for any of the measures. A decrease in SRS and ABC subscales denotes an improvement, whereas an increase in AN and PFM denotes an improvement. ABC, Aberrant Behavior Checklist; AN, affect naming; PFM, prosody-face matching; SRS, Social Responsiveness Scale.
Linear mixed-effect model analysis was restricted to time on medication; little to no worsening or improvement was observed from week 8 to follow-up at week 10 on the SRS and the ABC subscales.
Figure 2 shows exploratory biplots of baseline scores and improvement from baseline to week 8 for all measures using principal component analysis. The first biplot in Figure 2A clusters patients by baseline scores with arrows pointing in the direction of worse than average scores. We can see that patients 1, 9, and 12 had poorer than average baseline scores, especially for the SRS and ABC subscale II, whereas patients 3, 4, and 8 had poorer than average scores especially on the other ABC subscales and the affect naming test. Figure 2B similarly clusters patients by change in scores from baseline to week 8 with arrows pointing in directions of better than average improvement. We can see that many of the patients, particularly 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9, cluster similarly in both plots, indicating that in most cases, patients with poorer baseline scores generally saw greater improvements from baseline to week 8 than those with more favorable baseline scores.
FIGURE 2. Biplot Clustering of Patients Using Baseline Measures and Changes From Baseline to Week 8a
a(A) Patients clustered by baseline scores using principal component analysis. Arrows point in the direction of poorer than average baseline scores indicating patients 1, 3, 9, and 12 had the worst starting scores. (B) Patients clustered by improvement from baseline to week 8 using principal component analysis on change in scores from baseline to week 8. Arrows point in the direction of higher than average response. Comparing B with A, in most cases, poorer baseline measurements are indicative of higher than average response (particularly patients 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9).
Importantly, DCS was very well tolerated; only transient spontaneously recorded side effects were noted on diary cards kept by the patients and their caregivers, which were not reasons for medication discontinuation (Table 3). There was a slightly higher incidence of side effects in the daily dosage group than the weekly dosage group, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant by Fisher’s exact test (p=0.65). Four subjects requested to continue DCS after the study ended.
| Side Effect | Daily Dosing | Weekly Dosing |
|---|---|---|
| Mild periodic hand tremors | 2 | 0 |
| Nervousness | 0 | 1 |
| Tired | 1 | 1 |
| Trouble sleeping | 2 | 0 |
| Bad dreams | 0 | 1 |
| Headaches | 0 | 1 |
| Increased appetite | 0 | 1 |
| Decreased appetite | 1 | 0 |
| Irritable | 0 | 1 |
| Feeling more down than usual | 1 | 0 |
a
d-Cycloserine was well tolerated, with low incidence of side effects and no statistically significant differences between groups but a trend favoring weekly dosing. There was one dropout; dropouts are not included in the table.
Discussion
Treatment of the core social deficit in ASDs has been elusive. This study provides proof of concept/proof of principle that targeting the NMDA receptor in the context of a comprehensive, individualized interdisciplinary treatment plan holds promise for addressing this core symptom domain. The results suggest that a once-weekly pulsed dosing strategy can be adopted in future clinical trials, which will enhance compliance, minimize the potential for side effects, and reduce costs. DCS was safe and well tolerated in this study sample. Importantly, medication trials that include the older adolescent and young adult population with ASDs are rare.
Positive therapeutic effects of DCS were detected with parent rating scales (i.e., the ABC and SRS), as well as objective tests completed by the subjects (i.e., the Social Perception–Affect Naming subtest). Improvement was not detected on Social Perception–Prosody-Face Matching, a complex subtest that requires correctly matching auditory and visual expressions of emotional responses. For all scales, no group × time interactions were statistically or clinically significant, which may be partially attributable to small group sample sizes. Exploratory cluster analysis suggests that patients with more severe baseline symptoms may have more to gain from DCS than those with milder symptoms at baseline. Factor analysis of the SRS and ABC subscale II may clarify the symptom clusters responsible for the prosocial effect of DCS. In addition, analysis of the Social Perception–Affect Naming subtest may clarify which emotions are better discriminated as a result of NMDA receptor activation. Consistent with the known heterogeneity of the phenotype of ASDs and their outcomes, the biplots revealed individual subjects responding best on different outcome measures.
NMDA receptors are enriched in anatomic nodes within circuits subserving sociability (e.g., frontal cortex and hippocampus), and diminished NMDA receptor–mediated neurotransmission is associated with impaired sociability.29 Increased signaling activity of the mammalian target of rapamycin is a pathogenic mechanism implicated in several syndromic forms of ASDs that are due to effects of single mutant genes (e.g., tuberous sclerosis complex, type 1 neurofibromatosis, and fragile X syndrome), and dysregulated mammalian target of rapamycin signaling may also be involved in nonsyndromic presentations.30–33 Interestingly, NMDA receptor activation contributes significantly to the regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin signaling activity.34–39 Conceivably, at least some of the prosocial effects of DCS are mediated by regulatory effects of NMDA receptor activation on mammalian target of rapamycin signaling activity.
An early dose-escalating trial of DCS added to first-generation antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia suggested that beneficial effects on negative symptoms observed a U-shaped dose-response relation, with maximal improvement occurring at 50 mg/day.40 Moreover, worsening of psychosis was associated with high serum concentrations and doses of ≥250 mg/day.13 Theoretically, daily (350 mg/week), as opposed to once-weekly (50 mg/week), dosing of DCS is more likely to be associated with receptor desensitization and tachyphylaxis to its therapeutic effects, as well as excitotoxicity. The differences between low and higher absolute and cumulative doses (the latter are associated with daily administration) could also reflect differences in the sensitivity and location of NMDA receptors containing NR2C versus NR2A or NR2B subunits. DCS behaves more like a full agonist at NMDA receptors containing NR2C subunits, which are enriched on cerebellar granule cells and are also found on interneurons in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus.13 Thus, beneficial effects of the once-weekly dose of DCS (50 mg) may reflect stimulation of NR2C-containing receptors in areas of the brain implicated in the circuitry of impaired sociability, whereas higher absolute or cumulative doses (e.g., 350 mg/week) may reflect both antagonistic effects of this partial agonist at NR2A- and NR2B-containing receptors and, possibly, desensitization of NR2C-containing receptors. In any event, this investigation supports a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pulsed weekly DCS administration in a larger sample of older adolescents and young adults with ASDs.
Limitations of this study include a lack of placebo control although subjects were randomized and raters were double blinded. A small sample size with high variability in the outcome measures limits the conclusion that there is no difference between dosing strategies. Bias from parental reporting is also a consideration; however, one objective measure, the affect naming test, showed positive results as well. It is also possible that a combination of a serotonin-enhancing drug with DCS may be responsible for the positive results because several of our responders were taking one of these medications.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Hampton Roads Community Foundation (Grant 20101482). The funding source had no involvement in the research. Bayview Pharmacy provided the study drug, and the Eastern Virginia Medical School Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences provided funding for the study drug, staff, and supplies.
Previous Presentation: NCDEU, May 29, 2013, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
References
1.
Bellini S, Peters JK: Social skills training for youth with autism spectrum disorders. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2008; 17:857–873, x
2.
Wehman P, Smith M, Schall C: Autism and the Transition to Adulthood: Success Beyond the Classroom. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes, 2009
3.
Posey DJ, Erickson CA, McDougle CJ: Developing drugs for core social and communication impairment in autism. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2008; 17:787–801, viii–ix
4.
Marino MJ, Conn PJ: Glutamate-based therapeutic approaches: allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate receptors. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2006; 6:98–102
5.
Won H, Lee HR, Gee HY, et al: Autistic-like social behaviour in Shank2-mutant mice improved by restoring NMDA receptor function. Nature 2012; 486:261–265
6.
Halene TB, Ehrlichman RS, Liang Y, et al: Assessment of NMDA receptor NR1 subunit hypofunction in mice as a model for schizophrenia. Genes Brain Behav 2009; 8:661–675
7.
Labrie V, Lipina T, Roder JC: Mice with reduced NMDA receptor glycine affinity model some of the negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2008; 200:217–230
8.
Burket JA, Herndon AL, Deutsch SI: Locomotor activity of the genetically inbred Balb/c mouse strain is suppressed by a socially salient stimulus. Brain Res Bull 2010; 83:255–256
9.
Deutsch SI, Burket JA, Jacome LF, et al: D-Cycloserine improves the impaired sociability of the Balb/c mouse. Brain Res Bull 2011; 84:8–11
10.
Posey DJ, Kem DL, Swiezy NB, et al: A pilot study of D-cycloserine in subjects with autistic disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:2115–2117
11.
Deutsch SI, Pepe GJ, Burket JA, et al: D-cycloserine improves sociability and spontaneous stereotypic behaviors in 4-week old mice. Brain Res 2012; 1439:96–107
12.
Burket JA, Benson AD, Tang AH, et al: D-Cycloserine improves sociability in the BTBR T+ Itpr3tf/J mouse model of autism spectrum disorders with altered Ras/Raf/ERK1/2 signaling. Brain Res Bull 2013; 96:62–70
13.
Goff DC: D-cycloserine: an evolving role in learning and neuroplasticity in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38:936–941
14.
Goff DC, Cather C, Gottlieb JD, et al: Once-weekly D-cycloserine effects on negative symptoms and cognition in schizophrenia: an exploratory study. Schizophr Res 2008; 106:320–327
15.
Heaton LJ, McNeil DW, Milgrom PM: Propranolol and D-cycloserine as adjunctive medications in reducing dental fear in sedation practice. SAAD Dig 2010; 26:27–35
16.
Rothbaum BO: Critical parameters for D-cycloserine enhancement of cognitive-behaviorial therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165:293–296
17.
Quartermain D, Mower J, Rafferty MF, et al: Acute but not chronic activation of the NMDA-coupled glycine receptor with D-cycloserine facilitates learning and retention. Eur J Pharmacol 1994; 257:7–12
18.
Wilhelm S, Buhlmann U, Tolin DF, et al: Augmentation of behavior therapy with D-cycloserine for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165:335–341, quiz 409
19.
Javitt DC: Glutamate as a therapeutic target in psychiatric disorders. Mol Psychiatry 2004; 9:984–997
20.
Wechsler D: WASI: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence Manual. San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation, 1999
21.
Aman MG, Singh NN, Stewart AW, et al: The aberrant behavior checklist: a behavior rating scale for the assessment of treatment effects. Am J Ment Defic 1985; 89:485–491
22.
Shea S, Turgay A, Carroll A, et al: Risperidone in the treatment of disruptive behavioral symptoms in children with autistic and other pervasive developmental disorders. Pediatrics 2004; 114:e634–e641
23.
Aman MG, De Smedt G, Derivan A, et al: Risperidone Disruptive Behavior Study Group: Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of risperidone for the treatment of disruptive behaviors in children with subaverage intelligence. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:1337–1346
24.
Aman MG, Kasper W, Manos G, et al: Line-item analysis of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist: results from two studies of aripiprazole in the treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 2010; 20:415–422
25.
Constantino JN, Gruber CP: Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services, 2005
26.
Murray MJ, Mayes SD, Smith LA: Brief report: excellent agreement between two brief autism scales (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social Responsiveness Scale) completed independently by parents and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. J Autism Dev Disord 2011; 41:1586–1590
27.
Hus V, Bishop S, Gotham K, et al: Factors influencing scores on the social responsiveness scale. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013; 54:216–224
28.
Wechsler D: Advanced Clinical Solutions for Use with WAIS-IV and WMS-IV. San Antonio, TX, Pearson, 2009
29.
Crino PB: mTOR: A pathogenic signaling pathway in developmental brain malformations. Trends Mol Med 2011; 17:734–742
30.
Sahin M: Targeted treatment trials for tuberous sclerosis and autism: no longer a dream. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2012; 22:895–901
31.
Ehninger D, Silva AJ: Rapamycin for treating tuberous sclerosis and autism spectrum disorders. Trends Mol Med 2011; 17:78–87
32.
Talos DM, Sun H, Zhou X, et al: The interaction between early life epilepsy and autistic-like behavioral consequences: a role for the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. PLoS One 2012; 7:e35885
33.
Tsai PT, Hull C, Chu Y, et al: Autistic-like behaviour and cerebellar dysfunction in Purkinje cell Tsc1 mutant mice. Nature 2012; 488:647–651
34.
Cuscó I, Medrano A, Gener B, et al: Autism-specific copy number variants further implicate the phosphatidylinositol signaling pathway and the glutamatergic synapse in the etiology of the disorder. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18:1795–1804
35.
Sharma A, Hoeffer CA, Takayasu Y, et al: Dysregulation of mTOR signaling in fragile X syndrome. J Neurosci 2010; 30:694–702
36.
Paul S, Nairn AC, Wang P, et al: NMDA-mediated activation of the tyrosine phosphatase STEP regulates the duration of ERK signaling. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6:34–42
37.
Fitzpatrick CJ, Lombroso PJ: The role of striatal-enriched protein tyrosine phosphatase (STEP) in cognition. Front Neuroanat 2011; 5:47
38.
Paul S, Connor JA: NR2B-NMDA receptor-mediated increases in intracellular Ca2+ concentration regulate the tyrosine phosphatase, STEP, and ERK MAP kinase signaling. J Neurochem 2010; 114:1107–1118
39.
Zhou J, Blundell J, Ogawa S, et al: Pharmacological inhibition of mTORC1 suppresses anatomical, cellular, and behavioral abnormalities in neural-specific Pten knock-out mice. J Neurosci 2009; 29:1773–1783
40.
Goff DC, Tsai G, Manoach DS, Coyle JT: Dose-finding trial of D-cycloserine added to neuroleptics for negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:1213–1215
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 9 July 2013
Accepted: 12 November 2013
Published in print: Spring 2015
Published online: 29 April 2015
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).