Hi,
I'm not an expert on this topic, but we've had serious introduction
into nerosciences in school, and there are some things which I think
are worth mentioning here. Firstly, most people have in mind that
there are like 2-3 neurotransmitters, when in fact there are about
dozen of them, and about 50 neuropeptides serve as modulators and
neurotransmitters too (Britannica guide to brain, 2008).
In addition, for every neurotransmitter there are several types of
receptors. You can see an example of the situation for serotonin
receptors here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-HT_receptor . Next
thing is, that receptors not only excite neurons, but also inhibit
them - there are at least 50% of inhibiting receptors generally, some
claim more than 90%. As britannica puts it, if there were more than a
tiny fraction of neurons in the brain active at the same time, we
would got into epileptic convulsions immediately, which sound logical
to me.
Now to the point. There's not too much sense in talking about absolute
amounts of neurotransmitters in brain, because the dynamic is very
complex: you have some amount of, say, serotonin. AND, you have some
amounts of receptors for it. So when serotonin level goes down, more
of your serotonin receptors are pulled to the surface of the
serotonergic neurons to preserve the whole serotonergic system. And,
when you raise the levels of neurotransmitter too high, the brain will
cope through pushing the receptros down, to balance again the whole
system.
Another example - wikipedia says, that 90% of brain neurons release
only either glutamate or GABA. When you release/receive glutamate, you
excite. When GABA, you inhibit. So when you drink alcohol, it binds to
GABA receptors, so it inhibits the whole neuron. But inhibiting some
neuron(s) can paradoxically mean un-inhibited behavior, as it is the
case with alcohol. Actually this is because alcohol firstly inhibits
areas responsible for inhibition of behavior... than inhibits
everything (slower reaction times, and sleep).
So BP means the number of active receptors on the surface of dopamin
neurons. If BP raises, there's maybe low level of dopamin in the
brain, and you need more receptors to "catch it". And opposite, when
you have lower BP, it could mean that more dopamine is available.
Actually McNab in his n-back study showed that the latter case (less
BP so probably more dopamin) is good for WM: "larger decreases in D1
BP being associated with larger improvements in WM". Regarding the
schizophrenia I believe he works with the hypothesis that low WM is
associated with schizophrenia risk - so in schizophrenic people it's
"small WM, lot of D1 receptors, because dopamine is low".
Nevertheless, D2 dopamine receptor does not show these relationships,
and the question of the days of course is, what is the long term long
term dynamics of the whole system. Hope this was useful for you.
> October 31, 10:12 am, Pheonoxia <
b...@brockman.info> wrote:
> From the February 26, 2009 issue of Science Magazine, the same study
> that showed WM training affected dopamine receptors as seen on MRI
> scans, "A negative correlation dominated for all regions, with larger
> decreases in D1 BP being associated with larger improvements in
> WM. ... An association between a decrease in BP and an increase in WM
> is also consistent with the negative correlation observed between WM
> capacity and D1 binding in individuals with schizophrenia."
http://brain-training.googlegroups.com/web/mcnab2009-nback-changes-do...