Glutamatergic Dysfunction in OCD
Abstract
The role of glutamatergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of OCD has hardly been explored despite recent reports implicating glutamatergic dysfunction in OCD. We decided to investigate CSF glutamate levels in adult OCD probands compared to psychiatrically normal controls. In total, 21 consenting psychotropic drug-naïve adult OCD patients, diagnosed using SCID-IV-CV, and 18 consenting psychiatrically normal controls with age within 10 years of age of the patients, who did not have any history of head injury or neurological illness, were included into the study. Aseptically collected and stored CSF samples obtained from the patients and control subjects were used for glutamate estimation, which was carried out by a modification of the procedure described by Lund (1986). CSF glutamate (micromol/l) level was found to be significantly higher [F(1,31)=6.846, p=0.014] in OCD patients (47.12+/-4.25) compared to control subjects (41.36+/-3.63) on analysis of covariance. There was no effect of gender, age, duration of illness, Y-BOCS score, or CGI-S score on CSF glutamate levels. Our study provides preliminary evidence implicating glutamatergic excess in the pathophysiology of OCD, which needs to be further explored by studies from other centers involving larger sample sets from different age groups.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some research has revealed increased glutamate concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid of unmedicated OCD patients.
“some research has revealed increased glutamate concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of (unmedicated) OCD patients”
From Obsessive-compulsive disorder: Etiology, neuropathology, and cognitive dysfunction (2023) · cites this paper as Chakrabarty et al., 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 344
- Authors
- Chakrabarty, K., Bhattacharyya, S., Christopher, R., & Khanna, S.
- Affiliations
- Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
- National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Bhattacharyya, Sagnik
- Venue
- Neuropsychopharmacology
- Published
- 2005-04-20
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1735-1740
- ISSN
- 0893-133X (ISSN-L)
- 1740-634X
- OpenAlex
- W2017032137
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 15.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Neuropsychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Keywords
- obsessive-compulsive disorder, glutamatergic dysfunction, cerebrospinal fluid glutamate, pathophysiology
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sex Factors, Glutamic Acid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review