Schwartzkroin P A
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2001;45:1-15. doi: 10.1016/s0074-7742(01)45004-5.
Since this list of mechanisms covers much of what we know about how brain cells operate, one might object to using such a broad brush in characterizing a purportedly special feature of brain function--"plasticity." But that is really just the point. If a significant aspect of brain function is "plasticity," as I believe to be the case, then all (or at least most) brain mechanisms are likely to be involved in "plastic" processes. Indeed, we have identified very few "special" mechanisms associated with plasticity. Certainly, the factors that appear to be involved in epileptic pathologies are almost all old friends from the plasticity literature. It is this critical interrelationship between plasticity and pathology that was so important in Frank Morrell's work, a concept he advanced at a time when our understanding of these mechanisms was far less sophisticated than it is now. The influence of this idea is now pervasive in the neuroscience field, so much so that it is hard to imagine why there was so much resistance to these hypotheses when first advanced by Morrell. It is this general concept of plasticity-pathology relationship that will survive as the most influential legacy of Frank Morrell.
由于这份机制列表涵盖了我们目前所了解的关于脑细胞运作方式的大部分内容,有人可能会反对用如此宽泛的方式来描述大脑功能的一个所谓特殊特征——“可塑性”。但这恰恰就是关键所在。如果大脑功能的一个重要方面是“可塑性”,正如我所认为的那样,那么所有(或至少大多数)大脑机制可能都参与了“可塑性”过程。事实上,我们几乎没有发现与可塑性相关的“特殊”机制。当然,似乎与癫痫病理相关的因素几乎都是可塑性文献中早已熟知的。可塑性与病理学之间的这种关键相互关系在弗兰克·莫雷尔的研究中非常重要,这是他在我们对这些机制的理解远不如现在成熟的时候提出的一个概念。这个观点的影响现在在神经科学领域无处不在,以至于很难想象当莫雷尔最初提出这些假设时,为什么会遭到如此多的抵制。可塑性 - 病理学关系的这个总体概念将作为弗兰克·莫雷尔最具影响力的遗产留存下来。