Editorial - Neurophysiology Research (2025) Volume 7, Issue 2

Translating Neural Circuit Models into Therapeutic Strategies for Mood and Anxiety Disorders

Department of Neurophysiology, Jagiellonian University, Poland.

*Corresponding Author:

Hanna Kowalska
Department of Neurophysiology
Jagiellonian University, Poland.
E-mail: h.kowalska@jagiellonian.edu

Received: 03-Apr-2025, Manuscript No. AANR-25-169354; Editor assigned: 04-Apr-2025, PreQC No. AANR-25-1693545(PQ); Reviewed: 18-Apr-2025, QC No AANR-25-1693545; Revised: 21-Apr-2025, Manuscript No. AANR-25-1693545(R); Published: 28-Apr-2025, DOI:10.35841/aanr -7.2.196

Citation: Kowalska H. Translating neural circuit models into therapeutic strategies for mood and anxiety disorders. Neurophysiol Res. 2025;7(2):196.

Introduction

Mood and anxiety disorders represent a significant burden to global health, characterized by a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and neurobiological factors. Recent advances in neuroscience have emphasized the importance of neural circuit dysfunction in the pathophysiology of these disorders. Rather than viewing depression or anxiety as resulting from isolated chemical imbalances, current models focus on disruptions in specific brain circuits involved in emotion regulation, stress response, and reward processing. Animal studies and human neuroimaging research have consistently implicated areas such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, and nucleus accumbens in mediating the symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders. These regions do not operate in isolation; instead, they form interconnected networks whose altered activity and connectivity patterns lead to the persistent negative affect, cognitive distortions, and maladaptive behaviors typical of these conditions [1].

The prefrontal-limbic circuitry, in particular, plays a central role in emotion regulation. Hypoactivity in the medial prefrontal cortex, coupled with hyperactivity in the amygdala, has been associated with heightened emotional reactivity and impaired top-down control—a hallmark of anxiety disorders. In mood disorders such as major depressive disorder (MDD), the dysfunction often extends to impaired reward processing in the ventral striatum and dysregulated connectivity between the default mode and salience networks. Computational modeling of these circuits has provided a framework for understanding how information is processed abnormally in these conditions. For example, models of predictive coding suggest that depressed individuals may exhibit an overestimation of negative prediction errors, leading to persistent negative bias and anhedonia. These models bridge the gap between cellular-level findings and large-scale neural activity, enabling the formulation of testable hypotheses about how circuit dysfunction translates into symptoms [2].

Translational neuroscience seeks to leverage these circuit-based insights into effective interventions. One promising avenue has been the development of neuromodulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which target specific brain regions implicated in mood regulation. For instance, repetitive TMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has shown efficacy in treatment-resistant depression, presumably by restoring prefrontal control over limbic hyperactivity. Closed-loop systems that monitor neural activity in real-time and deliver stimulation contingent on abnormal patterns are now being explored, offering the potential for personalized and adaptive therapy. Similarly, neurofeedback paradigms that train individuals to modulate their own brain activity—often through real-time fMRI or EEG—represent another frontier in circuit-based treatment approaches. These methods aim not only to alleviate symptoms but also to restore the functional integrity of disrupted circuits [3].

Pharmacological interventions are also being refined using circuit-based models. Traditional antidepressants, such as SSRIs, are being reevaluated through the lens of circuit function, with growing evidence that their efficacy may depend on modulating network-level connectivity rather than simple increases in serotonin levels. Novel treatments like ketamine and psychedelics (e.g., psilocybin) appear to rapidly alter connectivity patterns, particularly within the default mode and salience networks, and induce neuroplastic changes that support lasting therapeutic effects. Computational models have helped elucidate how these agents might reset pathological circuit dynamics by promoting synaptic remodeling and enhancing cognitive flexibility. Integrating computational psychiatry with clinical data allows researchers to predict individual responses to different treatments based on their baseline circuit profiles, ushering in an era of precision psychiatry where interventions are tailored to each patient’s neurobiological signature [4].

Despite these advances, several challenges remain in translating neural circuit models into reliable clinical applications. One major hurdle is the heterogeneity of mood and anxiety disorders, which often present with overlapping symptoms and comorbidities that complicate diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, current imaging and electrophysiological tools offer limited spatial and temporal resolution, making it difficult to capture the full complexity of dynamic circuit interactions. There is also a need for more robust biomarkers that can guide treatment selection and monitor therapeutic response. Addressing these issues will require the integration of multi-modal data, including genetics, neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and behavioral assessments, into unified computational models. Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence offer powerful tools for uncovering latent patterns in high-dimensional datasets, potentially identifying novel circuit phenotypes that correspond to specific symptom clusters. These approaches hold promise for refining diagnostic categories and enhancing our ability to match patients with the most effective therapeutic strategies [5].

Conclusion

The translation of neural circuit models into therapeutic strategies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders. By focusing on the dynamic interactions between specific brain regions rather than isolated neurotransmitter systems, researchers and clinicians are developing more precise, mechanism-based interventions. From neuromodulation techniques that directly target dysfunctional circuits to pharmacological agents that restore connectivity and promote neuroplasticity, the field is moving toward a future where mental health treatments are both personalized and biologically grounded. While significant challenges remain, particularly in capturing individual variability and improving diagnostic precision, continued advances in computational modeling, neuroimaging, and translational research are steadily bridging the gap between basic neuroscience and clinical care. This integrated approach offers hope for more effective and enduring relief for those affected by these pervasive and debilitating disorders.

References

1. Hu Z, Yu D, Gu QH, et al. miR-191 and miR-135 are required for long-lasting spine remodelling associated with synaptic long-term depression. Nat Commun. 2014;5(1):3263.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Jia Z, Collingridge G. Regulation of hippocampal MGluR-dependent long-term depression by GluA2-dependent cofilin-mediated actin remodeling. mGLU Receptors. 2017:225-39.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Kim DH, Kang M, Kim Ch, et al. SPIN90 modulates long-term depression and behavioral flexibility in the hippocampus. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017;10:295.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. McFadden MH, Xu H, Cui Y, et al. Actomyosin-mediated nanostructural remodeling of the presynaptic vesicle pool by cannabinoids induces long-term depression. bioRxiv. 2018:444950.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Pinho J, Marcut C, Fonseca R. Actin remodeling, the synaptic tag and the maintenance of synaptic plasticity. IUBMB life. 2020;72(4):577-89.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref