Search

Aberrant mitochondrial phenotypes are common to many central nervous system (CNS) disorders, including neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental diseases. Mitochondrial function and homeostasis depend on proper control of several biological processes such as chromatin remodeling and transcriptional control, post-transcriptional events, vesicle and organelle subcellular trafficking, fusion, and morphogenesis. Mutation or impaired regulation of major players that orchestrate such processes can disrupt cellular and mitochondrial dynamics, contributing to neurological disorders. The first part of this review provides an overview of a functional relationship between chromatin players and mitochondria. Specifically, we relied on specific monogenic CNS disorders which share features with mitochondrial diseases. On the other hand, subcellular trafficking is coordinated directly or indirectly through evolutionarily conserved domains and proteins that regulate the dynamics of membrane compartments and organelles, including mitochondria. Among these “building blocks”, longin domains and small GTPases are involved in autophagy and mitophagy, cell reshaping, and organelle fusion. Impairments in those processes significantly impact CNS as well and are discussed in the second part of the review. Hopefully, in filling the functional gap between the nucleus and cytoplasmic organelles new routes for therapy could be disclosed.

This narrative review seeks to compare the various ways in which motor creativity has been measured and to critically evaluate those methods within the context of our contemporary understanding of motor creativity. Eligible studies included those of any study design, experimental or observational, as long as motor creativity was measured. Three databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus. and Science-Direct) were searched from the earliest possible start dates to December 2021. No risk of bias assessment was performed as the study outcomes were not the focus of the review. After screening for eligibility. 23 articles were included for review, all having measured motor creativity. Of tlie 23 articles, 16 measured generic motor creativity, while the remaining seven measured task-specific motor creativity. Furthermore, 16 of the studies tested motor creativity with largely static environmental constraints, while the remaining seven were conducted with dynamic environmental constraints. Using a contemporary understanding of motor creativity, most motor creativity tests presently do not possess sufficient task specificity and environmental dynamism, which may not provide an appropriate context for the emergence of creative motor action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]