Next Article in Journal
The Disruption of Cyp7b1 Controls IGFBP2 and Prediabetes Exerted Through Different Hydroxycholesterol Metabolites
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Gene, Environment, and Sex Interaction in the Development of Autistic-like Phenotype in Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Cysteine Attenuates Intestinal Inflammation by Regulating the Gut Microbiota and TLR4-JNK/MAPK-NF-κB Pathway in Piglets
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 26
Issue 24
10.3390/ijms262411993
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Functional Variation in RGS12 Should Not Preclude Methylphenidate Use in Bipolar Disorder with Established Mood Stabilization: Preclinical Evidence

by
Percy S. Agogo-Mawuli
1,
Joshua D. Gross
2,
Vincent Setola
3,4,
Bryan J. Gall
5 and
David P. Siderovski
1,*
1
Department of Pharmacology and Neuroscience, College of Biomedical & Translational Sciences, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA
2
Departments of Nutritional Sciences and Biobehavioral Health, Huck Life Sciences Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 27710, USA
3
Department of Behavioral Medicine & Psychiatry, WVU School of Medicine, Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
4
Department of Neuroscience, WVU School of Medicine, Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA
5
Variant Science Team, NeoGenomics, Fort Myers, FL 33912, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(24), 11993; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411993
Submission received: 15 November 2025 / Revised: 10 December 2025 / Accepted: 10 December 2025 / Published: 12 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular and Genetic Insights into Neuropsychiatric Disorders: From Mechanisms to Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Our goal in this study was to determine whether functional variation in the human RGS12 gene influences behavioral responses to psychostimulants such as methylphenidate, thereby informing whether such genetic findings should affect the clinical use of this central nervous system (CNS)-stimulating agent in bipolar disorder (BD) patients with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The use of psychostimulants for ADHD in BD remains controversial due to concerns about mood destabilization, although recent systematic reviews indicate that methylphenidates and amphetamines can be safe and effective when used with mood stabilizers. RGS12, a striatally enriched regulator of κ-opioid receptor signaling and dopamine transporter (DAT) function, has been implicated in altered dopaminergic responses to psychostimulants. A recently characterized R59Q reduction-of-function mutation within RGS12 has been associated with familial bipolar disorder, further highlighting its potential relevance to mood and psychostimulant responsiveness. Rgs12-deficient mice were evaluated for behavioral responses to methylphenidate (i.e., locomotor hyperactivity) and compared with responses to dopamine transporter-dependent stimulants. Rgs12 deficiency was seen to reduce hyperlocomotion with amphetamine, and with methamphetamine but not with methylphenidate, which was instead observed to elicit normal hyperlocomotor responses across all doses. Methylphenidate responsiveness remains intact despite the loss of RGS12 function, suggesting that RGS12 functional variation in the human condition should not contraindicate methylphenidate use in mood-stabilized BD/ADHD comorbidity.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic illness characterized by recurrent episodes of depression and hypomanic or manic episodes, whereas attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition marked by persistent inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Although each disorder is traditionally viewed as distinct in terms of age of onset, symptomatology, and clinical course, their co-occurrence is strikingly common [1]. A recent meta-analysis estimated that up to one in six individuals with BD also meet the diagnostic criteria for ADHD [2]. Clinical studies further show that BD patients with comorbid ADHD tend to have an earlier age at onset, more frequent depressive and hypomanic or manic episodes, and a more chronic, disabling course of illness than BD patients without ADHD [3,4]. This high rate of co-occurrence and its clinical consequences underscore the public health importance of understanding how ADHD symptoms and BD interact—including how one might optimally treat ADHD in BD without destabilizing mood.
From a neurobiological perspective, a convergence of dopaminergic dysfunction offers a plausible shared substrate for both disorders. In ADHD, decades of imaging and pharmacologic data implicate the dysregulation of dopamine transporter (DAT) function and broader catecholaminergic signaling as central to the manifestations of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity (e.g., refs. [5,6]). In BD, accumulating evidence points to aberrant dopamine–system regulation, particularly in brain circuits governing reward, motivation, and mood stability, as a mechanism contributing to depressive and hypomanic or manic episodes and vulnerability to hypomanic or manic episodes [1,7]. Thus, genetic variation in protein functions that control dopamine release and reuptake or neurotransmitter receptor signaling represent attractive candidates to explain the overlap between BD and ADHD. Such shared neurobiological underpinnings lend biological plausibility to the hypothesis that genetic variation affecting dopamine-regulatory pathways could influence both disease risk and response to psychostimulant treatment in individuals with comorbid BD and ADHD.
Using psychostimulants to treat ADHD in individuals with BD remains a subject of debate within psychiatric research and clinical practice. Concerns center on the potential for stimulants, such as amphetamine and methylphenidate, to precipitate mood destabilization, particularly by triggering hypomanic or manic episodes. However, recent systematic reviews have challenged the assumption that psychostimulants invariably induce mood dysregulation in BD, instead suggesting that they may be both efficacious and safe when used judiciously alongside mood stabilizers.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Canadian colleagues [8] evaluated the risk of hypomanic or manic episode recurrence in BD patients prescribed psychostimulants or other pro-cognitive medications. Their findings suggest that contrary to prevailing clinical caution, psychostimulant use in euthymic or depressed BD patients does not significantly increase mania scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Their review included published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies, synthesizing evidence from 27 studies, five of which were included in the formal meta-analysis. Pooled data (n = 1653) revealed no statistically significant increase in mania scores among patients treated with psychostimulants compared to placebo, and qualitative synthesis further suggested a limited risk of medication-induced manic episodes.
The conclusions offered by Chiorean et al. [8] align with findings from prior studies of the safety and efficacy of psychostimulants in bipolar disorder when used alongside mood stabilizers. A Swedish registry-based study by Viktorin et al. [9] found that methylphenidate did not significantly increase the risk of manic switching in BD patients who were concurrently treated with mood stabilizers, whereas those not receiving such agents exhibited an elevated risk of manic episodes. Similarly, randomized controlled trials in pediatric BD populations have demonstrated that methylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts can effectively improve ADHD symptoms without exacerbating manic episodes, provided that mood stabilization is achieved before stimulant initiation. Findling et al. [10] found that methylphenidate significantly reduced the burden of ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with BD without inducing mood destabilization, while Scheffer et al. [11] found that amphetamine treatment following mood stabilization with delayed-release valproate resulted in significant ADHD symptom improvement without triggering manic symptoms. In further support, Zeni et al. [12] reported observing no significant increase in manic symptoms when methylphenidate was administered adjunctively with aripiprazole in pediatric BD patients with comorbid ADHD.
Similar to the recent Canadian review [8], the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task Force conducted a systematic review [13] examining both established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment and ADHD symptoms in BD. Across 17 studies analyzed (n = 2136), the Task Force found no increased risk of hypomanic or manic episodes in BD patients treated with psychostimulants, provided they were concurrently receiving mood-stabilizing medications. Notably, the Task Force’s report emphasized that the risk of manic episodes was greater in patients not receiving mood stabilizers, a nuance that Chiorean et al. did not explicitly highlight [8]. The Task Force’s report also found that methylphenidate and mixed amphetamine salts were particularly effective in improving attention and ADHD symptoms, though not global cognition, in BD patients [13].
Collectively, the findings and reviews mentioned above have significant clinical implications in suggesting that the carefully selected BD patient with comorbid ADHD (a comorbidity that is not a rare occurrence [1,2,14]) may benefit from psychostimulants without undue risk of mood destabilization. Could the field turn now to (re)establishing genetic biomarkers as guides for this “careful selection” for individualized treatment decisions? Prior advances in psychiatric genetics have already unveiled complex polygenic architectures underlying BD and ADHD (e.g., refs. [15,16,17,18]), with growing emphases on their overlap (e.g., refs. [19,20] reinforcing long-standing recognition of shared neurobiological substrates [21,22,23]) and on risk-associated genetic variants that may directly influence pathophysiology and/or pharmacologic response [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
In this latter context of genetic biomarkers, RGS12 (Regulator of G protein Signaling 12) has recently been implicated as a candidate susceptibility gene for both BD and ADHD. RGS12 encodes a multi-domain scaffolding protein with a unique, central enzymatic activity (the “RGS-box”; [31,32]) for inactivating neurotransmitter signaling transacted by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs); we have recently established a central role for the RGS-box activity of RGS12 in inhibiting κ-opioid receptor (KOR)-mediated influences on dopamine release and reuptake in the CNS [33,34]—pathways critically linked to both disorders (e.g., refs. [22,23]). Contemporaneously, Forstner et al. [35], using a whole-exome sequencing approach, identified a rare, functionally significant variant of RGS12, NM_001394154.1:c.176G>A (p.Arg59Gln/R59Q), in individuals with high-penetrance familial BD. Forstner et al. hypothesized that the R59Q variation impaired protein–protein interactions essential for synaptic regulation, potentially altering neural circuits involved in mood regulation and attentional control. Given the high degree of phenotypic overlap between BD and ADHD, the discovery of this inherited genetic variant has raised an intriguing question regarding the role of RGS12 in modulating responses to psychostimulants in BD patients with comorbid ADHD.
Recent mechanistic studies in mice point to RGS12 acting as a critical intracellular scaffold and GTPase-accelerating protein that links G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling to presynaptic control of monoamine transporter function [33,34], extending even beyond dopamine and its presynaptic dopamine transporter (DAT) protein [36]. Initially, Rgs12 knockout mice were seen to exhibit marked alterations in KOR-dependent signaling within the ventral striatum: signal transduction alterations that lead to dysregulated DAT activity and blunted behavioral responses to dopamine transporter-dependent psychostimulants such as cocaine and amphetamine [33,34]. Electrochemical recordings using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry further revealed that these dopaminergic abnormalities are directly observable within the nucleus accumbens, where RGS12 loss markedly attenuates electrically evoked dopamine release and accelerates dopamine reuptake—deficits that are reversed by KOR antagonism—demonstrating a functional disruption of KOR-dependent dopamine homeostasis within the ventral striatum of these knockout animals [34]. These findings implicate RGS12 as a key modulator of the established KOR-to-DAT regulatory axis [37,38] that shapes extracellular dopamine availability and psychostimulant sensitivity, with both processes closely tied to both mood regulation and attentional control. Subsequent studies demonstrated that Rgs12 deletion also alters serotonergic transporter expression and function, suggesting broader monoaminergic involvement [36]. Collectively, these results position RGS12 as a pivotal integrator of both dopaminergic and serotonergic neurotransmission in the central nervous system.
Against this mechanistic backdrop derived from mouse genetics, the identification by Forstner et al. [35] of a rare familial BD-associated RGS12 variant (R59Q) in humans is particularly noteworthy. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR)-based in vitro binding studies indicate that the human R59Q variation within RGS12 impairs PDZ-domain-mediated protein–protein interactions essential for synaptic scaffolding [39]. Such a reduction in function could weaken RGS12’s inhibitory control over KOR-coupled G-protein signaling in the human brain, leading to excessive modulation of DAT and altered dopamine homeostasis.
In total, the recently characterized R59Q variation within the human RGS12 protein provides a biologically plausible molecular link between inherited BD risk and abnormal dopaminergic tone, thereby offering a mechanistic rationale for investigating whether RGS12 dysfunction influences psychostimulant responsiveness in BD patients with comorbid ADHD [40,41].

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Multiple RGS12 Variations Seen in Psychiatric Disorders Including ADHD and BD

To contextualize the functional relevance of RGS12 within neuropsychiatric disease, we conducted a comprehensive survey of reported human RGS12 variants across publicly available genomic and clinical databases. As of the time of writing this manuscript, there have been 241 missense variations observed within the human RGS12 gene’s open-reading frame, as reported within NIH’s ClinVar database [42]: 5 in the PDZ domain, 29 in the PTB domain, 12 in the RGS-box, 21 in either the first or second RBD domain, and one truncation within the GoLoco motif, although none have yet been associated with a clinical pathology (Supplementary Table S1). In contrast, eight different RGS12 missense variations (not yet seen in ClinVar; Table S1) are reported in the current biomedical literature to be associated with disease states, the majority being psychiatric disorders, as summarized in Figure 1. Additionally, predicted loss-of-function variants of RGS12 (i.e., frameshift and nonsense variants) are observed significantly less frequently (LOEUF = 0.696) than predicted in healthy individuals selected within the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) [43], suggesting that RGS12 is subject to selective constraint, with loss-of-function variants occurring less often than expected in the general population.
A parent-proband “trio” study of schizophrenia (SCZ), designed to detect de novo mutations rather than inherited variants, previously identified a non-synonymous variant (R702L) within RGS12 by whole-exome sequencing of 53 individuals with sporadic SCZ as well as their two non-affected parents [47]. An earlier SCZ-focused trio study [48] reported a de novo P1120L variant of RGS12 within a male proband diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressed type. A study focused on ADHD susceptibility [49] identified a further three missense or truncating variants within the RGS12 protein (S16A, V460M, and Q1363* truncation) from whole-exomic sequencing of trios with sporadic ADHD. In identifying the R59Q variation associated with high-penetrance familial bipolar disorder [35], Forstner et al. also described an independently inherited Q547H variation within RGS12 (Figure 1) carried by three BD-affected members of a separate family among the 27 families analyzed. Considering the specific locations of all eight of these amino acid variations within the multi-domain architecture of the RGS12 scaffold protein, only the BD-associated R59Q variation (and the V56M variation in an autosomal dominant familial goiter [50]) resides within a domain or region with a well-defined functionality; specifically, the PDZ domain within the N-terminal ~100 amino acids of the RGS12 open-reading frame (Figure 1).

2.2. Establishing a Reduction-of-Function Status to the PDZ Domain-Localized Variation

The PDZ domain, named after PSD-95 (postsynaptic density protein 95), Disks-large, and ZO-1 (zonula occludens-1), is a protein–protein interaction module commonly involved in signaling and scaffolding functions by virtue of its ability to bind the C-terminal tails of its protein partners [51,52]; the RGS12 PDZ domain is located between amino acids 30–99 (Table S1; https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/O14924 [accessed on 30 November 2025]). Extensive knowledge now exists regarding the structure of PDZ domains and their features responsible for binding C-tail interactants (e.g., refs. [53,54]); however, we recently reported an inability to make a firm a priori prediction, via in silico structural modeling and molecular dynamics simulations [39], of the functional consequence of the glutamine substitution within the RGS12 PDZ domain associated with familial bipolar disorder (i.e., the R59Q variation). Similarly situated as the methionine substitution discovered in familial goiter [50], the glutamine substitution is predicted to occur at a distance far from the PDZ domain residues directly engaging C-tail ligands, as shown in Figure 2A rendered from our recently published structural model [39] of RGS12 interacting with the C-terminus of the protein DLGAP3 (also known as SAPAP3) [55]. This distance (>>10 angstroms) implies that any resultant change in C-tail binding affinity would be indirectly caused by allosteric remodeling within the domain rather than direct glutamine side-chain engagement of C-tail atoms [56,57]. Prior molecular dynamics simulations using AlphaFold2-generated RGS12 PDZ domain/SAPAP3 complexes [39], and newer simulations using our recent model of the RGS12/SAPAP3 interaction (Figure 2B–F), both fail to reveal substantial changes caused by amino acid substitutions at these positions to the hydrogen bonding network responsible for high affinity engagement of the C-tail ligand (e.g., Figure 2E,F). Nevertheless, our recent formal in vitro testing of the direct binding interaction using surface plasmon resonance indicates that the glutamine substitution at position 59 reduces the affinity of the RGS12 PDZ domain for the SAPAP3 C-tail over two-fold [39].

2.3. Reduction in Function Caused by the R59Q BD Variation Likely Leaves Methylphenidate Responsiveness Intact

What could the two-fold reduction in RGS12 PDZ domain binding affinity mean to those harboring variations like the R59Q substitution in familial BD? To further investigate possible functional consequences, we revisited the responsiveness of RGS12-deficient mice to acute psychostimulant administration. We previously reported that RGS12-deficient mice exhibit significantly reduced hyperlocomotor responses to dopamine transporter (DAT)-dependent psychostimulants, including cocaine and amphetamine, given increased dopamine uptake and reduced extracellular dopamine levels in the ventral striatum engendered by RGS12 deficiency [33,34]. We recently extended this observation to the psychostimulant methamphetamine (Figure 3), which, like cocaine and amphetamine, ultimately increases extracellular dopamine, albeit via different monoamine transporter affinities [58] and potentially via different signal transduction timing than cocaine and AMPH (e.g., ref. [59]). Reduced hyperlocomotion by RGS12-deficient mice to these DAT-dependent psychostimulants does not appear to result from decreased postsynaptic receptor sensitivity to dopamine, as the induction of hyperlocomotion upon apomorphine administration (a non-selective D1/D2 dopamine receptor agonist) appears unchanged by mouse genotype (Figure 3C); we had previously dismissed [33] dopamine sensitivity change as a plausible cause of reduced psychostimulant-induced hyperlocomotion upon RGS12 loss via the application of the D1/D5-selective dopamine receptor agonist SKF-81297 [60,61].
What of methylphenidate in this context, especially given existing treatment heuristics that methylphenidate for BD/ADHD comorbidity is often first-line before considering amphetamine [8,10,62] (and with methamphetamine considered too likely to induce manic episodes given its relatively higher potency and fast-acting onset [63,64])? Compared to mock injection with saline, treatment of RGS12-deficient mice with methylphenidate is seen to elicit hyperlocomotion to the same degree as in wildtype littermate control mice (e.g., Figure 4A vs. Figure 4B); three different doses of methylphenidate (5, 10, and 20 mg/kg body weight) elicited equivalent hyperlocomotive responses between the two genotypes, without any statistically significant difference observed in open-field transit over 60 min for each dose (Figure 4B,C). These new findings effectively negate any assumption, arising from our prior RGS12 work and the R59Q variant discovery, that RGS12 dysfunction constitutes a contraindication for methylphenidate use in BD/ADHD comorbidity. Likely mechanistic discriminators driving reduced responses to cocaine [33], amphetamine [33,34], and methamphetamine (Figure 3B) versus our observation of an equivalent methylphenidate response (Figure 4) in the presence of RGS12 deficiency is that methylphenidate does not directly promote neurotransmitter release like amphetamine and methamphetamine [65], and is far less serotonergic than cocaine in the context of monoamine transporter inhibition (e.g., ref. [58]). Unlike amphetamines, which induce dopamine release via a combination of DAT reverse transport [66], vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibition [67,68], and TAAR1 receptor signaling [69], MPH acts primarily as a norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) with greater monoamine transporter selectivity and more potent NET inhibition relative to cocaine [70]. While we have reported that RGS12 deficiency in mice leads to changes in the expression levels and functional activities of DAT [33,34] and SERT [36], we currently have no empirical evidence suggesting aberrant NET activity or norepinephrine dynamics upon loss of RGS12 function.

2.4. Study Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations of this study warrant consideration. First, although Rgs12-deficient mice provide a robust genetic model for exploring RGS12 function in dopaminergic regulation, the frequency and clinical penetrance of RGS12 reduction-of-function variants, such as R59Q, within broader bipolar disorder (BD) populations, and particularly within BD patients comorbid for ADHD, remain undetermined. Future genomic analyses of large, phenotypically stratified BD/ADHD cohorts will be essential to define the population-level relevance of such variants. Second, our behavioral assays focused primarily on psychostimulant-evoked locomotor activity, which serves as a reliable proxy for dopaminergic sensitivity but does not capture potential subtler cognitive or affective phenotypes that may accompany RGS12 dysfunction. Future studies employing electrophysiologic, voltametric, or circuit-level imaging approaches in awake, behaving animals could further clarify the precise neural consequences of RGS12 loss on dopamine and norepinephrine signaling. Finally, translational work incorporating induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neuronal models or humanized knock-in mice carrying the R59Q variation to the RGS12 PDZ domain would provide a direct bridge between these preclinical observations and the human condition.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Database Searches

Searches were performed in PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [accessed on 30 November 2025]), ClinVar (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar [accessed on 30 November 2025]), and the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD v.4.1.0 [accessed on 30 November 2025]), using the NCBI Gene identifier 6002 for human RGS12.

3.2. MD Simulations of PDZ Mutations

600 nanosecond molecular dynamics (MD) simulation trajectories of SAPAP3-liganded RGS12 PDZ domains were performed as previously published [39], after replacing the AlphaFold2-generated PDZ domain structural model with that of the best-performing low-energy NMR-derived structural model (PDZ id 2KV8 pose 16) as ranked by favorable docking scores from Schrödinger’s GLIDE SPpep and XP docking (software suite version 2024-4) [40,41] of C-terminal pentameric peptides from SAPAP3 and two other candidate RGS12 interactors: CXCR2 and MEK2 [39].

3.3. Locomotion Studies

Mouse strain maintenance and behavioral testing for the present study were both performed as previously described [33,34,36]; key methodological details are briefly summarized here.

3.3.1. Animals

Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice were generated on a C57BL/6J background as previously described [33,34,36]. Male and female littermates were produced by heterozygous crosses and group-housed under controlled temperature, humidity, and a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle (lights on at 06:00 h) with food and water ad libitum. Behavioral testing occurred during the light phase using mice 8–12 weeks of age (typically 8–10 weeks). All procedures conformed to the NIH guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals and approved by the West Virginia University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. All behavioral cohorts were drug-naïve, and each mouse participated in only one drug-based assay.

3.3.2. Drugs and Dosing Rationale

All drugs were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) or Tocris (Minneapolis, MN, USA). Each dose and route was selected based on prior literature demonstrating reliable locomotor activation without neurotoxicity in C57BL/6 mice. Psychostimulants were prepared freshly in sterile 0.9% NaCl (saline) and administered intraperitoneally (ip) in a final volume of 10 mL/kg body weight. The chosen doses replicate those validated in our earlier work [33,34,36] and standard in C57BL/6 mouse psychostimulant paradigms:
-
d-amphetamine hemisulfate, 1–5 mg/kg (ip), produces robust hyperlocomotion with maximal effect near 3 mg/kg;
-
methamphetamine hydrochloride, 1.5 mg/kg (ip), elicits a comparable dopamine-dependent hyperlocomotor response used here to directly compare with amphetamine;
-
methylphenidate hydrochloride, 5–20 mg/kg (ip), covers the established dose–response range for norepinephrine–dopamine reuptake inhibition in rodents;
-
apomorphine, 1 mg/kg (ip), a non-selective D1/D2 dopamine receptor agonist, serves as a positive control for postsynaptic dopamine responsiveness.

3.3.3. Behavior Testing

Open-field activity was measured using 16 × 16 photobeam activity system (PAS) chambers (San Diego Instruments, San Diego, CA, USA; enclosure 16 × 16 × 15 inches) under standard environmental conditions. Horizontal locomotion was recorded as total x- and y-beam breaks in 5 min bins. To minimize novelty-induced activity, mice were acclimated to the testing room for ≥1 h and to the chamber for 150 min on Day 1. On Day 2, mice were placed in chambers for 30 min, administered saline (ip, 10 mL/kg), and monitored for ~110 min. On Day 3, mice were again acclimated for 30 min, then received psychostimulant or vehicle injections as above, and locomotor activity was recorded for 60–110 min depending on the compound. Each chamber was cleaned between subjects with water-moistened cloths.

3.3.4. Data Analysis

Data are presented as mean ± SEM and analyzed using GraphPad Prism 10. Between-genotype differences in locomotor responses were evaluated by two-way ANOVA or multiple unpaired Student t-tests as appropriate, consistent with prior statistical treatments [33,34,36]. Sample sizes per group ranged from 7 to 23 mice for amphetamine/cocaine trials and 7–13 mice for methamphetamine or methylphenidate trials, as indicated in figure legends.

4. Conclusions

Preserved methylphenidate-evoked hyperlocomotion in RGS12-deficient mice indicates that stimulant efficacy can remain intact despite RGS12 loss-of-function. Genetic testing for RGS12 functional variants should not be used as a basis for excluding methylphenidate to treat ADHD in mood-stabilized BD patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms262411993/s1.

Author Contributions

D.P.S. conceived the idea. P.S.A.-M. performed the molecular dynamics simulations under the supervision of D.P.S. and J.D.G. performed the animal studies under the supervision of V.S., D.P.S. and B.J.G. assessed the genetic evidence of RGS12 mutations in the human population. P.S.A.-M. and D.P.S. wrote the manuscript, with editorial support from J.D.G., V.S. and B.J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Work was supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health grant R01 DA048153 awarded to D.P.S.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Mouse strain maintenance and behavioral testing were both performed under approved West Virginia University (WVU) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol 1707008525 (approved 16 August 2017), including approved amendment 14-0803.12 for the use of apomorphine (approved 10 April 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors via e-mail upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests during the conduct of this study; B.J.G. is now employed by the company NeoGenomics. The funder, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Comparelli, A.; Polidori, L.; Sarli, G.; Pistollato, A.; Pompili, M. Differentiation and comorbidity of bipolar disorder and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: A clinical and nosological perspective. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 949375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schiweck, C.; Arteaga-Henriquez, G.; Aichholzer, M.; Edwin Thanarajah, S.; Vargas-Caceres, S.; Matura, S.; Grimm, O.; Haavik, J.; Kittel-Schneider, S.; Ramos-Quiroga, J.A.; et al. Comorbidity of ADHD and adult bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2021, 124, 100–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mishra, V.C.; Solanki, G.; Singh, D.; Goyal, M.K. Prevalence and clinical correlates of co-morbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in euthymic adults with bipolar disorder: A cross-sectional study. Indian J. Psychiatry 2023, 65, 1129–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Berkol, T.D.; Yargic, I.; Ozyildirim, I.; Yazici, O. Comorbidity of Adult Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder in Bipolar Patients: Prevalence, Sociodemographic and Clinical Correlates. Noro Psikiyatr. Ars. 2014, 51, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. Mereu, M.; Contarini, G.; Buonaguro, E.F.; Latte, G.; Manago, F.; Iasevoli, F.; de Bartolomeis, A.; Papaleo, F. Dopamine transporter (DAT) genetic hypofunction in mice produces alterations consistent with ADHD but not schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Neuropharmacology 2017, 121, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. da Silva, B.S.; Grevet, E.H.; Silva, L.C.F.; Ramos, J.K.N.; Rovaris, D.L.; Bau, C.H.D. An overview on neurobiology and therapeutics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Discov. Ment. Health 2023, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Avinoam, R.; Revital, R.; Doron, B.; Ella, S.; Yaacov, B. A Common Cause of ADHD and Bipolar Disorder (BD). Bipolar Disord. 2025, 27, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chiorean, A.; Jones, B.D.M.; Murong, M.; Gonzalez-Torres, C.; Kloiber, S.; Ortiz, A.; Rosenblat, J.D.; Mulsant, B.H.; Husain, M.I. Prescribed psychostimulants and other pro-cognitive medications in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrence of manic symptoms. Bipolar Disord. 2024, 26, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Viktorin, A.; Ryden, E.; Thase, M.E.; Chang, Z.; Lundholm, C.; D’Onofrio, B.M.; Almqvist, C.; Magnusson, P.K.; Lichtenstein, P.; Larsson, H.; et al. The Risk of Treatment-Emergent Mania With Methylphenidate in Bipolar Disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 2017, 174, 341–348, Erratum in Am. J. Psychiatry 2016, 173, 1154. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.17311correction. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Findling, R.L.; Short, E.J.; McNamara, N.K.; Demeter, C.A.; Stansbrey, R.J.; Gracious, B.L.; Whipkey, R.; Manos, M.J.; Calabrese, J.R. Methylphenidate in the treatment of children and adolescents with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2007, 46, 1445–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scheffer, R.E.; Kowatch, R.A.; Carmody, T.; Rush, A.J. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of mixed amphetamine salts for symptoms of comorbid ADHD in pediatric bipolar disorder after mood stabilization with divalproex sodium. Am. J. Psychiatry 2005, 162, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zeni, C.P.; Tramontina, S.; Ketzer, C.R.; Pheula, G.F.; Rohde, L.A. Methylphenidate combined with aripiprazole in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A randomized crossover trial. J. Child Adolesc. Psychopharmacol. 2009, 19, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Miskowiak, K.W.; Obel, Z.K.; Guglielmo, R.; Bonnin, C.D.M.; Bowie, C.R.; Balanza-Martinez, V.; Burdick, K.E.; Carvalho, A.F.; Dols, A.; Douglas, K.; et al. Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force. Bipolar Disord. 2024, 26, 216–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Salvi, V.; Ribuoli, E.; Servasi, M.; Orsolini, L.; Volpe, U. ADHD and Bipolar Disorder in Adulthood: Clinical and Treatment Implications. Medicina 2021, 57, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Alsabban, S.; Rivera, M.; McGuffin, P. Genome-wide searches for bipolar disorder genes. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2011, 13, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Barnett, J.H.; Smoller, J.W. The genetics of bipolar disorder. Neuroscience 2009, 164, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Faraone, S.V.; Larsson, H. Genetics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Mol. Psychiatry 2019, 24, 562–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Akutagava-Martins, G.C.; Rohde, L.A.; Hutz, M.H. Genetics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: An update. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2016, 16, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. van Hulzen, K.J.E.; Scholz, C.J.; Franke, B.; Ripke, S.; Klein, M.; McQuillin, A.; Sonuga-Barke, E.J.; PGC ADHD Working Group; Kelsoe, J.R.; Landen, M.; et al. Genetic Overlap Between Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Bipolar Disorder: Evidence From Genome-wide Association Study Meta-analysis. Biol. Psychiatry 2017, 82, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Khoury, E.; Acquaviva, E.; Purper-Ouakil, D.; Delorme, R.; Ellul, P. Meta-analysis of personal and familial co-occurrence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2023, 146, 105050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Michelini, G.; Kitsune, V.; Vainieri, I.; Hosang, G.M.; Brandeis, D.; Asherson, P.; Kuntsi, J. Shared and Disorder-Specific Event-Related Brain Oscillatory Markers of Attentional Dysfunction in ADHD and Bipolar Disorder. Brain Topogr. 2018, 31, 672–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ashok, A.H.; Marques, T.R.; Jauhar, S.; Nour, M.M.; Goodwin, G.M.; Young, A.H.; Howes, O.D. The dopamine hypothesis of bipolar affective disorder: The state of the art and implications for treatment. Mol. Psychiatry 2017, 22, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Greenwood, T.A.; Joo, E.J.; Shekhtman, T.; Sadovnick, A.D.; Remick, R.A.; Keck, P.E.; McElroy, S.L.; Kelsoe, J.R. Association of dopamine transporter gene variants with childhood ADHD features in bipolar disorder. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 2013, 162B, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nunez, N.A.; Coombes, B.J.; Romo-Nava, F.; Bond, D.J.; Vande Voort, J.; Croarkin, P.E.; Leibman, N.; Gardea Resendez, M.; Veldic, M.; Betcher, H.; et al. Clinical and Genetic Correlates of Bipolar Disorder With Childhood-Onset Attention Deficit Disorder. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 884217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buitelaar, J.; Bolte, S.; Brandeis, D.; Caye, A.; Christmann, N.; Cortese, S.; Coghill, D.; Faraone, S.V.; Franke, B.; Gleitz, M.; et al. Toward Precision Medicine in ADHD. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 900981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Serretti, A. Precision medicine in mood disorders. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. Rep. 2022, 1, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pisanu, C.; Squassina, A. RNA Biomarkers in Bipolar Disorder and Response to Mood Stabilizers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 10067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baek, J.H.; Lee, D.; Lee, D.; Jeong, H.; Cho, E.Y.; Ha, T.H.; Ha, K.; Hong, K.S. Exploring intra-diagnosis heterogeneity and inter-diagnosis commonality in genetic architectures of bipolar disorders: Association of polygenic risks of major psychiatric illnesses and lifetime phenotype dimensions. Psychol. Med. 2024, 54, 3082–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Cruceanu, C.; Schmouth, J.F.; Torres-Platas, S.G.; Lopez, J.P.; Ambalavanan, A.; Darcq, E.; Gross, F.; Breton, B.; Spiegelman, D.; Rochefort, D.; et al. Rare susceptibility variants for bipolar disorder suggest a role for G protein-coupled receptors. Mol. Psychiatry 2018, 23, 2050–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhao, L.; Lin, Y.; Lao, G.; Wang, Y.; Guan, L.; Wei, J.; Yang, Z.; Ni, P.; Li, X.; Jiang, Z.; et al. Association study of dopamine receptor genes polymorphism with cognitive functions in bipolar I disorder patients. J. Affect. Disord. 2015, 170, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Siderovski, D.P.; Hessel, A.; Chung, S.; Mak, T.W.; Tyers, M. A new family of regulators of G-protein-coupled receptors? Curr. Biol. 1996, 6, 211–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Snow, B.E.; Hall, R.A.; Krumins, A.M.; Brothers, G.M.; Bouchard, D.; Brothers, C.A.; Chung, S.; Mangion, J.; Gilman, A.G.; Lefkowitz, R.J.; et al. GTPase activating specificity of RGS12 and binding specificity of an alternatively spliced PDZ (PSD-95/Dlg/ZO-1) domain. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273, 17749–17755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gross, J.D.; Kaski, S.W.; Schroer, A.B.; Wix, K.A.; Siderovski, D.P.; Setola, V. Regulator of G protein signaling-12 modulates the dopamine transporter in ventral striatum and locomotor responses to psychostimulants. J. Psychopharmacol. 2018, 32, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gross, J.D.; Kaski, S.W.; Schmidt, K.T.; Cogan, E.S.; Boyt, K.M.; Wix, K.; Schroer, A.B.; McElligott, Z.A.; Siderovski, D.P.; Setola, V. Role of RGS12 in the differential regulation of kappa opioid receptor-dependent signaling and behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology 2019, 44, 1728–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Forstner, A.J.; Fischer, S.B.; Schenk, L.M.; Strohmaier, J.; Maaser-Hecker, A.; Reinbold, C.S.; Sivalingam, S.; Hecker, J.; Streit, F.; Degenhardt, F.; et al. Whole-exome sequencing of 81 individuals from 27 multiply affected bipolar disorder families. Transl. Psychiatry 2020, 10, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. White, A.N.; Gross, J.D.; Kaski, S.W.; Trexler, K.R.; Wix, K.A.; Wetsel, W.C.; Kinsey, S.G.; Siderovski, D.P.; Setola, V. Genetic deletion of Rgs12 in mice affects serotonin transporter expression and function in vivo and ex vivo. J. Psychopharmacol. 2020, 34, 1393–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Escobar, A.D.P.; Casanova, J.P.; Andres, M.E.; Fuentealba, J.A. Crosstalk Between Kappa Opioid and Dopamine Systems in Compulsive Behaviors. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mayer, F.P.; Stewart, A.; Varman, D.R.; Moritz, A.E.; Foster, J.D.; Owens, A.W.; Areal, L.B.; Gowrishankar, R.; Velez, M.; Wickham, K.; et al. Kappa opioid receptor antagonism restores phosphorylation, trafficking and behavior induced by a disease-associated dopamine transporter variant. Mol. Psychiatry 2025, 30, 4651–4664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Agogo-Mawuli, P.S.; Mendez, J.; Oestreich, E.A.; Bosch, D.E.; Siderovski, D.P. Molecular Modeling and In Vitro Functional Analysis of the RGS12 PDZ Domain Variant Associated with High-Penetrance Familial Bipolar Disorder. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Friesner, R.A.; Murphy, R.B.; Repasky, M.P.; Frye, L.L.; Greenwood, J.R.; Halgren, T.A.; Sanschagrin, P.C.; Mainz, D.T. Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6177–6196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tubert-Brohman, I.; Sherman, W.; Repasky, M.; Beuming, T. Improved docking of polypeptides with Glide. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Landrum, M.J.; Lee, J.M.; Benson, M.; Brown, G.R.; Chao, C.; Chitipiralla, S.; Gu, B.; Hart, J.; Hoffman, D.; Jang, W.; et al. ClinVar: Improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, D1062–D1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, S.; Francioli, L.C.; Goodrich, J.K.; Collins, R.L.; Kanai, M.; Wang, Q.; Alfoldi, J.; Watts, N.A.; Vittal, C.; Gauthier, L.D.; et al. A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes. Nature 2024, 625, 92–100, Erratum in Nature 2024, 626, E1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07050-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  44. Uhlik, M.T.; Temple, B.; Bencharit, S.; Kimple, A.J.; Siderovski, D.P.; Johnson, G.L. Structural and evolutionary division of phosphotyrosine binding (PTB) domains. J. Mol. Biol. 2005, 345, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Willard, M.D.; Willard, F.S.; Li, X.; Cappell, S.D.; Snider, W.D.; Siderovski, D.P. Selective role for RGS12 as a Ras/Raf/MEK scaffold in nerve growth factor-mediated differentiation. EMBO J. 2007, 26, 2029–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kimple, R.J.; De Vries, L.; Tronchere, H.; Behe, C.I.; Morris, R.A.; Gist Farquhar, M.; Siderovski, D.P. RGS12 and RGS14 GoLoco motifs are G αi interaction sites with guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor Activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 29275–29281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Guipponi, M.; Santoni, F.A.; Setola, V.; Gehrig, C.; Rotharmel, M.; Cuenca, M.; Guillin, O.; Dikeos, D.; Georgantopoulos, G.; Papadimitriou, G.; et al. Exome sequencing in 53 sporadic cases of schizophrenia identifies 18 putative candidate genes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112745, Erratum in PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xu, B.; Roos, J.L.; Dexheimer, P.; Boone, B.; Plummer, B.; Levy, S.; Gogos, J.A.; Karayiorgou, M. Exome sequencing supports a de novo mutational paradigm for schizophrenia. Nat. Genet. 2011, 43, 864–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lima, L.d.A.; Feio-dos-Santos, A.C.; Belangero, S.I.; Gadelha, A.; Bressan, R.A.; Salum, G.A.; Pan, P.M.; Moriyama, T.S.; Graeff-Martins, A.S.; Tamanaha, A.C.; et al. An integrative approach to investigate the respective roles of single-nucleotide variants and copy-number variants in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 22851, Erratum in Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25861. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yan, J.; Takahashi, T.; Ohura, T.; Adachi, H.; Takahashi, I.; Ogawa, E.; Okuda, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Hitomi, T.; Liu, W.; et al. Combined linkage analysis and exome sequencing identifies novel genes for familial goiter. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 58, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Doyle, D.A.; Lee, A.; Lewis, J.; Kim, E.; Sheng, M.; MacKinnon, R. Crystal structures of a complexed and peptide-free membrane protein-binding domain: Molecular basis of peptide recognition by PDZ. Cell 1996, 85, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sheng, M.; Sala, C. PDZ domains and the organization of supramolecular complexes. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2001, 24, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ye, F.; Liu, W.; Shang, Y.; Zhang, M. An Exquisitely Specific PDZ/Target Recognition Revealed by the Structure of INAD PDZ3 in Complex with TRP Channel Tail. Structure 2016, 24, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  54. Ernst, A.; Appleton, B.A.; Ivarsson, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Gfeller, D.; Wiesmann, C.; Sidhu, S.S. A structural portrait of the PDZ domain family. J. Mol. Biol. 2014, 426, 3509–3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wei, J.; Li, Y.; Jiao, F.; Wang, X.; Zhou, H.; Qiao, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Qian, C.; Tian, Y.; Fang, Y. DLGAP3 suppresses malignant behaviors of glioma cells via inhibiting RGS12-mediated MAPK/ERK signaling. Brain Res. 2025, 1848, 149334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumawat, A.; Chakrabarty, S. Hidden electrostatic basis of dynamic allostery in a PDZ domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E5825–E5834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sarkar, S.; Dhibar, S.; Jana, B. Modulation of the conformational landscape of the PDZ3 domain by perturbation on a distal non-canonical α3 helix: Decoding the microscopic mechanism of allostery in the PDZ3 domain. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2024, 26, 21249–21259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Han, D.D.; Gu, H.H. Comparison of the monoamine transporters from human and mouse in their sensitivities to psychostimulant drugs. BMC Pharmacol. 2006, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Challasivakanaka, S.; Zhen, J.; Smith, M.E.; Reith, M.E.A.; Foster, J.D.; Vaughan, R.A. Dopamine transporter phosphorylation site threonine 53 is stimulated by amphetamines and regulates dopamine transport, efflux, and cocaine analog binding. J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 292, 19066–19075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Desai, R.I.; Terry, P.; Katz, J.L. A comparison of the locomotor stimulant effects of D1-like receptor agonists in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2005, 81, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Andersen, P.H.; Jansen, J.A. Dopamine receptor agonists: Selectivity and dopamine D1 receptor efficacy. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1990, 188, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pouchon, A.; Nasserdine, R.; Donde, C.; Bertrand, A.; Polosan, M.; Bioulac, S. A systematic review of pharmacotherapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents with bipolar disorders. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2023, 24, 1497–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Feier, G.; Valvassori, S.S.; Varela, R.B.; Resende, W.R.; Bavaresco, D.V.; Morais, M.O.; Scaini, G.; Andersen, M.L.; Streck, E.L.; Quevedo, J. Lithium and valproate modulate energy metabolism in an animal model of mania induced by methamphetamine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2013, 103, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ikawa, H.; Kanata, S.; Akahane, A.; Tochigi, M.; Hayashi, N.; Ikebuchi, E. A case of methamphetamine use disorder presenting a condition of ultra-rapid cycler bipolar disorder. SAGE Open Med. Case Rep. 2019, 7, 2050313X19827739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Faraone, S.V. The pharmacology of amphetamine and methylphenidate: Relevance to the neurobiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other psychiatric comorbidities. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 87, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seidel, S.; Singer, E.A.; Just, H.; Farhan, H.; Scholze, P.; Kudlacek, O.; Holy, M.; Koppatz, K.; Krivanek, P.; Freissmuth, M.; et al. Amphetamines take two to tango: An oligomer-based counter-transport model of neurotransmitter transport explores the amphetamine action. Mol. Pharmacol. 2005, 67, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sulzer, D.; Sonders, M.S.; Poulsen, N.W.; Galli, A. Mechanisms of neurotransmitter release by amphetamines: A review. Prog. Neurobiol. 2005, 75, 406–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Easton, N.; Steward, C.; Marshall, F.; Fone, K.; Marsden, C. Effects of amphetamine isomers, methylphenidate and atomoxetine on synaptosomal and synaptic vesicle accumulation and release of dopamine and noradrenaline in vitro in the rat brain. Neuropharmacology 2007, 52, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Amara, S.G. Dynamic regulation of signaling pathways in dopamine neurons: The intracellular actions of amphetamines. Proc. Annu. Meet. Jpn. Pharmacol. Soc. 2019, 92, 2-SL06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Luethi, D.; Kaeser, P.J.; Brandt, S.D.; Krahenbuhl, S.; Hoener, M.C.; Liechti, M.E. Pharmacological profile of methylphenidate-based designer drugs. Neuropharmacology 2018, 134, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 26 11993 g001
Figure 1. Multi-domain architecture of the GPCR negative regulator protein RGS12 and relative locations of human disease-associated missense or truncation variations. A domain map of the human RGS12 protein (UniProt O14924, also known as RGS12_HUMAN [1447 aa]) has been placed above an x-axis scale of amino acids. Known functional domains within RGS12 include a PDZ (PSD-95/disks-large/ZO-homology) domain [32], a PTB (phosphotyrosine-binding) domain [44], an RGS-box (also known as “Regulator of G protein Signaling” domain) [32], a tandem repeat of RBD (Ras-binding) domains [45], and a GoLoco (also known as “Gi/o-Locomotion defects”) motif [46]; pink regions represent low-complexity polypeptide sequences predicted to lack secondary or higher-order structure. Above and below the domain map are the locations of non-synonymous substitutions to the consensus amino acid sequence (denoted by one-letter amino acid abbreviations) associated with the indicated mental health disorder or other pathological states. ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; BD, bipolar disorder; SAD, schizoaffective disorder; SCZ, schizophrenia. (*) denotes truncation mutation (stop-codon).
Figure 1. Multi-domain architecture of the GPCR negative regulator protein RGS12 and relative locations of human disease-associated missense or truncation variations. A domain map of the human RGS12 protein (UniProt O14924, also known as RGS12_HUMAN [1447 aa]) has been placed above an x-axis scale of amino acids. Known functional domains within RGS12 include a PDZ (PSD-95/disks-large/ZO-homology) domain [32], a PTB (phosphotyrosine-binding) domain [44], an RGS-box (also known as “Regulator of G protein Signaling” domain) [32], a tandem repeat of RBD (Ras-binding) domains [45], and a GoLoco (also known as “Gi/o-Locomotion defects”) motif [46]; pink regions represent low-complexity polypeptide sequences predicted to lack secondary or higher-order structure. Above and below the domain map are the locations of non-synonymous substitutions to the consensus amino acid sequence (denoted by one-letter amino acid abbreviations) associated with the indicated mental health disorder or other pathological states. ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; BD, bipolar disorder; SAD, schizoaffective disorder; SCZ, schizophrenia. (*) denotes truncation mutation (stop-codon).
Ijms 26 11993 g001
Ijms 26 11993 g002
Figure 2. RGS12 PDZ domain amino acid variations associated with disease states are currently difficult to connect directly to their reduction-of-function status by computational approaches alone. (A), Three-dimensional representation of the predicted RGS12 PDZ domain/SAPAP3 C-terminal tail complex, based on our recent in silico docking [39] performed with the unpublished, solution NMR structural model of the unliganded RGS12 PDZ domain (Protein Data Bank id 2KV8). Highlighted are the distances between the carboxylic acid of the docked interacting peptide (red spheres, oxygen atoms; purple spheres, carbon) and the two positions reported to be different in separate families with high-penetrance bipolar disorder (glutamine [Q] instead of the consensus arginine at amino acid position 59; 17.5 angstroms) [35] and with autosomal dominant goiter (methionine [M] instead of the consensus valine at amino acid position 56; 14.6 angstroms) [50], respectively. (B–D), Summations of inter-atomic interaction occupancies over time (600 nanoseconds; pink arrows and percentages) during independent molecular dynamics simulations of the binding of the SAPAP3 C-terminal tail (final three amino acids of threonine–arginine–leucine shown) to indicate amino acid side chains (spheres) within the consensus RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (B)), the bipolar disease-associated variant RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (C)), and the familial goiter-associated variant RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (D)). (E,F), Total hydrogen bond counts between SAPAP3 C-terminal tail and PDZ domain atoms over 600 nanoseconds of simulation, as compared between consensus (blue) and bipolar-associated (green) RGS12 PDZ domains (panel (E)) or consensus and goiter-associated (red) RGS12 PDZ domains (panel (F)).
Figure 2. RGS12 PDZ domain amino acid variations associated with disease states are currently difficult to connect directly to their reduction-of-function status by computational approaches alone. (A), Three-dimensional representation of the predicted RGS12 PDZ domain/SAPAP3 C-terminal tail complex, based on our recent in silico docking [39] performed with the unpublished, solution NMR structural model of the unliganded RGS12 PDZ domain (Protein Data Bank id 2KV8). Highlighted are the distances between the carboxylic acid of the docked interacting peptide (red spheres, oxygen atoms; purple spheres, carbon) and the two positions reported to be different in separate families with high-penetrance bipolar disorder (glutamine [Q] instead of the consensus arginine at amino acid position 59; 17.5 angstroms) [35] and with autosomal dominant goiter (methionine [M] instead of the consensus valine at amino acid position 56; 14.6 angstroms) [50], respectively. (B–D), Summations of inter-atomic interaction occupancies over time (600 nanoseconds; pink arrows and percentages) during independent molecular dynamics simulations of the binding of the SAPAP3 C-terminal tail (final three amino acids of threonine–arginine–leucine shown) to indicate amino acid side chains (spheres) within the consensus RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (B)), the bipolar disease-associated variant RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (C)), and the familial goiter-associated variant RGS12 PDZ domain (panel (D)). (E,F), Total hydrogen bond counts between SAPAP3 C-terminal tail and PDZ domain atoms over 600 nanoseconds of simulation, as compared between consensus (blue) and bipolar-associated (green) RGS12 PDZ domains (panel (E)) or consensus and goiter-associated (red) RGS12 PDZ domains (panel (F)).
Ijms 26 11993 g002
Ijms 26 11993 g003
Figure 3. Hyperlocomotion upon treatment with methamphetamine (METH) or amphetamine (AMPH) is decreased in RGS12-deficient mice—an effect not caused by any apparent dopamine sensitivity change resulting from RGS12 loss. (A) Locomotor activity over time by Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice (open circles) versus wildtype littermate controls (closed circles), following 30 min acclimation to activity chambers and then methamphetamine administration (1.5 mg/kg ip, at a final volume of 10 mL/kg). Data plotted are the mean ± SEM (n = 11 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 13 for wildtype). (B) Methamphetamine (1.5 mg/kg ip)- and amphetamine (3 mg/kg ip)-induced hyperlocomotion as measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after a 30 min acclimation to activity chambers then drug administration. Data for METH (1.5 mg/kg) are the mean ± SEM (n = 11–13 per genotype) as derived from panel (A) Data for AMPH (3 mg/kg) were previously obtained and reported in Gross et al. (2018) J. Psychopharmacology (Sage Publications) [33] and are represented here as the mean ± SEM (n = 20 for Rgs12-null mice, 23 for wildtype). Statistically significant differences by genotype were obtained by multiple unpaired t-tests: *, p < 0.05; ****, p < 0.00005. (C) Hyperlocomotion measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after 30 min acclimation then treatment with control (saline) or the non-selective dopamine receptor agonist apomorphine (APO; 1 mg/kg ip). Data are the mean ± SEM (n = 10 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 14 for wildtype) and statistical significance evaluated by two-way ANOVA: ns, p > 0.05 (by genotype); ****, p < 0.0001 (by treatment).
Figure 3. Hyperlocomotion upon treatment with methamphetamine (METH) or amphetamine (AMPH) is decreased in RGS12-deficient mice—an effect not caused by any apparent dopamine sensitivity change resulting from RGS12 loss. (A) Locomotor activity over time by Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice (open circles) versus wildtype littermate controls (closed circles), following 30 min acclimation to activity chambers and then methamphetamine administration (1.5 mg/kg ip, at a final volume of 10 mL/kg). Data plotted are the mean ± SEM (n = 11 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 13 for wildtype). (B) Methamphetamine (1.5 mg/kg ip)- and amphetamine (3 mg/kg ip)-induced hyperlocomotion as measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after a 30 min acclimation to activity chambers then drug administration. Data for METH (1.5 mg/kg) are the mean ± SEM (n = 11–13 per genotype) as derived from panel (A) Data for AMPH (3 mg/kg) were previously obtained and reported in Gross et al. (2018) J. Psychopharmacology (Sage Publications) [33] and are represented here as the mean ± SEM (n = 20 for Rgs12-null mice, 23 for wildtype). Statistically significant differences by genotype were obtained by multiple unpaired t-tests: *, p < 0.05; ****, p < 0.00005. (C) Hyperlocomotion measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after 30 min acclimation then treatment with control (saline) or the non-selective dopamine receptor agonist apomorphine (APO; 1 mg/kg ip). Data are the mean ± SEM (n = 10 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 14 for wildtype) and statistical significance evaluated by two-way ANOVA: ns, p > 0.05 (by genotype); ****, p < 0.0001 (by treatment).
Ijms 26 11993 g003
Ijms 26 11993 g004
Figure 4. Methylphenidate (MPH) elicits hyperlocomotion equivalently in wildtype and RGS12-deficient mice. (A). Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice (open circles) versus wildtype littermate controls (closed circles), following 30 min acclimation to activity chambers and then administration of saline (panel (A)) or methylphenidate (10 mg/kg, ip; panel (B)). Data plotted are the mean ± SEM (n = 7 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 8 for wildtype). Inset for both panels: bar graphs of locomotion summed over 60 min post-acclimation and drug administration; statistical significance by genotype evaluated by multiple unpaired t-tests: ns, p >> 0.05. (C) Hyperlocomotion induced by separate 5 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg doses (ip) of methylphenidate, as measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after a 30 min acclimation to activity chambers then drug administration. Data for 5 mg/kg MPH treatment are the mean ± SEM (n = 8 for Rgs12-null mice, 7 for wildtype); data for 20 mg/kg MPH treatment are the mean ± SEM (n = 12 for each genotype). Statistical significance by genotype was evaluated by multiple unpaired t-tests: ns, p > 0.05.
Figure 4. Methylphenidate (MPH) elicits hyperlocomotion equivalently in wildtype and RGS12-deficient mice. (A). Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice (open circles) versus wildtype littermate controls (closed circles), following 30 min acclimation to activity chambers and then administration of saline (panel (A)) or methylphenidate (10 mg/kg, ip; panel (B)). Data plotted are the mean ± SEM (n = 7 for Rgs12-deficient mice, 8 for wildtype). Inset for both panels: bar graphs of locomotion summed over 60 min post-acclimation and drug administration; statistical significance by genotype evaluated by multiple unpaired t-tests: ns, p >> 0.05. (C) Hyperlocomotion induced by separate 5 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg doses (ip) of methylphenidate, as measured in Rgs12Δ5–8/Δ5–8 mice and wildtype littermate controls over 60 min after a 30 min acclimation to activity chambers then drug administration. Data for 5 mg/kg MPH treatment are the mean ± SEM (n = 8 for Rgs12-null mice, 7 for wildtype); data for 20 mg/kg MPH treatment are the mean ± SEM (n = 12 for each genotype). Statistical significance by genotype was evaluated by multiple unpaired t-tests: ns, p > 0.05.
Ijms 26 11993 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agogo-Mawuli, P.S.; Gross, J.D.; Setola, V.; Gall, B.J.; Siderovski, D.P. Functional Variation in RGS12 Should Not Preclude Methylphenidate Use in Bipolar Disorder with Established Mood Stabilization: Preclinical Evidence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 11993. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411993

AMA Style

Agogo-Mawuli PS, Gross JD, Setola V, Gall BJ, Siderovski DP. Functional Variation in RGS12 Should Not Preclude Methylphenidate Use in Bipolar Disorder with Established Mood Stabilization: Preclinical Evidence. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025; 26(24):11993. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411993

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agogo-Mawuli, Percy S., Joshua D. Gross, Vincent Setola, Bryan J. Gall, and David P. Siderovski. 2025. "Functional Variation in RGS12 Should Not Preclude Methylphenidate Use in Bipolar Disorder with Established Mood Stabilization: Preclinical Evidence" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 24: 11993. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411993

APA Style

Agogo-Mawuli, P. S., Gross, J. D., Setola, V., Gall, B. J., & Siderovski, D. P. (2025). Functional Variation in RGS12 Should Not Preclude Methylphenidate Use in Bipolar Disorder with Established Mood Stabilization: Preclinical Evidence. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(24), 11993. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262411993

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop