| Jacque-Bera test | Anderson-Darling test | |
| P-value | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ |
Citation: Thomas Rauen, Rose Tanui, Christof Grewer. Structural and functional dynamics of Excitatory Amino Acid Transporters (EAAT)[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2014, 1(3): 99-125. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2014.3.99
| [1] | Xinmei Liu, Xinfeng Liang, Xianya Geng . Expected Value of Multiplicative Degree-Kirchhoff Index in Random Polygonal Chains. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 707-719. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023032 |
| [2] | Wanlin Zhu, Minglei Fang, Xianya Geng . Enumeration of the Gutman and Schultz indices in the random polygonal chains. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 10826-10845. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022506 |
| [3] | V. R. Kulli, J. A. Méndez-Bermúdez, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta . Revan Sombor indices: Analytical and statistical study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 1801-1819. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023082 |
| [4] | Ricai Luo, Khadija Dawood, Muhammad Kamran Jamil, Muhammad Azeem . Some new results on the face index of certain polycyclic chemical networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8031-8048. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023348 |
| [5] | Cheng-Peng Li, Cheng Zhonglin, Mobeen Munir, Kalsoom Yasmin, Jia-bao Liu . M-polynomials and topological indices of linear chains of benzene, napthalene and anthracene. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2384-2398. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020127 |
| [6] | Xiujun Zhang, Umair Saleem, Muhammad Waheed, Muhammad Kamran Jamil, Muhammad Zeeshan . Comparative study of five topological invariants of supramolecular chain of different complexes of N-salicylidene-L-valine. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 11528-11544. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023511 |
| [7] | José M. Sigarreta . Extremal problems on exponential vertex-degree-based topological indices. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6985-6995. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022329 |
| [8] | Xiangyang Ren, Juan Tan, Qingmin Qiao, Lifeng Wu, Liyuan Ren, Lu Meng . Demand forecast and influential factors of cold chain logistics based on a grey model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 7669-7686. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022360 |
| [9] | J. A. Méndez-Bermúdez, José M. Rodríguez, José L. Sánchez, José M. Sigarreta . Analytical and computational properties of the variable symmetric division deg index. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 8908-8922. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022413 |
| [10] | Ping Wang, Rui Chen, Qiqing Huang . Does supply chain finance business model innovation improve capital allocation efficiency? Evidence from the cost of capital. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16421-16446. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023733 |
The cryptocurrency market continues to be a potential source of financial instability and its impact on the financial market still remains uncertain. Different from other financial assets which are regualarized, there is no formal regulation for cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies also differ significantly from other financial assets on the financial market and thus creates great propsects for investors and market players in terms of portfolio analysis, risk management and even consumer sentiment analysis Dyhrberg (2016). In the cryptocurrency market, volatility modelling is important in measuring the riskiness of an investment. Volatility can be define as a measure of the dispersion in a probability density. Market players and investors are therefore interested in accurate estimation of volatility in the cryptocurrency market. This is as a result of the correlation between volatility and returns on investment. It is notable that volatility is not directly observable and as a result there is increasing need for efficient model that can capture the price volatility in the cryptocurrency market. Estimating the volatility of Bitcoin is very crucial since Bitcoin has the highest market capitalization in the cryptocurrency market.
Most financial time series data have shown that the conditional distribution of returns series exhibit several stylized features such as excess kurtosis, negative skewness, price jumps, leverage effects, timevarying volatility, and volatility clustering. These stylized facts and properties of the returns series have significant ramification for financial models especially risk-scenario distribution, volatility estimation and prediction. To capture these stylized facts in these data's, different volatility modelling tools have been developed to model and estimate volatility. Hence, modeling the temporal dependencies in the conditional variance of Bitcoin time series has been the interest of many economists and financial analysts. However, the Bitcoin market is relatively new and there have not been enough literatures on the different models used in estimating the volatility in the market. Gronwald (2014) modelled Bitcoin price data using an autoregressive jump-intensity GARCH model and a standard GARCH model. Their results indicated that the autoregressive jump-intensity GARCH model performed better in fitting the Bitcoin price data than the standard GARCH model. Gronwald (2014) used multiple threshold-GARCH and Asymmetric-power GARCH to measure and estimate the volatility in the price of Bitcoin. They used Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and Hannan-Quinn information criterion (HQC) to capture the leverage and regime switching features of the conditional variance and concluded that Bitcoin market is not yet matured. In their study, Bouri et al. (2016) evaluated the safe-haven property of Bitcoin and its relationship to before and after the Bitcoin price crash of December 2013. Based on an asymmteric-GARCH, the authors concluded that Bitcoin has a safe-haven property in the pre-crash period and no safe-haven property post-crash period. Using the price of Bitcoin, Katsiampa (2017) studied the best conditional heteroscedasticity model in relation to goodness-of-fit. They revealed that the optimal model was the the AR-cGARCH model. By fitting 12 GARCH-type models to the log returns of exchange rates for seven different cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Chu et al. (2017) concluded that iGARCH (1, 1) with normal innovations is the optimal model. Their conclusion however differs from the known stylized fact* of financial time series data.
*returns have fatty tails and high kurtosis
This paper study the estimation capacity of different non-parametric GARCH-type models on volatility of the return series of Bitcoin for the period between 01 January, 2014 to 16 August, 2019. Non-parametric methods are applied to the GARCH-type models because they do not assume any distributional assumptions and can capture the kurtosis and fatty tails of the return series of Bitcoin. We employ the Students-t distribution, Generalized Error Distribution, and the Normal Inverse Gaussian distribution.
In this study, closing price was selected as the price of Bitcoin because it reflected all the activities of Bitcoin for each trading day. Historical daily closing price of Bitcoin was extracted from 01/01/2014 to 16/08/2019 at https://coinmarketcap.com/ and consisted of 2054 trading days.
Now, assume $ P_t $ and $ P_{t-1} $ represents the current day and previous day price of Bitcoin, then the return series/log returns $ (R_t) $ is calculated as
|
$ Rt=log(Pt)−log(Pt−1) $
|
(1) |
The residuals data of Bitcoin are checked for normality. If the dataset is normally distributed, then a parametric statistic like the Normal distribution can be assumed. However, if the residuals data are not normally distributed, a non-parametric statistic will be used. If the normality test fails, it is important to consider the histogram and the normal probability plot to check the presence of outliers in the data set. We employed the Jacque-Bera (JB) test statistics and the Anderson-Darling (AD) test statistics for the normality test. The JB and the AD test statistics are defined as in equation 2 and 3 respectively:
|
$ JB=n(S26+(K−3)224), $
|
(2) |
where $ n $ is the sample size, $ S $ and $ K $ are the sample skewness and kurtosis respectively.
|
$ AD=−n−1nn∑i=1(2i−1)[InF(Yi)+In(1−F(Yn−i+1))], $
|
(3) |
where $ F(\cdot) $ is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the specified distribution and $ i $ is the $ i_{th} $ sample.
The JB test (Jarque and Bera, 1987) uses the Lagrange multiplier approach on the Pearson family of distributions to derive tests for normality if observations and regression residuals. It is centered on sample skewness and kurtosis. The AD test (Anderson and Darling, 1954) was developed by Anderson and Darling in 1954. It gives more weight to the tails of distribution. AD test is based on the empirical distribution function. The JB and AD test compare the scores in the sample to a normally distributed set of scores with same standard deviation and mean. The null hypothesis of this test is ``sample distribution is normally distributed". The distribution is not normally distributed if the test is significant.
To apply GARCH models to the Bitcoin returns series, the presence of stationarity and ARCH effects in the residual return series are tested. The Ljung-box and Lagrange multiplier (LM) test (Engle, 2001) are used to test for the presence of ARCH effects in the data.
The Ljung Box test (Box and Pierce, 1970) is a method used in testing the absence of serial autocorrelation up to a specified lag $ k $. It can be defined as
$ H_0 $: The observed data do not exhibit serial correlation
$ H_1 $: The observed data exhibit serial correlation
The test statistics is given as:
|
$ Q=N(N+2)h∑k=1ˆρ2kN−k $
|
(4) |
where $ N $ is the sample size, $ h $ is the time lag, $ \hat{\rho}_k^2 $ is the estimated autocorrelation of the series at lag $ k $.
To apply GARCH models to the returns series data, it is important to test the residuals for the presence of AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (ARCH) effects. The LM test was used to test for the presence of ARCH effects. LM is defined as;
$ H_0 $: No ARCH effect
$ H_1 $: Presence of ARCH effects.
The LM test statistics is given as:
|
$ LM=N.R2∼χ2(q), $
|
(5) |
where $ N $ is the total number of observations, $ R^2 $ forms the regression, and $ q $ is the number of restrictions.
GARCH is an extension of the ARCH model that integrates a moving average (MA) part together with the autoregressive (AR) part.
Define a GARCH (p, q) model as
|
$ xt=σtϵtσ2t=ω+p∑i=1αix2t−i+q∑j=1βjσ2t−j $
|
(6) |
where $ \omega > 0 $, $ \alpha_i > 0 $, $ \beta_j > 0 $, $ \sum_{i = 1}^{p} \alpha_i + \sum_{j = 1}^{q} \beta_j < 1 $. $ \epsilon_t $ is the is a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables. For the sake of tractability, the order of all the GARCH models used will be restricted to one.
The standard GARCH model (Bollerslev, 1986) represented as sGARCH(1, 1) is given as
|
$ σ2t=ω+α1ϵ2t−1+β1σ2t−1 $
|
(7) |
Suppose the sum of the coefficients in Equation 6 is equal to 1, the GARCH process is called an Integrated GARCH (iGARCH). That is, the iGARCH models are unit-root GARCH models. A basic characteristic of the iGARCH model is that the effect of past squared shocks $ \eta_{t-i} = x_{t-1}^2 - \sigma_{t-i}^2 $ for $ i > 0 $ on $ x_t^2 $ is persistent. An iGARCH(p, q) model assumes the form
|
$ xt=σtϵtσ2t=ω+p∑i=1βiσ2t−i+q∑j=1(1−βj)α2t−j $
|
(8) |
Define an iGARCH (1, 1) model as
|
$ xt=σtϵtσ2t=ω+β1σ2t−1+(1−β1)x2t−1, $
|
(9) |
where $ 1 > \beta_1 > 0 $.
The tGARCH model was developed independently by Ravichandran et al. (1989) and Glosten et al. (1993). A tGARCH(p, q) model assumes the form
|
$ σ2t= +q∑i=1(αi+λi1t−i)x2t−i+p∑j=1βjσ2t−j $
|
(10) |
where
|
$ 1t−1={1,ifϵt−i<0,bad news0,ifϵt−i≥0,good news $
|
(11) |
$ \alpha_i > 0 $, $ \beta_j > 0 $, and $ \lambda_i > 0 $.
The generalized version of the tGARCH TGARCH(1, 1) is given as:
|
$ σ2t=ω+αx2t−1+βσ2t−1+λx2t−11t−1 $
|
(12) |
where $ \alpha $ and $ \alpha + \lambda $ denote the effect of good news and bad news respectively. A $ \lambda > 0 $ is an evidence that bad news upsurge volatility in the Bitcoin market. This indicates the existence of leverage effects of the first order. For an asymmetric news effect, $ \lambda \neq 0 $.
From the test of normality for the returns residuals in table 3 and figure 4, it is clear that the distribution of the residuals returns are not normally distributed. There is the presence of excess kurtosis and heavy-tails in the distribution of the residuals returns. To account for the excess kurtosis and fat tails that are present in the residuals of the returns series, we model the error term in the GARCH models with Student-t distribution, Generalized Error Distribution (GED), and Normal Inverse Gaussian (NIG) types of distributions. These distributions are appropriate to capture the excess kurtosis and the skewness in the residuals return series.
| Jacque-Bera test | Anderson-Darling test | |
| P-value | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ |
DownLoad:
CSV
The Student's t-distribution or the t-distribution is a sub-class of the continuous probability distributions. It is used when the sample size is small and the population standard deviation is unknown. It was proposed by Student (1908). The probability density function (pdf) of the t-distribution is defined as
|
$ ft(x;v)=Γ(v+12)√vπΓ(v2)(1+x2v)−v+12,x∈(−∞,∞) $
|
(13) |
where $ v $ is the number of degrees of freedom and $ \Gamma(\cdot) $ is the gamma function.
The log likelihood function is defined as below
|
$ l(x;v)=NIn(Γ(v+12)√vπΓ(v2))−12N∑t=1(Inσ2t+(v+1)In(1+x2tσ2t(v−2))] $
|
(14) |
The standardized GED or the error distribution is a symmetrical unimodal sub-class of the exponential family with shape parameter $ v $. The pdf of the GED is defined as in Equation 15,
|
$ fGED(x;v)=k(v)exp{−12|xλ(v)|v},x∈(−∞,∞) $
|
(15) |
where $ v $ determines the tail weight with larger value of $ v $ giving lesser tai weight, $ k(v) $, and $ \lambda(v) $ are constant and are defined as
|
$ k(v)=vλ(v)21+1vΓ(1v) $
|
(16) |
|
$ λ(v)={2−2vΓ(1v)Γ(3v)}1/2 $
|
(17) |
$ \Gamma(x) = \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{x-1}e^{-t}dt, \, \, x > 0 $ is the Euler gamma function.
The log likelihood function is defined as
|
$ l(x;v)=N∑t=1[In(vλ)−12|xσ2tv|v−(1+v−1)In2−InΓ(1v)−12Inσ2t] $
|
(18) |
The NIG distribution was proposed by Barndorff-Nielsen (1977) and it is a sub-class of the generalized hyperbolic distribution. The pdf of an NIG distribution for a random variable $ X $ is defined as
|
$ fNIG(x;α,κ,μ,δ))=αδπexp{δ√α2−β2+β(x−μ)}K1[αq(x)] $
|
(19) |
where $ q(x) = ((x - \mu)^2 + \delta^2)^{1/2} $, $ \alpha > 0 $ determines the shape, $ 0 \le \mid \kappa \mid \le \alpha $ determines the skewness, $ \delta > 0 $ is the scaling, $ \mu \in \mathbb{R} $ is the location parameter and $ x \in \mathbb{R} $. $ k_1(x) $ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind with index 1. The NIG distribution has a heavier tail than the normal distribution and can take different kinds of shapes. From equation 19, the shape of an NIG density is described using a four dimensional parameters ($ \alpha, \kappa, \mu, \delta $). The NIG distribution is appropriate for capturing data sets with extremal observations, skewness, and fat tails or semi-heavy tails. The log-likelihood of the NIG distribution is given as
|
$ l(x;α,κ,μ,δ)=nlog(αδπ)+nδ√α2−κ2+κN∑t=1(xt−μ)+N∑t=1logK1(xt;α,δ,μ) $
|
(20) |
The best model was selected using two information criteria: Akaike information criteria (AIC) and Bayesian information criteria (BIC). AIC and BIC considers the accuracy of the model fit and the number of parameters in the model; rewarding a better fit and penalizing an increased number of parameters in the return series data. The optimal model that will be selected is the model with the minimum AIC and BIC values. The GARCH models used in this study were fitted using the maximum likelihood method.
|
$ AIC=−2InL(ˆΘ)+2k, $
|
(21) |
|
$ BIC=−2InL+kInL(ˆΘ), $
|
(22) |
where $ n, k, n, \Theta, \hat{\Theta} $ represent the number of observations, number of unknown parameters, vector of the unknown parameters, and the maximum likelihood estimates of the vector of the unknown parameters respectively.highest market capitalization in the cryptocurrency market.
The smaller the AIC and BIC values of a model, the better the fit of that model.
The visualization in Figure 1 revealed that the entire cryptocurrency market is propped primarily by Bitcoin. Table 1 is the statistics of Bitcoin on the cryptocurrency market and table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the return series of Bitcoin. The return series of Bitcoin is positively skewed. This indicates that the returns of Bitcoin is non-symmetric. The positive value of the skewness indicates that the distribution of Bitcoin return series is skewed to the right or positively skewed. The positive excess kurtosis ($ 216.7461 $) indicates that the returns are leptokurtic. That is, the returns series has a fatty tail. Figure 2 shows the time series plot of Bitcoin price (left Figure) and the return series (right Figure) of Bitcoin for the time period. Figure 3 is the histogram and the normal quantile-quantile (q-q) plot of the return series for the same time period. The residuals plot is presented in Figure 4. There is the presence of fatty tails and skewness in the residuals of the return series. This is confirmed from the JB and AD test statistics in Table 3. Both tests rejected the normality at $ 5\% $ significance level.
| Cryptocurrency | Return on investment (ROI) | Market Capitalization | All time high | All time low |
| Bitcoin | 7,005.34% | ＄172,355,391,698 | ＄20,089.00 | ＄65.53 |
| Note:Accessedathttps://coinmarketcap.com/on01/09/2019. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cryptocurrency | Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Standard deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Bitcoin (USD) | -0.8488 | 1.4744 | 0.0012 | 0.0600 | 216.7471 | 6.4820 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test (Dickey and Fuller, 1979) is used to test for stationarity. From Table 4, the null hypothesis of statonarity is rejected at 5% $ \alpha $-level of significance. Hence, there is no need to difference the return series. The Ljung-box and LM test are presented in Table 4. From the Ljung box test, the null hypothesis of ``no autocorrelation" in the squared residuals is rejected at 5% significance level. That is, there is dependency in the squared returns series of Bitcoin. Using the LM test, the null hypothesis of ``no ARCH effects" is rejected at 5% significance level. From the Ljung box and LM test, it can be concluded that the volatility ARCH effect is very much present in the return series. Hence, the GARCH models are used to model the returns series data.
| Ljung box test | LM test | ADF test | |
| P-value | $ 7.835e-05 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | 0.01 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Table 5 shows the results of the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of sGARCH(1, 1), iGARCH(1, 1), and tGARCH(1, 1) models for Bitcoin returns using student t-distribution. From the table, the log-likelihood value $ (4181.104) $ is maximum for tGARCH(1, 1) model. The values of the two information criterions (AIC = $ -4.0663 $, BIC = $ -4.0526 $) of tGARCH(1, 1) are minimum as compared to sGARCH(1, 1)-t and iGARCH(1, 1)-t. The visual QQ plot in Figure 5c is consistent with the AIC, BIC, and log likelihood values of the tGARCH(1, 1)-t. These results indicate that tGARCH(1, 1)-t model is the optimal model to describe the volatility of the return series of Bitcoin. Table 6 presents MLE results of sGARCH(1, 1)-GED, iGARCH(1, 1)-GED, and tGARCH(1, 1)-GED models for Bitcoin returns. Compared to the other models, the log-likelihood value of tGARCH(1, 1)-GED is the maximum. The AIC and BIC values of tGARCH(1, 1)-GED recorded the minimum values as compared to the other two models. Hence, the tGARCH(1, 1)-GED model is the best model compared to sGARCH(1, 1)-GED and iGARCH(1, 1)-GED. From Table 7, the tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG recorded the maximum log-likelihood value (4196.681). The AIC and BIC values ($ -4.0805 $ and $ -4.0641 $ respectively) of tGARCH-NIG were the lowest. This indicates that tGARCH(1, 1) is the best model for the volatility of the return series of Bitcoin using the Normal Inverse Gaussian distribution.
| Model | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000036 | 0.192227 | 0.806773 | 3.200514 | — | -4.0367 | -4.0258 | 4149.72 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.023060) | (0.023828) | (0.169435) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000035 | 0.192695 | 0.807305 | 3.194742 | — | -4.0379 | -4.0297 | 4149.946 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.021763) | — | (0.135971) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001019 | 0.291106 | 0.835797 | 2.472141 | 0.007515 | -4.0663 | -4.0526 | 4181.104 | |
| (0.000353) | (0.048010) | (0.018121) | (0.157392) | (0.059760) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. Note 2: $ \hat{\omega} $:The reaction of conditional variance}, $ \hat{\alpha} $:ARCH effect, $ \hat{\beta} $:GARCH effect, $ \hat{\lambda} $:Leverage effect. |
|||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Model | Estimated parameters | ||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.192872 | 0.806128 | 0.860227 | — | -4.0495 | -4.0386 | 4162.87 | |
| (0.000011) | (0.025780) | (0.022277) | (0.030944) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.193739 | 0.806261 | 0.859610 | — | -4.0506 | -4.0424 | 4162.95 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022141) | — | (0.029442) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001298 | 0.212642 | 0.826352 | 0.851479 | 0.055244 | -4.0632 | -4.0495 | 4177.926 | |
| (0.000337) | (0.025368) | (0.021071) | (0.031225) | (0.061816) | |||||
| Note1: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Model | Estimated parameters | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\kappa} $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.00004 | 0.19748 | 0.80152 | 0.39161 | -0.13314 | — | -4.0599 | -4.0462 | 4174.485 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.024326) | (0.022933) | (0.046759) | (0.032272) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.198112 | 0.801888 | 0.390387 | -0.133277 | — | -4.061 | -4.050 | 4174.653 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022055) | — | (0.042123) | (0.032213) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001048 | 0.233978 | 0.828983 | 0.319214 | -0.142017 | -0.005427 | -4.0805 | -4.0641 | 4196.681 | |
| (0.000302) | (0.027732) | (0.019678) | (0.042593) | (0.033599) | (0.061556) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | ||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
From the three selected models (tGARCH(1, 1)-t, tGARCH(1, 1)-GED, and tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG), the tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG was the most optimal model for capturing the the volatility of Bitcoin return series. This can be confirmed from the maximum log likelihood value and the minimum AIC and BIC values. This result is also in agreement from the visual plot in Figure 8c. It is therefore evident that the optimal model in terms of the information criterion, log likelihood, and QQ plot is the tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG. The volatility estimates obtained from tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG model is displayed in Figure 9a. It is evident that volatility moves through time. The density of tGARCH(1, 1)-NIG is shown in Figure 9b. Clearly, the NIG distribution was able to capture the fat tails and skewness in the distribution. This confirms the reliability and efficiency in using the NIG distribution for modelling the volatility of Bitcoin return series.
This paper studied the volatility of daily return series of Bitcoin from 01/01/2014 to 16/08/2019. The results of the statistical properties revealed that just like other financial time series data, the return series of Bitcoin are leptokurtic. Different GARCH type models (sGARCH, iGARCH, tGARCH) were compared and the tGARCH model was identified to be the most appropriate model for estimating the time-varying volatility in Bitcoin return series. To account for the skewness and fat tails in the Bitcoin time series for the years understudy, the Student-t, Generalized Error Distribution (GED), and Normal Inverse Gaussian (NIG) distribution were used to capture the tail distribution in the GARCH models. The NIG distribution performed better in capturing the fat tail and skewness in the return series distribution. Hence, the tGARCH-NIG model was the optimal model for modeling and estimating the volatility in the return series of Bitcoin. The results of this study are useful for investors and market players in investment decision-making and making monetary policies.
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Data for this work are available from the author upon request.
| [1] |
Zerangue N, Kavanaugh MP (1996) Flux coupling in a neuronal glutamate transporter. Nature 383: 634-637. doi: 10.1038/383634a0
|
| [2] |
Danbolt NC (2001) Glutamate uptake. Prog Neurobiol 65: 1-105. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0082(00)00067-8
|
| [3] | Hertz L (1979) Functional interactions between neurons and astrocytes. I. Turnover and metabolism of putative amino acid transmitters. ProgNeurobiol 13: 277-323. |
| [4] |
Broer S, Brookes N (2001) Transfer of glutamine between astrocytes and neurons. J Neurochem 77: 705-719. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2001.00322.x
|
| [5] | Drejer J, Larsson OM, Schousboe A (1982) Characterization of L-glutamate uptake into and release from astrocytes and neurons cultured from differnt brain regions. ExpBrain Res 47: 259-269. |
| [6] | Schousboe A, Hertz L (1981) Role of astroglial cells in glutamate homeostasis. Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol 27: 103-113. |
| [7] | Rauen T, Taylor WR, Kuhlbrodt K, et al. (1998) High-affinity glutamate transporters in the rat retina: a major role of the glial glutamate transporter GLAST-1 in transmitter clearance. Cell Tissue Res 291: 19-31. |
| [8] |
Rauen T, Wiessner M (2000) Fine tuning of glutamate uptake and degradation in glial cells: common transcriptional regulation of GLAST1 and GS. Neurochem Int 37: 179-189. doi: 10.1016/S0197-0186(00)00021-8
|
| [9] |
Furness DN, Dehnes Y, Akhtar AQ, et al. (2008) A quantitative assessment of glutamate uptake into hippocampal synaptic terminals and astrocytes: new insights into a neuronal role for excitatory amino acid transporter 2 (EAAT2). Neuroscience 157: 80-94. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.08.043
|
| [10] |
Pines G, Danbolt NC, Bjoras M, et al. (1992) Cloning and expression of a rat brain L-glutamate transporter. Nature 360: 464-467. doi: 10.1038/360464a0
|
| [11] |
Storck T, Schulte S, Hofmann K, et al. (1992) Structure, expression, and functional analysis of a Na(+)-dependent glutamate/aspartate transporter from rat brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89: 10955-10959. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.22.10955
|
| [12] | Arriza JL, Fairman WA, Wadiche JI, et al. (1994) Functional comparisons of three glutamate transporter subtypes cloned from human motor cortex. J Neurosci 14: 5559-5569. |
| [13] |
Tanaka K, Watase K, Manabe T, et al. (1997) Epilepsy and exacerbation of brain injury in mice lacking the glutamate transporter GLT-1. Science 276: 1699-1702. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5319.1699
|
| [14] |
Bjornsen LP, Hadera MG, Zhou Y, et al. (2014) The GLT-1 (EAAT2; slc1a2) glutamate transporter is essential for glutamate homeostasis in the neocortex of the mouse. J Neurochem 128: 641-649. doi: 10.1111/jnc.12509
|
| [15] |
Rauen T, Wiessner M, Sullivan R, et al. (2004) A new GLT1 splice variant: cloning and immunolocalization of GLT1c in the mammalian retina and brain. Neurochem Int 45: 1095-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2004.04.006
|
| [16] |
Sullivan R, Rauen T, Fischer F, et al. (2004) Cloning, transport properties, and differential localization of two splice variants of GLT-1 in the rat CNS: Implications for CNS glutamate homeostasis. Glia 45: 155-169. doi: 10.1002/glia.10317
|
| [17] |
Lee A, Anderson AR, Beasley SJ, et al. (2012) A new splice variant of the glutamate-aspartate transporter: cloning and immunolocalization of GLAST1c in rat, pig and human brains. J Chem Neuroanat 43: 52-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2011.10.005
|
| [18] |
Grewer C, Gameiro A, Rauen T (2014) SLC1 glutamate transporters. Pflugers Arch 466: 3-24. doi: 10.1007/s00424-013-1397-7
|
| [19] |
Rauen T (2000) Diversity of glutamate transporter expression and function in the mammalian retina. Amino Acids 19: 53-62. doi: 10.1007/s007260070033
|
| [20] |
Rauen T, Kanner BI (1994) Localization of the glutamate transporter GLT-1 in rat and macaque monkey retinae. Neurosci Lett 169: 137-140. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(94)90375-1
|
| [21] |
Wiessner M, Fletcher EL, Fischer F, et al. (2002) Localization and possible function of the glutamate transporter, EAAC1, in the rat retina. Cell Tissue Res 310: 31-40. doi: 10.1007/s00441-002-0612-1
|
| [22] |
Holmseth S, Dehnes Y, Huang YH, et al. (2012) The density of EAAC1 (EAAT3) glutamate transporters expressed by neurons in the mammalian CNS. J Neurosci 32: 6000-6013. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5347-11.2012
|
| [23] | Dehnes Y, Chaudhry FA, Ullensvang K, et al. (1998) The glutamate transporter EAAT4 in rat cerebellar Purkinje cells: a glutamate-gated chloride channel concentrated near the synapse in parts of the dendritic membrane facing astroglia. J Neurosci 18: 3606-3619. |
| [24] |
Mim C, Balani P, Rauen T, et al. (2005) The Glutamate Transporter Subtypes EAAT4 and EAATs 1-3 Transport Glutamate with Dramatically Different Kinetics and Voltage Dependence but Share a Common Uptake Mechanism. J Gen Physiol 126: 571-589. doi: 10.1085/jgp.200509365
|
| [25] |
Gincel D, Regan MR, Jin L, et al. (2007) Analysis of cerebellar Purkinje cells using EAAT4 glutamate transporter promoter reporter in mice generated via bacterial artificial chromosome-mediated transgenesis. Exp Neurol 203: 205-212. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.08.016
|
| [26] |
Kovermann P, Machtens JP, Ewers D, et al. (2010) A conserved aspartate determines pore properties of anion channels associated with excitatory amino acid transporter 4 (EAAT4). J Biol Chem 285: 23676-23686. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.126557
|
| [27] |
Arriza JL, Eliasof S, Kavanaugh MP, et al. (1997) Excitatory amino acid transporter 5, a retinal glutamate transporter coupled to a chloride conductance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94: 4155-4160. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.4155
|
| [28] |
Wersinger E, Schwab Y, Sahel JA, et al. (2006) The glutamate transporter EAAT5 works as a presynaptic receptor in mouse rod bipolar cells. J Physiol 577: 221-234. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.118281
|
| [29] |
Gameiro A, Braams S, Rauen T, et al. (2011) The Discovery of Slowness: Low-Capacity Transport and Slow Anion Channel Gating by the Glutamate Transporter EAAT5. Biophysical journal 100: 2623-2632. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.04.034
|
| [30] | Hediger MA, Kanai Y, You G, et al. (1995) Mammalian ion-coupled solute transporters. JPhysiolLond 482: 7S-17S. |
| [31] |
Bailey CG, Ryan RM, Thoeng AD, et al. (2011) Loss-of-function mutations in the glutamate transporter SLC1A1 cause human dicarboxylic aminoaciduria. J Clin Invest 121: 446-453. doi: 10.1172/JCI44474
|
| [32] |
Duerson K, Woltjer RL, Mookherjee P, et al. (2009) Detergent-insoluble EAAC1/EAAT3 aberrantly accumulates in hippocampal neurons of Alzheimer's disease patients. Brain Pathol 19: 267-278. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3639.2008.00186.x
|
| [33] |
Revett TJ, Baker GB, Jhamandas J, et al. (2013) Glutamate system, amyloid ss peptides and tau protein: functional interrelationships and relevance to Alzheimer disease pathology. J Psychiatry Neurosci 38: 6-23. doi: 10.1503/jpn.110190
|
| [34] | Rothstein JD (2009) Current hypotheses for the underlying biology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann Neurol 65 Suppl 1: S3-9. |
| [35] |
Lang UE, Borgwardt S (2013) Molecular Mechanisms of Depression: Perspectives on New Treatment Strategies. Cell Physiol Biochem 31: 761-777. doi: 10.1159/000350094
|
| [36] |
Crino PB, Jin H, Shumate MD, et al. (2002) Increased expression of the neuronal glutamate transporter (EAAT3/EAAC1) in hippocampal and neocortical epilepsy. Epilepsia 43: 211-218. doi: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.35001.x
|
| [37] |
Estrada-Sanchez AM, Rebec GV (2012) Corticostriatal dysfunction and glutamate transporter 1 (GLT1) in Huntington's disease: interactions between neurons and astrocytes. Basal Ganglia 2: 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.baga.2012.04.029
|
| [38] | Rao VL, Dogan A, Todd KG, et al. (2001) Antisense knockdown of the glial glutamate transporter GLT-1, but not the neuronal glutamate transporter EAAC1, exacerbates transient focal cerebral ischemia-induced neuronal damage in rat brain. J Neurosci 21: 1876-1883. |
| [39] |
Grewer C, Gameiro A, Zhang Z, et al. (2008) Glutamate forward and reverse transport: from molecular mechanism to transporter-mediated release after ischemia. IUBMB Life 60: 609-619. doi: 10.1002/iub.98
|
| [40] |
Ketheeswaranathan P, Turner NA, Spary EJ, et al. (2011) Changes in glutamate transporter expression in mouse forebrain areas following focal ischemia. Brain Res 1418: 93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.08.029
|
| [41] |
Seki Y, Feustel PJ, Keller RW, et al. (1999) Inhibition of ischemia-induced glutamate release in rat striatum by dihydrokinate and an anion channel blocker. Stroke 30: 433-440. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.2.433
|
| [42] | Azami Tameh A, Clarner T, Beyer C, et al. (2013) Regional regulation of glutamate signaling during cuprizone-induced demyelination in the brain. Ann Anat. |
| [43] |
Karlsson RM, Tanaka K, Heilig M, et al. (2008) Loss of glial glutamate and aspartate transporter (excitatory amino acid transporter 1) causes locomotor hyperactivity and exaggerated responses to psychotomimetics: rescue by haloperidol and metabotropic glutamate 2/3 agonist. Biol Psychiatry 64: 810-814. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.001
|
| [44] |
Karlsson RM, Tanaka K, Saksida LM, et al. (2009) Assessment of glutamate transporter GLAST (EAAT1)-deficient mice for phenotypes relevant to the negative and executive/cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 34: 1578-1589. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.215
|
| [45] |
Adamczyk A, Gause CD, Sattler R, et al. (2011) Genetic and functional studies of a missense variant in a glutamate transporter, SLC1A3, in Tourette syndrome. Psychiatr Genet 21: 90-97. doi: 10.1097/YPG.0b013e328341a307
|
| [46] |
Reyes N, Ginter C, Boudker O (2009) Transport mechanism of a bacterial homologue of glutamate transporters. Nature 462: 880-885. doi: 10.1038/nature08616
|
| [47] |
Verdon G, Boudker O (2012) Crystal structure of an asymmetric trimer of a bacterial glutamate transporter homolog. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 355-357. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2233
|
| [48] |
Yernool D, Boudker O, Jin Y, et al. (2004) Structure of a glutamate transporter homologue from Pyrococcus horikoshii. Nature 431: 811-818. doi: 10.1038/nature03018
|
| [49] |
Jardetzky O (1966) Simple allosteric model for membrane pumps. Nature 211: 969-970. doi: 10.1038/211969a0
|
| [50] |
Owe SG, Marcaggi P, Attwell D (2006) The ionic stoichiometry of the GLAST glutamate transporter in salamander retinal glia. J Physiol 577: 591-599. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.116830
|
| [51] |
Kanai Y, Nussberger S, Romero MF, et al. (1995) Electrogenic properties of the epithelial and neuronal high affinity glutamate transporter. J Biol Chem 270: 16561-16568. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.28.16561
|
| [52] | Wadiche JI, Kavanaugh MP (1998) Macroscopic and microscopic properties of a cloned glutamate transporter/chloride channel. J Neurosci 18: 7650-7661. |
| [53] | Otis TS, Kavanaugh MP (2000) Isolation of current components and partial reaction cycles in the glial glutamate transporter EAAT2. J Neurosci 20: 2749-2757. |
| [54] | Otis TS, Jahr CE (1998) Anion currents and predicted glutamate flux through a neuronal glutamate transporter. J Neurosci 18: 7099-7110. |
| [55] | Bergles DE, Tzingounis AV, Jahr CE (2002) Comparison of coupled and uncoupled currents during glutamate uptake by GLT-1 transporters. J Neurosci 22: 10153-10162. |
| [56] |
Grewer C, Watzke N, Wiessner M, et al. (2000) Glutamate translocation of the neuronal glutamate transporter EAAC1 occurs within milliseconds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 9706-9711. doi: 10.1073/pnas.160170397
|
| [57] |
Watzke N, Bamberg E, Grewer C (2001) Early intermediates in the transport cycle of the neuronal excitatory amino acid carrier EAAC1. J Gen Physiol 117: 547-562. doi: 10.1085/jgp.117.6.547
|
| [58] | Mwaura J, Tao Z, James H, et al. (2012) Protonation state of a conserved acidic amino acid involved in Na(+) binding to the glutamate transporter EAAC1. ACS Chem Neurosci 12: 1073-1083. |
| [59] | Diamond JS, Jahr CE (1997) Transporters buffer synaptically released glutamate on a submillisecond time scale. J Neurosci 17: 4672-4687. |
| [60] |
Mim C, Tao Z, Grewer C (2007) Two conformational changes are associated with glutamate translocation by the glutamate transporter EAAC1. Biochemistry 46: 9007-9018. doi: 10.1021/bi7005465
|
| [61] |
Wadiche JI, Arriza JL, Amara SG, et al. (1995) Kinetics of a human glutamate transporter. Neuron 14: 1019-1027. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90340-2
|
| [62] |
Loo DD, Hazama A, Supplisson S, et al. (1993) Relaxation kinetics of the Na+/glucose cotransporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90: 5767-5771. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.12.5767
|
| [63] | Lu CC, Hilgemann DW (1999) GAT1 (GABA:Na+:Cl-) cotransport function. Kinetic studies in giant Xenopus oocyte membrane patches. J Gen Physiol 114: 445-457. |
| [64] |
Grewer C, Zhang Z, Mwaura J, et al. (2012) Charge compensation mechanism of a Na+-coupled, secondary active glutamate transporter. J Biol Chem 287: 26921-26931. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.364059
|
| [65] |
Zhang Z, Tao Z, Gameiro A, et al. (2007) Transport direction determines the kinetics of substrate transport by the glutamate transporter EAAC1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 18025-18030. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704570104
|
| [66] |
Wadiche JI, Amara SG, Kavanaugh MP (1995) Ion fluxes associated with excitatory amino acid transport. Neuron 15: 721-728. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90159-0
|
| [67] |
Eliasof S, Jahr CE (1996) Retinal glial cell glutamate transporter is coupled to an anionic conductance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93: 4153-4158. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.9.4153
|
| [68] | Billups B, Rossi D, Attwell D (1996) Anion conductance behavior of the glutamate uptake carrier in salamander retinal glial cells. J Neurosci 16: 6722-6731. |
| [69] |
Fairman WA, Vandenberg RJ, Arriza JL, et al. (1995) An excitatory amino-acid transporter with properties of a ligand-gated chloride channel. Nature 375: 599-603. doi: 10.1038/375599a0
|
| [70] |
Larsson HP, Picaud SA, Werblin FS, et al. (1996) Noise analysis of the glutamate-activated current in photoreceptors. Biophysl J 70: 733-742. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79613-3
|
| [71] |
Melzer N, Biela A, Fahlke C (2003) Glutamate modifies ion conduction and voltage-dependent gating of excitatory amino acid transporter-associated anion channels. J Biol Chem 278: 50112-50119. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M307990200
|
| [72] | Picaud SA, Larsson HP, Grant GB, et al. (1995) Glutamate-gated chloride channel with glutamate-transporter-like properties in cone photoreceptors of the tiger salamander. J Neurophys 74: 1760-1771. |
| [73] |
Watzke N, Grewer C (2001) The anion conductance of the glutamate transporter EAAC1 depends on the direction of glutamate transport. FEBS Lett 503: 121-125. doi: 10.1016/S0014-5793(01)02715-6
|
| [74] |
Tao Z, Grewer C (2007) Cooperation of the conserved aspartate 439 and bound amino acid substrate is important for high-affinity Na+ binding to the glutamate transporter EAAC1. J Gen Physiol 129: 331-344. doi: 10.1085/jgp.200609678
|
| [75] |
Boudker O, Ryan RM, Yernool D, et al. (2007) Coupling substrate and ion binding to extracellular gate of a sodium-dependent aspartate transporter. Nature 445: 387-393. doi: 10.1038/nature05455
|
| [76] |
Cater RJ, Vandenberg RJ, Ryan RM (2014) The domain interface of the human glutamate transporter EAAT1 mediates chloride permeation. Biophys J 107: 621-629. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.05.046
|
| [77] |
Huang Z, Tajkhorshid E (2008) Dynamics of the extracellular gate and ion-substrate coupling in the glutamate transporter. Biophys J 95: 2292-2300. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.108.133421
|
| [78] |
Shrivastava IH, Jiang J, Amara SG, et al. (2008) Time-resolved mechanism of extracellular gate opening and substrate binding in a glutamate transporter. J Biol Chem 283: 28680-28690. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M800889200
|
| [79] |
Huang Z, Tajkhorshid E (2010) Identification of the third Na+ site and the sequence of extracellular binding events in the glutamate transporter. Biophys J 99: 1416-1425. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.06.052
|
| [80] |
Bastug T, Heinzelmann G, Kuyucak S, et al. (2012) Position of the third Na+ site in the aspartate transporter GltPh and the human glutamate transporter, EAAT1. PLoS One 7: e33058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033058
|
| [81] |
Groeneveld M, Slotboom DJ (2010) Na(+):aspartate coupling stoichiometry in the glutamate transporter homologue Glt(Ph). Biochemistry 49: 3511-3513. doi: 10.1021/bi100430s
|
| [82] |
Larsson HP, Wang X, Lev B, et al. (2010) Evidence for a third sodium-binding site in glutamate transporters suggests an ion/substrate coupling model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 13912-13917. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006289107
|
| [83] |
DeChancie J, Shrivastava IH, Bahar I (2011) The mechanism of substrate release by the aspartate transporter GltPh: insights from simulations. Mol Biosyst 7: 832-842. doi: 10.1039/C0MB00175A
|
| [84] |
Zomot E, Bahar I (2013) Intracellular gating in an inward-facing state of aspartate transporter Glt(Ph) is regulated by the movements of the helical hairpin HP2. J Biol Chem 288: 8231-8237. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.438432
|
| [85] |
Heinzelmann G, Kuyucak S (2014) Molecular dynamics simulations of the mammalian glutamate transporter EAAT3. PLoS One 9: e92089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092089
|
| [86] |
Jiang J, Shrivastava IH, Watts SD, et al. (2011) Large collective motions regulate the functional properties of glutamate transporter trimers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108: 15141-15146. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1112216108
|
| [87] |
Lezon TR, Bahar I (2012) Constraints imposed by the membrane selectively guide the alternating access dynamics of the glutamate transporter GltPh. Biophys J 102: 1331-1340. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.02.028
|
| [88] |
Das A, Gur M, Cheng MH, et al. (2014) Exploring the conformational transitions of biomolecular systems using a simple two-state anisotropic network model. PLoS Comput Biol 10: e1003521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003521
|
| [89] |
Stolzenberg S, Khelashvili G, Weinstein H (2012) Structural intermediates in a model of the substrate translocation path of the bacterial glutamate transporter homologue GltPh. J Phys Chem B 116: 5372-5383. doi: 10.1021/jp301726s
|
| [90] |
Grewer C, Watzke N, Rauen T, et al. (2003) Is the glutamate residue Glu-373 the proton acceptor of the excitatory amino acid carrier 1? J Biol Chem 278: 2585-2592. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M207956200
|
| [91] |
Heinzelmann G, Kuyucak S (2014) Molecular Dynamics Simulations Elucidate the Mechanism of Proton Transport in the Glutamate Transporter EAAT3. Biophys J 106: 2675-2683. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2014.05.010
|
| [92] |
Grewer C, Jager J, Carpenter BK, et al. (2000) A new photolabile precursor of glycine with improved properties: A tool for chemical kinetic investigations of the glycine receptor. Biochemistry 39: 2063-2070. doi: 10.1021/bi9919652
|
| [93] |
Grewer C, Rauen T (2005) Electrogenic glutamate transporters in the CNS: molecular mechanism, pre-steady-state kinetics, and their impact on synaptic signaling. J Membr Biol 203: 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s00232-004-0731-6
|
| [94] |
Gegelashvili G, Robinson MB, Trotti D, et al. (2001) Regulation of glutamate transporters in health and disease. Prog Brain Res 132: 267-286. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(01)32082-4
|
| [95] |
Santos SD, Carvalho AL, Caldeira MV, et al. (2009) Regulation of AMPA receptors and synaptic plasticity. Neuroscience 158: 105-125. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.02.037
|
| [96] |
Stephenson FA, Cousins SL, Kenny AV (2008) Assembly and forward trafficking of NMDA receptors (Review). Mol Membr Biol 25: 311-320. doi: 10.1080/09687680801971367
|
| [97] | Robinson MB (2002) Regulated trafficking of neurotransmitter transporters: common notes but different melodies. J Neurochem 80: 1-11. |
| [98] |
Gonzalez MI, Robinson MB (2004) Protein KINASE C-Dependent Remodeling of Glutamate Transporter Function. Mol Intervent 4: 48-58. doi: 10.1124/mi.4.1.48
|
| [99] |
Sheldon AL, Robinson MB (2007) The role of glutamate transporters in neurodegenerative diseases and potential opportunities for intervention. Neurochem Int 51: 333-355. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2007.03.012
|
| [100] | Beart PM, O'Shea RD (2007) Transporters for L-glutamate: an update on their molecular pharmacology and pathological involvement. Br J Pharmacol 150: 5-17. |
| [101] |
Poitry-Yamate CL, Vutskits L, Rauen T (2002) Neuronal-induced and glutamate-dependent activation of glial glutamate transporter function. J Neurochem 82: 987-997. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.01075.x
|
| [102] |
Benediktsson AM, Marrs GS, Tu JC, et al. (2012) Neuronal activity regulates glutamate transporter dynamics in developing astrocytes. Glia 60: 175-188. doi: 10.1002/glia.21249
|
| [103] |
Gonzalez-Gonzalez IM, Garcia-Tardon N, Gimenez C, et al. (2008) PKC-dependent endocytosis of the GLT1 glutamate transporter depends on ubiquitylation of lysines located in a C-terminal cluster. Glia 56: 963-974. doi: 10.1002/glia.20670
|
| [104] |
Sheldon AL, Gonzalez MI, Krizman-Genda EN, et al. (2008) Ubiquitination-mediated internalization and degradation of the astroglial glutamate transporter, GLT-1. Neurochem Int 53: 296-308. doi: 10.1016/j.neuint.2008.07.010
|
| [105] |
Martinez-Villarreal J, Garcia Tardon N, Ibanez I, et al. (2012) Cell surface turnover of the glutamate transporter GLT-1 is mediated by ubiquitination/deubiquitination. Glia 60: 1356-1365. doi: 10.1002/glia.22354
|
| [106] |
Sheldon AL, Gonzalez MI, Robinson MB (2006) A carboxyl-terminal determinant of the neuronal glutamate transporter, EAAC1, is required for platelet-derived growth factor-dependent trafficking. J Biol Chem 281: 4876-4886. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M504983200
|
| [107] |
Garcia-Tardon N, Gonzalez-Gonzalez IM, Martinez-Villarreal J, et al. (2012) Protein kinase C (PKC)-promoted endocytosis of glutamate transporter GLT-1 requires ubiquitin ligase Nedd4-2-dependent ubiquitination but not phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 287: 19177-19187. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M112.355909
|
| [108] |
A DA, Soragna A, Di Cairano E, et al. (2010) The Surface Density of the Glutamate Transporter EAAC1 is Controlled by Interactions with PDZK1 and AP2 Adaptor Complexes. Traffic 11: 1455-1470. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2010.01110.x
|
| [109] |
Traub LM (2009) Tickets to ride: selecting cargo for clathrin-regulated internalization. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10: 583-596. doi: 10.1038/nrm2751
|
| [110] |
Sato K, Otsu W, Otsuka Y, et al. (2013) Modulatory roles of NHERF1 and NHERF2 in cell surface expression of the glutamate transporter GLAST. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 430: 839-845. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.11.059
|
| [111] | Shouffani A, Kanner BI (1990) Cholesterol is required for the reconstruction of the sodium- and chloride-coupled, gamma-aminobutyric acid transporter from rat brain. J Biol Chem 265: 6002-6008. |
| [112] |
Butchbach ME, Guo H, Lin CL (2003) Methyl-beta-cyclodextrin but not retinoic acid reduces EAAT3-mediated glutamate uptake and increases GTRAP3-18 expression. J Neurochem 84: 891-894. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2003.01588.x
|
| [113] |
Simons K, Gerl MJ (2010) Revitalizing membrane rafts: new tools and insights. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 688-699. doi: 10.1038/nrm2977
|
| [114] |
Butchbach ME, Tian G, Guo H, et al. (2004) Association of excitatory amino acid transporters, especially EAAT2, with cholesterol-rich lipid raft microdomains: importance for excitatory amino acid transporter localization and function. J Biol Chem 279: 34388-34396. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M403938200
|
| [115] |
Zschocke J, Bayatti N, Behl C (2005) Caveolin and GLT-1 gene expression is reciprocally regulated in primary astrocytes: association of GLT-1 with non-caveolar lipid rafts. Glia 49: 275-287. doi: 10.1002/glia.20116
|
| [116] |
Gonzalez MI, Krizman-Genda E, Robinson MB (2007) Caveolin-1 regulates the delivery and endocytosis of the glutamate transporter, excitatory amino acid carrier 1. J Biol Chem 282: 29855-29865. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M704738200
|
| [117] | Ledesma MD, Dotti CG (2005) The conflicting role of brain cholesterol in Alzheimer's disease: lessons from the brain plasminogen system. Biochem Soc Symp: 129-138. |
| [118] |
Tian G, Kong Q, Lai L, et al. (2010) Increased expression of cholesterol 24S-hydroxylase results in disruption of glial glutamate transporter EAAT2 association with lipid rafts: a potential role in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurochem 113: 978-989. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06661.x
|
| [119] |
Arriza JL, Eliasof S, Kavanaugh MP, et al. (1997) Excitatory amino acid transporter 5, a retinal glutamate transporter coupled to a chloride conductance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94: 4155-4160. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.4155
|
| [120] | Arriza JL, Fairman WA, Wadiche JI, et al. (1994) Functional comparisons of three glutamate transporter subtypes cloned from human motor cortex. J Neurosci 14: 5559-5569. |
| [121] | Bridges RJ, Stanley MS, Anderson MW, et al. (1991) Conformationally defined neurotransmitter analogues. Selective inhibition of glutamate uptake by one pyrrolidine-2,4-dicarboxylate diastereomer. J Med Chem 34: 717-725. |
| [122] |
Griffiths R, Dunlop J, Gorman A, et al. (1994) L-Trans-Pyrrolidine-2,4-Dicarboxylate and Cis-1-Aminocyclobutane-1,3-Dicarboxylate Behave as Transportable, Competitive Inhibitors of the High-Affinity Glutamate Transporters. Biochem Pharmacol 47: 267-274. doi: 10.1016/0006-2952(94)90016-7
|
| [123] | Vandenberg RJ, Mitrovic AD, Chebib M, et al. (1997) Contrasting modes of action of methylglutamate derivatives on the excitatory amino acid transporters, EAAT1 and EAAT2. Mol Pharmacol 51: 809-815. |
| [124] |
Huang S, Ryan RM, Vandenberg RJ (2009) The role of cation binding in determining substrate selectivity of glutamate transporters. J Biol Chem 284: 4510-4515. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M808495200
|
| [125] |
Eliasof S, McIlvain HB, Petroski RE, et al. (2001) Pharmacological characterization of threo-3-methylglutamic acid with excitatory amino acid transporters in native and recombinant systems. J Neurochem 77: 550-557. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2001.00253.x
|
| [126] |
Kanai Y, Hediger MA (1992) Primary structure and functional characterization of a high-affinity glutamate transporter. Nature 360: 467-471. doi: 10.1038/360467a0
|
| [127] |
Rauen T, Jeserich G, Danbolt NC, et al. (1992) Comparative analysis of sodium-dependent L-glutamate transport of synaptosomal and astroglial membrane vesicles from mouse cortex. FEBS Lett 312: 15-20. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(92)81401-7
|
| [128] | Zerangue N, Kavanaugh MP (1996) Interaction of L-cysteine with a human excitatory amino acid transporter. J Physiol 493 ( Pt 2): 419-423. |
| [129] |
Roberts PJ, Watkins JC (1975) Structural requirements for the inhibition for L-glutamate uptake by glia and nerve endings. Brain Res 85: 120-125. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(75)91016-1
|
| [130] | Wilson DF, Pastuszko A (1986) Transport of Cysteate by Synaptosomes Isolated from Rat-Brain - Evidence That It Utilizes the Same Transporter as Aspartate, Glutamate, and Cysteine Sulfinate. J Neurochem 47: 1091-1097. |
| [131] |
Vandenberg RJ, Mitrovic AD, Johnston GAR (1998) Serine-O-sulphate transport by the human glutamate transporter, EAAT2. Br J Pharmacol 123: 1593-1600. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0701776
|
| [132] |
Bender AS, Woodbury DM, White HS (1989) Beta-Dl-Methylene-Aspartate, an Inhibitor of Aspartate-Aminotransferase, Potently Inhibits L-Glutamate Uptake into Astrocytes. Neurochem Res 14: 641-646. doi: 10.1007/BF00964873
|
| [133] |
Mitrovic AD, Amara SG, Johnston GA, et al. (1998) Identification of functional domains of the human glutamate transporters EAAT1 and EAAT2. J Biol Chem 273: 14698-14706. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.24.14698
|
| [134] |
Vandenberg RJ, Mitrovic AD, Johnston GA (1998) Serine-O-sulphate transport by the human glutamate transporter, EAAT2. Br J Pharmacol 123: 1593-1600. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0701776
|
| [135] | Campiani G, De Angelis M, Armaroli S, et al. (2001) A rational approach to the design of selective substrates and potent nontransportable inhibitors of the excitatory amino acid transporter EAAC1 (EAAT3). New glutamate and aspartate analogues as potential neuroprotective agents. J Med Chem 44: 2507-2510. |
| [136] |
Danbolt NC (2001) Glutamate uptake. Prog Neurobiol 65: 1-105. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0082(00)00067-8
|
| [137] |
Wang GJ, Chung HJ, Schnuer J, et al. (1998) Dihydrokainate-sensitive neuronal glutamate transport is required for protection of rat cortical neurons in culture against synaptically released glutamate. Eur J Neurosci 10: 2523-2531. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00256.x
|
| [138] | Shimamoto K, Lebrun B, Yasuda-Kamatani Y, et al. (1998) DL-threo-beta-benzyloxyaspartate, a potent blocker of excitatory amino acid transporters. Mol Pharmacol 53: 195-201. |
| [139] |
Boudker O, Verdon G (2010) Structural perspectives on secondary active transporters. Trends Pharmacol Sci 31: 418-426. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2010.06.004
|
| [140] | Shigeri Y, Shimamoto K, Yasuda-Kamatani Y, et al. (2001) Effects of threo-beta-hydroxyaspartate derivatives on excitatory amino acid transporters (EAAT4 and EAAT5). J Neurochem 79: 297-302. |
| [141] |
Shimamoto K, Shigeri Y, Yasuda-Kamatani Y, et al. (2000) Syntheses of optically pure beta-hydroxyaspartate derivatives as glutamate transporter blockers. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 10: 2407-2410. doi: 10.1016/S0960-894X(00)00487-X
|
| [142] |
Lebrun B, Sakaitani M, Shimamoto K, et al. (1997) New beta-hydroxyaspartate derivatives are competitive blockers for the bovine glutamate/aspartate transporter. J Biol Chem 272: 20336-20339. doi: 10.1074/jbc.272.33.20336
|
| [143] |
Shimamoto K, Sakai R, Takaoka K, et al. (2004) Characterization of novel L-threo-beta-benzyloxyaspartate derivatives, potent blockers of the glutamate transporters. Mol Pharmacol 65: 1008-1015. doi: 10.1124/mol.65.4.1008
|
| [144] | Shimamoto K, Otsubo Y, Shigeri Y, et al. (2007) Characterization of the tritium-labeled analog of L-threo-beta-benzyloxyaspartate binding to glutamate transporters. Mol Pharmacol 71: 294-302. |
| [145] |
Martinov V, Dehnes Y, Holmseth S, et al. (2014) A novel glutamate transporter blocker, LL-TBOA, attenuates ischaemic injury in the isolated, perfused rat heart despite low transporter levels. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 45: 710-716. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt487
|
| [146] | Dunlop J, Eliasof S, Stack G, et al. (2003) WAY-855 (3-amino-tricyclo[2.2.1.02.6]heptane-1,3-dicarboxylic acid): a novel, EAAT2-preferring, nonsubstrate inhibitor of high-affinity glutamate uptake. Br J Pharmacol 140: 839-846. |
| [147] |
Dunlop J, McIlvain HB, Carrick TA, et al. (2005) Characterization of novel aryl-ether, biaryl, and fluorene aspartic acid and diaminopropionic acid analogs as potent inhibitors of the high-affinity glutamate transporter EAAT2. Mol Pharmacol 68: 974-982. doi: 10.1124/mol.105.012005
|
| [148] |
Campiani G, Fattorusso C, De Angelis M, et al. (2003) Neuronal high-affinity sodium-dependent glutamate transporters (EAATs): targets for the development of novel therapeutics against neurodegenerative diseases. Curr Pharm Des 9: 599-625. doi: 10.2174/1381612033391261
|
| [149] | Funicello M, Conti P, De Amici M, et al. (2004) Dissociation of [3H]L-glutamate uptake from L-glutamate-induced [3H]D-aspartate release by 3-hydroxy-4,5,6,6a-tetrahydro-3aH-pyrrolo[3,4-d]isoxazole-4-carboxylic acid and 3-hydroxy-4,5,6,6a-tetrahydro-3aH-pyrrolo[3,4-d]isoxazole-6-carboxylic acid, two conformationally constrained aspartate and glutamate analogs. Mol Pharmacol 66: 522-529. |
| [150] |
Callender R, Gameiro A, Pinto A, et al. (2012) Mechanism of inhibition of the glutamate transporter EAAC1 by the conformationally constrained glutamate analogue (+)-HIP-B. Biochemistry 51: 5486-5495. doi: 10.1021/bi3006048
|
| [151] |
Erichsen MN, Huynh TH, Abrahamsen B, et al. (2010) Structure-activity relationship study of first selective inhibitor of excitatory amino acid transporter subtype 1: 2-Amino-4-(4-methoxyphenyl)-7-(naphthalen-1-yl)-5-oxo-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4H-chromene-3-carbonitrile (UCPH-101). J Med Chem 53: 7180-7191. doi: 10.1021/jm1009154
|
| [152] |
Huynh THV, Shim I, Bohr H, et al. (2012) Structure-Activity Relationship Study of Selective Excitatory Amino Acid Transporter Subtype 1 (EAAT1) Inhibitor 2-Amino-4-(4-methoxyphenyl)-7-(naphthalen-1-yl)-5-oxo-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-4H-chromene-3-carbonitrile (UCPH-101) and Absolute Configurational Assignment Using Infrared and Vibrational Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy in Combination with ab Initio Hartree-Fock Calculations. J Med Chem 55: 5403-5412. doi: 10.1021/jm300345z
|
| [153] |
Abrahamsen B, Schneider N, Erichsen MN, et al. (2013) Allosteric Modulation of an Excitatory Amino Acid Transporter: The Subtype-Selective Inhibitor UCPH-101 Exerts Sustained Inhibition of EAAT1 through an Intramonomeric Site in the Trimerization Domain. J Neurosci 33: 1068-1087. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3396-12.2013
|
| [154] |
Rothstein JD, Patel S, Regan MR, et al. (2005) Beta-lactam antibiotics offer neuroprotection by increasing glutamate transporter expression. Nature 433: 73-77. doi: 10.1038/nature03180
|
| [155] |
Fontana AC, de Oliveira Beleboni R, Wojewodzic MW, et al. (2007) Enhancing glutamate transport: mechanism of action of Parawixin1, a neuroprotective compound from Parawixia bistriata spider venom. Mol Pharmacol 72: 1228-1237. doi: 10.1124/mol.107.037127
|
| [156] |
Fontana ACK, Guizzo R, Beleboni RD, et al. (2003) Purification of a neuroprotective component of Parawixia bistriata spider venom that enhances glutamate uptake. Br J Pharmacol 139: 1297-1309. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0705352
|
| [157] |
Xing XC, Chang LC, Kong QM, et al. (2011) Structure-activity relationship study of pyridazine derivatives as glutamate transporter EAAT2 activators. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 21: 5774-5777. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2011.08.009
|
| 1. | Tomislav Došlić, Fusene chains revisited: how kinky they are and why it matters, 2024, 62, 0259-9791, 1595, 10.1007/s10910-024-01620-w | |
| 2. | Bai Chunsong, Maham Khalil, Asima Razzaque, Salma Kanwal, Robina Nazir, Saima Noor, Exploring structural variations and topological descriptors of square-hexagonal kink chains of type T2,2 in engineering applications, 2024, 16, 1687-8132, 10.1177/16878132241290418 | |
| 3. | Saylé Sigarreta, Hugo Cruz-Suárez, Zagreb connection indices on polyomino chains and random polyomino chains, 2024, 22, 2391-5455, 10.1515/math-2024-0057 | |
| 4. | Shamaila Yousaf, Zaffar Iqbal, Saira Tariq, Adnan Aslam, Fairouz Tchier, Abudulai Issa, Computation of expected values of some connectivity based topological descriptors of random cyclooctane chains, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-57175-y | |
| 5. | Xuemin Ling, Asima Razzaque, Maham Khalil, Salma Kanwal, Saima Noor, Robina Nazir, Analysis of expected value of connectivity indices of random 2T2 kink chains, 2025, 13, 2296-424X, 10.3389/fphy.2025.1538443 | |
| 6. | Kevin Ita, Pegah Capaul, Pardis Khani, Predicting Skin Permeability of Compounds with Elasticnet, Ridge and Decision Tree Regression Methods, 2025, 20, 1872-5120, 10.1007/s12247-025-10025-4 |
Figures(4)
Thomas Rauen, Rose Tanui, Christof Grewer. Structural and functional dynamics of Excitatory Amino Acid Transporters (EAAT)[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2014, 1(3): 99-125. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2014.3.99
| Jacque-Bera test | Anderson-Darling test | |
| P-value | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cryptocurrency | Return on investment (ROI) | Market Capitalization | All time high | All time low |
| Bitcoin | 7,005.34% | ＄172,355,391,698 | ＄20,089.00 | ＄65.53 |
| Note:Accessedathttps://coinmarketcap.com/on01/09/2019. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cryptocurrency | Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Standard deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Bitcoin (USD) | -0.8488 | 1.4744 | 0.0012 | 0.0600 | 216.7471 | 6.4820 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Ljung box test | LM test | ADF test | |
| P-value | $ 7.835e-05 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | 0.01 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Model | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000036 | 0.192227 | 0.806773 | 3.200514 | — | -4.0367 | -4.0258 | 4149.72 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.023060) | (0.023828) | (0.169435) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000035 | 0.192695 | 0.807305 | 3.194742 | — | -4.0379 | -4.0297 | 4149.946 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.021763) | — | (0.135971) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001019 | 0.291106 | 0.835797 | 2.472141 | 0.007515 | -4.0663 | -4.0526 | 4181.104 | |
| (0.000353) | (0.048010) | (0.018121) | (0.157392) | (0.059760) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. Note 2: $ \hat{\omega} $:The reaction of conditional variance}, $ \hat{\alpha} $:ARCH effect, $ \hat{\beta} $:GARCH effect, $ \hat{\lambda} $:Leverage effect. |
|||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Model | Estimated parameters | ||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.192872 | 0.806128 | 0.860227 | — | -4.0495 | -4.0386 | 4162.87 | |
| (0.000011) | (0.025780) | (0.022277) | (0.030944) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.193739 | 0.806261 | 0.859610 | — | -4.0506 | -4.0424 | 4162.95 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022141) | — | (0.029442) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001298 | 0.212642 | 0.826352 | 0.851479 | 0.055244 | -4.0632 | -4.0495 | 4177.926 | |
| (0.000337) | (0.025368) | (0.021071) | (0.031225) | (0.061816) | |||||
| Note1: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Model | Estimated parameters | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\kappa} $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.00004 | 0.19748 | 0.80152 | 0.39161 | -0.13314 | — | -4.0599 | -4.0462 | 4174.485 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.024326) | (0.022933) | (0.046759) | (0.032272) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.198112 | 0.801888 | 0.390387 | -0.133277 | — | -4.061 | -4.050 | 4174.653 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022055) | — | (0.042123) | (0.032213) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001048 | 0.233978 | 0.828983 | 0.319214 | -0.142017 | -0.005427 | -4.0805 | -4.0641 | 4196.681 | |
| (0.000302) | (0.027732) | (0.019678) | (0.042593) | (0.033599) | (0.061556) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | ||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Jacque-Bera test | Anderson-Darling test | |
| P-value | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ |
| Cryptocurrency | Return on investment (ROI) | Market Capitalization | All time high | All time low |
| Bitcoin | 7,005.34% | ＄172,355,391,698 | ＄20,089.00 | ＄65.53 |
| Note:Accessedathttps://coinmarketcap.com/on01/09/2019. | ||||
| Cryptocurrency | Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Standard deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Bitcoin (USD) | -0.8488 | 1.4744 | 0.0012 | 0.0600 | 216.7471 | 6.4820 |
| Ljung box test | LM test | ADF test | |
| P-value | $ 7.835e-05 $ | $ < 2.2e-16 $ | 0.01 |
| Model | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000036 | 0.192227 | 0.806773 | 3.200514 | — | -4.0367 | -4.0258 | 4149.72 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.023060) | (0.023828) | (0.169435) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000035 | 0.192695 | 0.807305 | 3.194742 | — | -4.0379 | -4.0297 | 4149.946 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.021763) | — | (0.135971) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001019 | 0.291106 | 0.835797 | 2.472141 | 0.007515 | -4.0663 | -4.0526 | 4181.104 | |
| (0.000353) | (0.048010) | (0.018121) | (0.157392) | (0.059760) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. Note 2: $ \hat{\omega} $:The reaction of conditional variance}, $ \hat{\alpha} $:ARCH effect, $ \hat{\beta} $:GARCH effect, $ \hat{\lambda} $:Leverage effect. |
|||||||||
| Model | Estimated parameters | ||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.192872 | 0.806128 | 0.860227 | — | -4.0495 | -4.0386 | 4162.87 | |
| (0.000011) | (0.025780) | (0.022277) | (0.030944) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.193739 | 0.806261 | 0.859610 | — | -4.0506 | -4.0424 | 4162.95 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022141) | — | (0.029442) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001298 | 0.212642 | 0.826352 | 0.851479 | 0.055244 | -4.0632 | -4.0495 | 4177.926 | |
| (0.000337) | (0.025368) | (0.021071) | (0.031225) | (0.061816) | |||||
| Note1: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | |||||||||
| Model | Estimated parameters | |||||||||
| $ \hat{\omega} $ | $ \hat{\alpha} $ | $ \hat{\beta} $ | $ 1/v $ | $ \hat{\kappa} $ | $ \hat{\lambda} $ | AIC | BIC | LogLikelihood | ||
| sGARCH(1, 1) | 0.00004 | 0.19748 | 0.80152 | 0.39161 | -0.13314 | — | -4.0599 | -4.0462 | 4174.485 | |
| (0.000012) | (0.024326) | (0.022933) | (0.046759) | (0.032272) | — | |||||
| iGARCH(1, 1) | 0.000039 | 0.198112 | 0.801888 | 0.390387 | -0.133277 | — | -4.061 | -4.050 | 4174.653 | |
| (0.000010) | (0.022055) | — | (0.042123) | (0.032213) | — | |||||
| tGARCH(1, 1) | 0.001048 | 0.233978 | 0.828983 | 0.319214 | -0.142017 | -0.005427 | -4.0805 | -4.0641 | 4196.681 | |
| (0.000302) | (0.027732) | (0.019678) | (0.042593) | (0.033599) | (0.061556) | |||||
| Note: Standard errors of estimates are reported in parentheses. | ||||||||||
