4.6 Article

Triheteromeric NR1/NR2A/NR2B Receptors Constitute the Major N-Methyl-D-aspartate Receptor Population in Adult Hippocampal Synapses

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 286, 期 9, 页码 7558-7566

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M110.182600

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NMDA receptors (NMDARs), fundamental to learning and memory and implicated in certain neurological disorders, are heterotetrameric complexes composed of two NR1 and two NR2 subunits. The function of synaptic NMDARs in postnatal principal forebrain neurons is typically attributed to diheteromeric NR1/NR2A and NR1/NR2B receptors, despite compelling evidence for triheteromeric NR1/NR2A/NR2B receptors. In synapses, the properties of triheteromeric NMDARs could thus far not be distinguished from those of mixtures of diheteromeric NMDARs. To find a signature of NR1/NR2A/NR2B receptors, we have employed two gene-targeted mouse lines, expressing either NR1/NR2A or NR1/NR2B receptors without NR1/NR2A/NR2B receptors, and compared their synaptic properties with those of wild type. In acute hippocampal slices of mutants older than 4 weeks we found a distinct voltage dependence of NMDA R-mediated excitatory postsynaptic current (NMDA EPSC) decay time for the two diheteromeric NMDARs. In wild-type mice, NMDA EPSCs unveiled the NR1/NR2A characteristic for this voltage-dependent deactivation exclusively, indicating that the contribution of NR1/NR2B receptors to evoked NMDA EPSCs is negligible in adult CA3-to-CA1 synapses. The presence of NR1/NR2A/NR2B receptors was obvious from properties that could not be explained by a mixture of diheteromeric NR1/NR2A and NR1/NR2B receptors or by the presence of NR1/NR2A receptors alone. The decay time for NMDA EPSCs in wild type was slower than that for NR1/NR2A receptors, and the sensitivity of NMDA EPSCs to NR2B-directed NMDAR antagonists was 50%. Thus, NR2B is prominent in adult hippocampal synapses as an integral part of NR1/NR2A/NR2B receptors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据