4.5 Article

Differential effect of NR2A and NR2B subunit selective NMDA receptor antagonists on striato-pallidal neurons: relationship to motor response in the 6-hydroxydopamine model of parkinsonism

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 957-968

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05439.x

关键词

6-hydroxydopamine; GABA; microdialysis; NMDA receptor subunits; NVP-AAM077; Ro 25-6981

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously demonstrated that NMDA receptors containing the NR2A or NR2B subunits differentially regulate striatal output pathways. We now investigate whether such a differential control is altered under parkinsonian conditions and whether subunit selective antagonists have different abilities to attenuate parkinsonian-like motor deficits. Three microdialysis probes were simultaneously implanted in the dopamine-depleted striatum, globus pallidus and substantia nigra reticulata of 6-hydroxydopamine hemilesioned rats. The NR2A antagonist NVP-AAM077 perfused in the striatum reduced pallidal GABA, but not glutamate, levels whereas the NR2B antagonist Ro 25-6981 was ineffective. Neither antagonist affected striatal or nigral amino acid levels. To investigate whether these neurochemical responses were predictive of different antiparkinsonian activities, antagonists were administered systemically and motor activity evaluated in different motor tasks. Neither antagonist attenuated akinesia/bradykinesia in the bar and drag test. However, NVP-AAM077 dually modulated rotarod performance (low doses being facilitatory and higher ones inhibitory) while Ro 25-6981 monotonically improved it. Microdialysis revealed that motor facilitating doses reduced pallidal GABA levels while motor inhibiting doses increased them. We conclude that, under parkinsonian conditions, the striato-pallidal pathway is driven by striatal NR2A subunits. Motor improvement induced by NVP-AAM077 and Ro 25-6981 is accomplished by blockade of striatal NR2A and extrastriatal NR2B subunits, respectively.

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

4.5
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