4.4 Article

Spinal cord injury causes plasticity in a subpopulation of lamina I GABAergic interneurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 212-223

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.01104.2007

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-45248, NS-49784] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dysfunction of the spinal GABAergic system has been implicated in pain syndromes following spinal cord injury (SCI). Since lamina I is involved in nociceptive and thermal signaling, we characterized the effects of chronic SCI on the cellular properties of its GABAergic neurons fluorescently identified in spinal slices from GAD67-GFP transgenic mice. Whole cell recordings were obtained from the lumbar cord of 13- to 17-day-old mice, including those having had a thoracic segment (T8-11) removed 6-9 days prior to experiments. Following chronic SCI, the distribution, incidence, and firing classes of GFP(+) cells remained similar to controls, and there were minimal changes in membrane properties in cells that responded to current injection with a single spike. In contrast, cells displaying tonic/initial burst firing had more depolarized membrane potentials, increased steady-state outward currents, and increased spike heights. Moreover, higher firing frequencies and spontaneous plateau potentials were much more prevalent after chronic SCI, and these changes occurred predominantly in cells displaying a tonic firing pattern. Persistent inward currents (PICs) were observed in a similar fraction of cells from spinal transects and may have contributed to these plateaus. Persistent Na+ and L-type Ca2+ channels likely contributed to the currents as both were identified pharmacologically. In conclusion, chronic SCI induces a plastic response in a subpopulation of lamina I GABAergic interneurons. Alterations are directed toward amplifying neuronal responsiveness. How these changes alter spinal sensory integration and whether they contribute to sensory dysfunction remains to be elucidated.

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

4.4
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