4.7 Article

Neuroprotection by the NR3A Subunit of the NMDA Receptor

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 16, 页码 5260-5265

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1067-09.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 HD29587, R01 EY05477]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperactivation of NMDA-type glutamate receptors (NMDARs) results in excitotoxicity, contributing to damage in stroke and neurodegenerative disorders. NMDARs are generally comprised of NR1/NR2 subunits but may contain modulatory NR3 subunits. Inclusion of NR3 subunits reduces the amplitude and dramatically decreases the Ca2+ permeability of NMDAR-associated channels in heterologous expression systems and in transgenic mice. Since excessive Ca2+ influx into neurons is a crucial step for excitotoxicity, we asked whether NR3A subunits are neuroprotective. To address this question, we subjected neurons genetically lacking NR3A to various forms of excitotoxic insult. We found that cultured neurons prepared from NR3A knock-out (KO) mice displayed greater sensitivity to damage by NMDA application than wild-type (WT) neurons. In vivo, neonatal, but not adult, WT mice contain NR3A in the cortex, and neonatal NR3A KO mice manifested more damage than WT after hypoxia-ischemia. In adult retina, one location where high levels of NR3A normally persist into adulthood, injection of NMDA into the eye killed more retinal ganglion cells in adult NR3A KO than WT mice. These data suggest that endogenous NR3A is neuroprotective. We next asked whether we could decrease excitotoxicity by overexpressing NR3A. We found that cultured neurons expressing transgenic (TG) NR3A displayed greater resistance to NMDA-mediated neurotoxicity than WT neurons. Similarly in vivo, adult NR3A TG mice subjected to focal cerebral ischemia manifested less damage than WT mice. These data suggest that endogenous NR3A protects neurons, and exogenously added NR3A increases neuroprotection and could be potentially exploited as a therapeutic.

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

4.7
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