4.7 Article

Evidence against AMPA Receptor-Lacking Glutamatergic Synapses in the Superficial Dorsal Horn of the Rat Spinal Cord

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 42, 页码 13401-13409

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2628-09.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pure NMDA receptor (NMDAr)-mediated EPSCs, thought to correspond to silent glutamatergic synapses that lack AMPA receptors (AMPArs), have been observed in superficial spinal dorsal horn of neonatal but not adult rats. Recent anatomical studies suggest that AMPArs are present at virtually all glutamatergic synapses in this region in adults. We used antigen retrieval to examine colocalization of AMPArs and PSD-95 (a marker for glutamatergic synapses) in laminae I-II of neonatal and adult rats. We found a high degree of colocalization in all cases, which suggests that AMPArs are present in the great majority of glutamatergic synapses even in neonatal animals. We therefore reexamined evidence for silent synapses by performing blind whole-cell recordings from superficial dorsal horn neurons in slices from neonatal or adult rats, with focal stimulation to activate glutamatergic synapses. On some occasions in both neonatal (10 of 109, 9%) and adult (9 of 77, 12%) slices, NMDAr-mediated EPSCs were observed when the holding potential was raised to +50 mV at a stimulus strength that had failed to evoke AMPAr-mediated EPSCs. However, in all cases tested, AMPAr-mediated EPSCs were then observed when the cell was returned to-70 mV; this and other properties of the EPSCs suggest that they do not represent genuine silent synapses. When compared with previous findings, our results indicate that the appearance of silent synapses depends on experimental protocol. This suggests that pure NMDAr-mediated EPSCs seen in previous studies do not correspond to AMPAr-lacking synapses but result from another mechanism, for example, loss of labile AMPArs from recently formed synapses.

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