4.7 Article

Dopaminergic Terminals in the Nucleus Accumbens But Not the Dorsal Striatum Corelease Glutamate

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 30, 期 24, 页码 8229-8233

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1754-10.2010

关键词

-

资金

  1. ABMRF
  2. National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  3. A. P. Giannini Foundation
  4. State of California for Medical Research on Alcohol and Substance Abuse through the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coincident signaling by dopamine and glutamate is thought to be crucial for a variety of motivated behaviors. Previous work has suggested that some midbrain dopamine neurons are themselves capable of glutamate corelease, but this phenomenon remains poorly understood. Here, we expressed the light-activated cation channel Channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) in genetically defined midbrain dopamine neurons to stimulate exocytosis specifically from dopaminergic terminals in both the nucleus accumbens (NAc) shell and dorsal striatum of brain slices from adult mice. Optical activation resulted in robust glutamate-mediated EPSCs in all medium spiny neurons examined in the NAc shell. In contrast, optically evoked glutamatergic currents were nearly undetectable in the dorsal striatum. Further, we used a conditional knock-out mouse lacking vesicular glutamate transporter 2 (VGLUT2) specifically in dopamine neurons to determine whether VGLUT2 is required for the exocytotic release of glutamate from dopamine neurons. Our data show that conditional knock-out completely abolished all optically evoked glutamate release. These results provide definitive physiological evidence for VGLUT2-mediated glutamate release by mature dopamine neurons projecting to the NAc shell, but not to the dorsal striatum. Thus, the unique ability of NAc-projecting dopamine neurons to synchronously activate both dopamine and glutamate receptors may have crucial implications for the ability to respond to motivationally significant stimuli.

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