4.7 Article

Controlling Specific Locomotor Behaviors through Multidimensional Monoaminergic Modulation of Spinal Circuitries

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 25, 页码 9264-9278

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5796-10.2011

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Paraplegic Foundation [P106]
  2. National Center of Competence in Research Neural Plasticity and Repair of the Swiss National Science Foundation, University of Zurich, Russian Foundation [08-04-00688]
  3. NIH [1R01 NS062009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Descending monoaminergic inputs markedly influence spinal locomotor circuits, but the functional relationships between specific receptors and the control of walking behavior remain poorly understood. To identify these interactions, we manipulated serotonergic, dopaminergic, and noradrenergic neural pathways pharmacologically during locomotion enabled by electrical spinal cord stimulation in adult spinal rats in vivo. Using advanced neurobiomechanical recordings and multidimensional statistical procedures, we reveal that each monoaminergic receptor modulates a broad but distinct spectrum of kinematic, kinetic, and EMG characteristics, which we expressed into receptor-specific functional maps. We then exploited this catalog of monoaminergic tuning functions to devise optimal pharmacological combinations to encourage locomotion in paralyzed rats. We found that, in most cases, receptor-specific modulatory influences summed near algebraically when stimulating multiple pathways concurrently. Capitalizing on these predictive interactions, we elaborated a multidimensional monoaminergic intervention that restored coordinated hindlimb locomotion with normal levels of weight bearing and partial equilibrium maintenance in spinal rats. These findings provide new perspectives on the functions of and interactions between spinal monoaminergic receptor systems in producing stepping, and define a framework to tailor pharmacotherapies for improving neurological functions after CNS disorders.

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