4.5 Article

Protein oxidation inhibits NO-mediated signaling pathway for synaptic plasticity

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 535-545

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.04.016

关键词

Aging; S-nitrosylation; Oxidative agent; Posttetanic potentiation; Long term potentiation; Cerebellum; Purkinje cell; Parallel fiber

资金

  1. MEXT Japan
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences
  3. Narishige Neuroscience Research Foundation
  4. Nagasaki University
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24650200, 22300121, 23659037, 24111528] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress is a primary factor inducing brain dysfunction in aged animals. However, how oxidation affects brain function is not fully understood. Here we show that oxidation inhibits signaling pathways essential for synaptic plasticities in the cerebellum. We first revealed that nitric oxide (NO)-dependent plasticities at the parallel fiber-Purkinje cell synapse (PF synapse) were impaired in the cerebellar slices from aged mice, suggesting a possible inhibitory action of protein oxidation by endogenous reactive oxygen species. PF-synaptic plasticities were also blocked in the cerebellar slices from young mice preincubated with oxidizing agents or thiol blocker. Because the treatment of the slices with the oxidizing agent did not affect basic electrophysiological properties of excitatory postsynaptic current of PF (PF-EPSC) and did not occlude the synaptic plasticities, oxidation was revealed to specifically inhibit signaling pathways essential for PF-synaptic plasticities. Finally, biochemical analysis confirmed the idea that inhibitory action of protein oxidation on the PF-synaptic plasticities was mediated by impairment of nitric oxide-induced protein S-nitrosylation. Therefore, oxidation was revealed to inhibit the S-nitrosylation-dependent signaling pathway essential for synaptic plasticity in a competitive manner. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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