4.7 Article

A2A receptor knockout worsens survival and motor behaviour in a transgenic mouse model of Huntington's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF DISEASE
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 570-576

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2010.09.021

关键词

Adenosine receptor; A(2A); Huntington's disease; N171-82Q; Transgenic model; Striatum

资金

  1. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme (P6-14), Belgian State, Belgian Science Policy
  2. Fondation Medicale Reine Elisabeth
  3. Walloon Region (Programme d'Excellence CIBLES)
  4. Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique
  5. INSERM
  6. CNRS
  7. IMPRT
  8. University of Lille 2
  9. Lille County Hospital (CHRU-Lille)
  10. Region Nord-Pas-de-Calais
  11. ANR [ANR JC07_184902/ADONTAGE]
  12. Hereditary Disease Foundation
  13. FRIA
  14. Fondation Van Buuren

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Huntington's disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative genetic disorder that leads to motor, cognitive, and psychiatric disturbances. The primary neuropathological hallmark is atrophy of the striatum. HD preferentially affects efferent striato-pallidal neurons that express enkephalin as well as dopamine D2 and A(2A) adenosine receptors (A(2A)Rs). Expression and function of A(2A)Rs are altered in HD but, despite being an important modulator of the striato-pallidal function, the subsequent pathophysiological consequence of such changes remains unclear. Whether blockade of A(2A)Rs is of therapeutic interest in HD remains ill-defined. In the present work, we aimed to determine the pathophysiological consequences of genetic deletion of A(2A)Rs in HD by crossing A(2A)R knockout mice with the N171-82Q HD transgenic model. Our data demonstrate that knockout of A(2A)Rs moderately but significantly worsens motor performances and survival of N171-82Q mice and leads to a decrease in striatal enkephalin expression. These results support that early and chronic blockade of A(2A)Rs might not be beneficial in HD. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All tights 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

4.7
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