4.7 Article

The effect of antiparkinsonian drugs on oxidative stress induced pathological [3H]dopamine efflux after in vitro rotenone exposure in rat striatal slices

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 58, 期 4-5, 页码 816-825

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2009.11.017

关键词

Rotenone; Oxidative stress; H2O2; Dopamine release; Antiparkinsonian drugs; Striatum

资金

  1. Hungarian National Office for Research and Development [RET1427/2004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An in vitro model of mitochondrial dysfunction with subsequent oxidative stress was elaborated and utilized to study the effect of drugs, currently used for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, on pathological H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux and the formation of toxic dopamine metabolites in rat striatal slices. 60 min rotenone (0.1-10 mu M) pretreatment decreased dopamine content and [H-3]dopamine uptake, as well as ATP level and energy charge of the slices. In addition, a robust potentiation of H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux and the formation of dopamine quinone in the effluent was detected. L-DOPA (200 mu M) markedly elevated resting but not 100 mu M H2O2-evoked and electrically-induced [H-3]dopamine efflux. Furthermore, L-DOPA promoted the formation of dopamine quinone. Ropinirole (100 nM) did not affect resting and H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux and inhibited the electrically evoked release only in untreated slices. L-deprenyl, at concentration of 0.01 mu M potentiated, whilst between 1 and 50 mu M diminished H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux. Rasagiline (0.01-50 mu M) slightly inhibited H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux, and it was able to prevent the generation of dopamine quinone. Neither of the drugs was able to suppress both the pathological H2O2-evoked [H-3]dopamine efflux and the formation of dopamine quinone with simultaneous augmentation of electrically evoked [H-3]dopamine release what should be a future concept of antiparkinsonian drug-design. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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