4.5 Article

THE DENSE CORE VESICLE PROTEIN IA-2, BUT NOT IA-2β, IS REQUIRED FOR ACTIVE AVOIDANCE LEARNING

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 269, 期 -, 页码 35-42

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.03.023

关键词

autoantigens; type-1 diabetes; dopamine; CREB; CAMKII

资金

  1. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The islet-antigens IA-2 and IA-2 beta are major autoantigens in type-1 diabetes and transmembrane proteins in dense core vesicles (DCV). Recently we showed that deletion of both IA-2 and IA-2 beta alters the secretion of hormones and neurotransmitters and impairs behavior and learning. The present study was designed to evaluate the contribution to learning of each of these genes by using single knockout (SKO) and double knockout (DKO) mice in an active avoidance test. After 5 days of training, wild-type (WT) mice showed 60-70% active avoidance responses, whereas the DKO mice showed only 10-15% active avoidance responses. The degree of active avoidance responses in the IA-2 SKO mice was similar to that of the DKO mice, but in contrast, the IA-2 beta SKO mice behaved like WT mice showing 60-70% active avoidance responses. Molecular studies revealed a marked decrease in the phosphorylation of the cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) and Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CAMKII) in the striatum and hippocampus of the IA-2 SKO and DKO mice, but not in the IA-2 beta SKO mice. To evaluate the role of CREB and CAMKII in the SKO and DKO mice, GBR-12909, which selectively blocks the dopamine uptake transporter and increases CREB and CAMKII phosphorylation, was administered. GBR-12909 restored the phosphorylation of CREB and CAMKII and increased active avoidance learning in the DKO and IA-2 SKO to near the normal levels found in the WT and IA-2 beta SKO mice. We conclude that in the absence of the DCV protein IA-2, active avoidance learning is impaired. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IBRO.

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