4.5 Article

ACUTE EXERCISE-INDUCED ACTIVATION OF PHOX2B-EXPRESSING NEURONS OF THE RETROTRAPEZOID NUCLEUS IN RATS MAY INVOLVE THE HYPOTHALAMUS

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 258, 期 -, 页码 355-363

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.11.031

关键词

central autonomic pathways; breathing; exercise; c-Fos immunoreactivity; Phox2b; medulla oblongata

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [10/12590-9, 10/09776-3, 10/19336-0]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/19336-0, 10/12590-9] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rat retrotrapezoid nucleus (RTN) contains neurons that have a well-defined phenotype characterized by the presence of vesicular glutamate transporter 2 (VGLUT2) mRNA and a paired-like homeobox 2b (Phox2b)-immunoreactive (ir) nucleus and the absence of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH). These neurons are important to chemoreception. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the chemically-coded RTN neurons (ccRTN) (Phox2b(+)/TH-) are activated during an acute episode of running exercise. Since most RTN neurons are excited by the activation of perifornical and lateral hypothalamus (PeF/LH), a region that regulates breathing during exercise, we also tested the hypothesis that PeF/LH projections to RTN neurons contribute to their activation during acute exercise. In adult male Wistar rats that underwent an acute episode of treadmill exercise, there was a significant increase in c-Fos immunoreactive (c-Fos-ir) in PeF/LH neurons and RTN neurons that were Phox2b(+)/TH- (p< 0.05) compared to rats that did not exercise. Also the retrograde tracer Fluoro-Gold that was injected into RTN was detected in c-Fos-ir PeF/LH (p < 0.05). In summary, the ccRTN neurons (Phox2b(+)/TH-) are excited by running exercise. Thus, ccRTN neurons may contribute to both the chemical drive to breath and the feed-forward control of breathing associated with exercise. (C) 2013 IBRO. Published by 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

4.5
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