4.8 Article

Sigma-1 receptors regulate hippocampal dendritic spine formation via a free radical-sensitive mechanism involving Rac1.GTP pathway

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0909089106

关键词

mitochondria; ROS; N-acetyl cyteine; learning and memory; caspase-3

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  2. National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sigma-1 receptors (Sig-1Rs) are endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-resident proteins known to be involved in learning and memory. Dendritic spines in hippocampal neurons play important roles in neuroplasticity and learning and memory. This study tested the hypothesis that Sig-1Rs might regulate denritic spine formation in hippocampal neurons and examined potential mechanisms therein. In rat hippocampal primary neurons, the knockdown of Sig-1Rs by siRNAs causes a deficit in the formation of dendritic spines that is unrelated to ER Ca2+ signaling or apoptosis, but correlates with the mitochondrial permeability transition and cytochrome c release, followed by caspase-3 activation, Tiam1 cleavage, and a reduction in Rac1.GTP. Sig-1R-knockdown neurons contain higher levels of free radicals when compared to control neurons. The activation of superoxide dismutase or the application of the hydroxyl-free radical scavenger N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) to the Sig-1R-knockdown neurons rescues dendritic spines and mitochondria from the deficits caused by Sig-1R siRNA. Further, the caspase-3-resistant TIAM1 construct C1199DN, a stable guanine exchange factor able to constitutively activate Rac1 in the form of Rac1.GTP, also reverses the siRNA-induced dendritic spine deficits. In addition, constitutively active Rac1.GTP reverses this deficit. These results implicate Sig-1Rs as endogenous regulators of hippopcampal dendritic spine formation and suggest a free radical-sensitive ER-mitochondrion-Rac1.GTP pathway in the regulation of dendritic spine formation in the hippocampus.

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

4.8
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