4.8 Article

Designer receptor manipulations reveal a role of the locus coeruleus noradrenergic system in isoflurane general anesthesia

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1310025111

关键词

DREADD; RASSL

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health-National Cancer Institute [NS064882-01]
  2. Public Health Service [R01 MH092868, C06 RR015455]
  3. Parkinson's Disease Foundation
  4. Neuroscience Institute of Medical University of South Carolina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanisms driving emergence from general anesthesia are not well understood. The noradrenergic brain nucleus locus coeruleus (LC) modulates arousal and may have effects on general anesthetic state. Using virally delivered designer receptors to specifically control LC norepinephrine (NE) neurons, we investigated the causal relationship between LC-NE activity and general anesthetic state under isoflurane. Selective activation of LC-NE neurons produced cortical electroencephalography (EEG) activation under continuous deep isoflurane anesthesia. Specifically, LC-NE activation reduced burst suppression in EEG and drove a rightward shift in peak EEG frequency with reduced delta EEG power and increased. EEG power, measures of cortical arousal. LC-NE activation also accelerated behavioral emergence from deep isoflurane anesthesia; this was prevented with beta or alpha 1 noradrenergic antagonists. Moreover, these adrenoreceptor antagonists alone were sufficient to markedly potentiate anesthetic duration when delivered centrally or peripherally. Induction of anesthesia also was retarded by LC-NE activation. Our results demonstrate that the LC-NE system strongly modulates the anesthetic state, and that changes in LC-NE neurotransmission alone can affect the emergence from isoflurane general anesthesia. Taken together, these findings extend our understanding of mechanisms underlying general anesthesia and cortical arousal, and have significant implications for optimizing the clinical safety and management of general anesthesia.

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