4.4 Article

Effect of exercise training on long-term potentiation and NMDA receptor channels in rats with cerebral infarction

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 1431-1436

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2013.1319

关键词

cerebral infarction; exercise training; long-term potentiation; N-methyl-D aspartate receptor channel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of exercise training on the characteristics of long-term potentiation (LTP) and N-methyl-D aspartate (NMDA) receptor channels in the hippocampal CA3 neurons of rats with cerebral infarction. Wistar rats were randomly allocated into the model without any training and rehabilitation with exercise training. A model of cerebral infarction was established by middle cerebral artery occlusion. Using chronically embedded electrodes combined with an electrophysiological method, the population spike (PS) amplitude and latency, as well as changes in the NMDA single channel current in the hippocampal neurons were determined prior to and following Y-maze discrimination learning 60 times in the two groups. The formation of learning-dependent LTP and synaptic efficacy in the hippocampal CA3 area after exercise training in the rehabilitation group was significantly faster compared with that in the model group without any training (P<0.05). The incubation period of the PS in the CA3 area of the rats in the rehabilitation group was significantly shorter compared with that in the model group. The PS amplitude in the rehabilitation group was significantly higher compared with that in the model group. Furthermore, the opening probability of the NMDA receptor channel in the rehabilitation group was significantly higher compared with that in the model group. In conclusion, exercise training improved the opening conductance level, time and probability of NMDA receptor channels and accelerated the formation of learning-dependent LTP in the contralateral hippocampal CA3 area.

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

4.4
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