4.6 Article

Sphingosine-1-phosphate activates mouse vagal airway afferent C-fibres via S1PR3 receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 597, 期 7, 页码 2007-2019

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP277521

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [RO1HL137807]
  2. Dr David Marsh Symposium Research Award, Johns Hopkins University (Asthma and Allergy Division)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the effect of sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P), a lipid that is elevated during airway inflammatory conditions like asthma, for its ability to stimulate vagal afferent C-fibres in mouse lungs. Single cell RT-PCR on lung-specific vagal afferent neurons revealed that both TRPV1-expressing and TRPV1-non-expressing nodose neurons express mRNA coding for the S1P receptor S1PR3. TRPV1-expressing airway-specific jugular ganglion neurons also express S1PR3 mRNA. S1PR1 and S1PR2 mRNAs were also found to be expressed but only in a limited subset (32% and 22%, respectively) of airway-specific vagal sensory neurons; whereas S1PR4 and S1PR5 were rarely expressed. We used large scale two-photon imaging of the nodose ganglia from our ex vivo preparation isolated from Pirt-Cre;R26-GCaMP6s transgenic mice, which allows for simultaneous monitoring of calcium transients in similar to 1000 neuronal cell bodies in the ganglia during tracheal perfusion with S1P (10 mu M). We found that S1P in the lungs strongly activated 81.5% of nodose fibres, 70% of which were also activated by capsaicin. Single fibre electrophysiological recordings confirmed that S1P evoked action potential (AP) generation in a concentration-dependent manner (0.1-10 mu M). Action potential generation by S1P in nodose C-fibres was effectively inhibited by the S1PR3 antagonist TY 52156 (10 mu M). Finally, in S1PR3 knockout mice, S1P was not able to activate any of the airway nodose C-fibres analysed. These results support the hypothesis that S1P may play a role in evoking C-fibre-mediated airway sensations and reflexes that are associated with airway inflammatory diseases.

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

4.6
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