4.6 Article

Role of Brain Derived Extracellular Vesicles in Decoding Sex Differences Associated with Nicotine Self-Administration

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9081883

关键词

nicotine; extracellular vesicles; sex differences; proteomics; bioinformatics

资金

  1. NIH [5P20GM103427, 5P30CA036727, 5P30MH062261, DA049577, DA042379, DA046852]
  2. State of Nebraska [LB506]
  3. Nebraska Research Initiative (NRI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smoking remains a significant health and economic concern in the United States. Furthermore, the emerging pattern of nicotine intake between sexes further adds a layer of complexity. Nicotine is a potent psychostimulant with a high addiction liability that can significantly alter brain function. However, the neurobiological mechanisms underlying nicotine's impact on brain function and behavior remain unclear. Elucidation of these mechanisms is of high clinical importance and may lead to improved therapeutics for smoking cessation. To fill in this critical knowledge gap, our current study focused on identifying sex-specific brain-derived extracellular vesicles (BDEV) signatures in male and female rats post nicotine self-administration. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are comprised of phospholipid nanovesicles such as apoptotic bodies, microvesicles (MVs), and exosomes based on their origin or size. EVs are garnering significant attention as molecules involved in cell-cell communication and thus regulating the pathophysiology of several diseases. Interestingly, females post nicotine self-administration, showed larger BDEV sizes, along with impaired EV biogenesis compared to males. Next, using quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, we identified BDEV signatures, including distinct molecular pathways, impacted between males and females. In summary, this study has identified sex-specific changes in BDEV biogenesis, protein cargo signatures, and molecular pathways associated with long-term nicotine self-administration.

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