4.5 Article

Identification of a Sacral, Visceral Sensory Transcriptome in Embryonic and Adult Mice

期刊

ENEURO
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0397-19.2019

关键词

autonomic regulation; nociceptor; pelvic pain; sexual dimorphism; urogenital; visceral pain

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1U01DK101029, 5UO1DK094479]
  2. Australian Research Council [SR110001002, FT150100330]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT150100330] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visceral sensory neurons encode distinct sensations from healthy organs and initiate pain states that are resistant to common analgesics. Transcriptome analysis is transforming our understanding of sensory neuron subtypes but has generally focused on somatic sensory neurons or the total population of neurons in which visceral neurons form the minority. Our aim was to define transcripts specifically expressed by sacral visceral sensory neurons, as a step towards understanding the unique biology of these neurons and potentially leading to identification of new analgesic targets for pelvic visceral pain. Our strategy was to identify genes differentially expressed between sacral dorsal root ganglia (DRG) that include somatic neurons and sacral visceral neurons, and adjacent lumbar DRG that comprise exclusively of somatic sensory neurons. This was performed in adult and E18.5 male and female mice. By developing a method to restrict analyses to nociceptive Trpv1 neurons, a larger group of genes were detected as differentially expressed between spinal levels. We identified many novel genes that had not previously been associated with pelvic visceral sensation or nociception. Limited sex differences were detected across the transcriptome of sensory ganglia, but more were revealed in sacral levels and especially in Trpv1 nociceptive neurons. These data will facilitate development of new tools to modify mature and developing sensory neurons and nociceptive pathways.

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

4.5
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