4.5 Article

Cystathionine-β-synthase-derived hydrogen sulfide is required for amygdalar long-term potentiation and cued fear memory in rats

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 16-23

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.03.002

关键词

Hydrogen sulfide; Cystathionine-beta-synthase; Amygdala; Long-term potentiation; Fear memory; NMDA receptors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81560232, 81600939]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China [20151BBG70110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is an endogenous gaseous molecule that functions as a neuromodulator in the brain. We previously reported that H2S regulated amygdalar synaptic plasticity and cued fear memory in rats. However, whether endogenous H2S is required for amygdalar long-term potentiation (LTP) induction and cued fear memory formation remains unclear. Here, we show that cystathionine-beta-synthase (CBS), the predominant H2S-producing enzyme in the brain, was highly expressed in the amygdala of rats. Suppressing CBS activity by inhibitor prevented activity-triggered generation of H2S in the lateral amygdala (LA) region. Incubating brain slices with CBS inhibitor significantly prevented the induction of NMDA receptors (NMDARs)-dependent LTP in the thalamo-LA pathway, and intra-LA infusion of CBS inhibitor impaired cued fear memory in rats. Notably, treatment with H2S donor, but not CBS activator, significantly reversed the impairments of LTP and fear memory caused by CBS inhibition. Mechanismly, inhibition of CBS activity led to a reduction in NMDAR-mediated synaptic response in the thalamo-LA pathway, and treatment with H2S donor restored the function of NMDARs. Collectively, these results indicate that CBS-derived H2S is required for amygdalar synaptic plasticity and cued fear memory in rats, and the effects of endogenous H2S might involve the regulation of NMDAR function. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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