4.4 Article

Metabolically Inert Gas Narcosis in the Central Nervous System

期刊

COMPREHENSIVE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 1579-1590

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cphy.c150024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gases that are not metabolized by the organism are thus chemically inactive under normal conditions. Such gases include the noble gases of the Periodic Table as well as hydrogen and nitrogen. At increasing pressure, nitrogen induces narcosis at 4 absolute atmospheres (ATAs) and more in humans and at 11 ATA and more in rats. Electrophysiological and neuropharmacological studies suggest that the striatum is a target of nitrogen narcosis. Glutamate and dopamine release from the striatum in rats are decreased by exposure to nitrogen at a pressure of 31 ATA (75% of the anesthetic threshold). Striatal dopamine levels decrease during exposure to compressed argon, an inert gas more narcotic than nitrogen, or to nitrous oxide, an anesthetic gas. Inversely, striatal dopamine levels increase during exposure to compressed helium, an inert gas with a very low narcotic potency. Exposure to nitrogen at high pressure does not change N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor activities in Substantia Nigra compacta and striatum but enhances gama amino butyric acid(A) (GABA(A)) receptor activities in Substantia Nigra compacta. The decrease in striatal dopamine levels in response to hyperbaric nitrogen exposure is suppressed by recurrent exposure to nitrogen narcosis, and dopamine levels increase after four or five exposures. This change, the lack of improvement of motor disturbances, the desensitization of GABA(A) receptors on dopamine cells during recurrent exposures and the long-lasting decrease of glutamate coupled with the higher sensitivity of NMDA receptors, suggest a nitrogen toxicity induced by repetitive exposures to narcosis. These differential changes in different neurotransmitter receptors would support the binding protein theory. (C) 2016 American Physiological Society.

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