4.7 Article

Multiple Lines of Evidence Indicate That Gliotransmission Does Not Occur under Physiological Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 3-13

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0016-17.2017

关键词

astrocyte; calcium; d-serine; glutamate; GPCR; IP3R

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amajor controversy persists within the field of glial biology concerning whether or not, under physiological conditions, neuronal activity leads to Ca2+ -dependent release of neurotransmitters from astrocytes, a phenomenon known as gliotransmission. Our perspective is that, while we and others can apply techniques to cause gliotransmission, there is considerable evidence gathered using astrocyte-specific and more physiological approaches which suggests that gliotransmission is a pharmacological phenomenon rather than a physiological process. Approaches providing evidence against gliotransmission include stimulation of Gq-GPCRs expressed only in astrocytes, as well as removal of the primary proposed source of astrocyte Ca2+ responsible for gliotransmission. These approaches contrast with those supportive of gliotransmission, which include mechanical stimulation, strong astrocytic depolarization using whole-cell patch-clamp or optogenetics, uncaging Ca2+ or IP3, chelating Ca2+ using BAPTA, and nonspecific bath application of agonists to receptors expressed by a multitude of cell types. These techniques are not subtle and therefore are not supportive of recent suggestions that gliotransmission requires very specific and delicate temporal and spatial requirements. Other evidence, including lack of propagating Ca2+ waves between astrocytes in healthy tissue, lack of expression of vesicular release machinery, and the demise of the D-serine gliotransmission hypothesis, provides additional evidence against gliotransmission. Overall, the data suggest that Ca2+ -dependent release of neurotransmitters is the province of neurons, not astrocytes, in the intact brain under physiological conditions.

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

4.7
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