4.6 Article

Mechanisms of neuronal chloride accumulation in intact mouse olfactory epithelium

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 583, 期 3, 页码 1005-1020

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.129601

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC00926, R01 DC000926] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When olfactory receptor neurons respond to odours, a depolarizing Cl- efflux is a substantial part of the response. This requires that the resting neuron accumulate Cl- against an electrochemical gradient. In isolated olfactory receptor neurons, the Na+-K+-2Cl(-) cotransporter NKCC1 is essential for Cl- accumulation. However, in intact epithelium, a robust electrical olfactory response persists in mice lacking NKCC1. This response is largely due to a neuronal Cl- efflux. It thus appears that NKCC1 is an important part of a more complex system of Cl- accumulation. To identify the remaining transport proteins, we first screened by RT-PCR for 21 Cl- transporters in mouse nasal tissue containing olfactory mucosa. For most of the Cl- transporters, the presence of mRNA was demonstrated. We also investigated the effects of pharmacological block or genetic ablation of Cl- transporters on the olfactory field potential, the electroolfactogram (EOG). Mice lacking the common Cl-/HCO3- exchanger AE2 had normal EOGs. Block of NKCC cotransport with bumetanide reduced the EOG in epithelia from wild-type mice but had no effect in mice lacking NKCC1. Hydrochlorothiazide, a blocker of the Na+-Cl- cotransporter, had only a small effect. DIDS, a blocker of some KCC cotransporters and Cl-/HCO3- exchangers, reduced the EOG in epithelia from both wild-type and NKCC1 knockout mice. A combination of bumetanide and DIDS decreased the response more than either drug alone. However, no combination of drugs completely abolished the Cl- component of the response. These results support the involvement of both NKCC1 and one or more DIDS-sensitive transporters in Cl- accumulation in olfactory receptor neurons.

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