4.5 Article

Presynaptic adenosine A1 receptors modulate excitatory synaptic transmission in the posterior piriform cortex in rats

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1156, 期 -, 页码 67-79

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.04.049

关键词

AMPA receptor; EPSP; olfactory cortex; MK801; NMDA receptor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of adenosine on the fEPSP was examined in the lateral olfactory tract (Ia input) and associative tract (Ib input) of the rat piriform cortex. The fEPSP evoked in the la input showed paired-pulse facilitation, while that in the Ib input showed paired-pulse depression, suggesting a lower resting release probability in the Ia input. This was supported by results showing that MK801 blocked the NMDA receptor-induced fEPSP more rapidly in the Ib input than the Ia input. Adenosine caused dose-dependent inhibition of the fFPSP in both inputs, the sensitivity being higher in the Ib input. This effect was mimicked by the A, receptor agonist, CHA, and antagonized by co-application of the A, receptor antagonist, DPCPX, showing that adenosine was acting at A, receptors. Application of DPCPX alone caused an increase in the fEPSP, the increase being larger in the la input. DPCPX also caused paired-pulse depression in both inputs, and the paired-pulse ratio measured in its presence was very similar in both inputs. These results suggest there is a lower endogenous concentration of adenosine in the Ib sublayer than the la sublayer, which might account for the native difference in the resting release probability of the two inputs. The adenosine-induced inhibition of the fEPSP in both inputs was associated with a significant reduction in the rate at which MK801 blocked NMDA receptor-mediated fEPSP activity, suggesting a presynaptic location of the A(1) receptors. Blocking of N-, P/Q-type calcium channels occluded the inhibition by adenosine, indicating that they are downstream effectors of presynaptic A(1) receptor activation. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. 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