4.2 Article

Immortalization and characterization of a nociceptive dorsal root ganglion sensory neuronal line

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 121-130

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8027.2007.00131.x

关键词

DRG; high-throughput screen; nociceptive; sensory neuronal line; TRPV-1; 50B11

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG023471] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R21 MH072534, P01 MH070056, P30 MH075673, P01MH70056] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [R01NS43991, R01NS47972, R01 NS047972, R01 NS043991] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of neuroprotective strategies for peripheral neuropathies requires high-throughput drug screening assays with appropriate cell types. Currently, immortalized dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory neuronal cell lines that maintain nociceptive sensory neuronal properties are not available. We generated immortalized DRG neuronal lines from embryonic day 14.5 rats. Here, we show that one of the immortalized DRG neuronal lines, 50B11, has the properties of a nociceptive neuron. When differentiated in the presence of forskolin, these cells extend long neurites, express neuronal markers, and generate action potentials. They express receptors and markers of small-diameter sensory neurons and upregulate appropriate receptor populations when grown in the presence of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or nerve growth factor. Furthermore, they express capsaicin receptor transient receptor potential vanilloid family-1 (TRPV-1) and respond to capsaicin with increases in intracellular calcium. In a 96-well plate format, these neurons show a decline in ATP levels when exposed to dideoxycytosine (ddC) in a proper time- and dose-dependent manner. This ddC-induced reduction in ATP levels correlates with axonal degeneration. The immortalized DRG neuronal cell line 50B11 can be used for high-throughput drug screening for neuroprotective agents for axonal degeneration and antinociceptive drugs that block TRPV-1.

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

4.2
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