4.5 Article

Dopamine receptor regulation of Ca2+ levels in individual isolated nerve terminals from rat striatum:: comparison of presynaptic D1-like and D2-like receptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 98, 期 2, 页码 481-494

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03901.x

关键词

confocal imaging; dopamine receptors; presynaptic; rat striatum

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG21586] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have directly observed the effects of activating presynaptic D-1-like and D-2-like dopamine receptors on Ca2+ levels in isolated nerve terminals (synaptosomes) from rat striatum. R-(+)-SKF81297, a selective D-1-like receptor agonist, and (-)-quinpirole, a selective D-2-like receptor agonist, induced increases in Ca2+ levels in different subsets of individual striatal synaptosomes. The SKF81297- and quinpirole-induced effects were blocked by R-(+)-SCH23390, a D-1-like receptor antagonist, and (-)-sulpiride, a D-2-like receptor antagonist, respectively. SKF81297- or quinpirole-induced Ca2+ increases were inhibited following blockade of voltage-gated calcium channels or sodium channels. In a larger subset of synaptosomes, quinpirole decreased baseline Ca2+. Quinpirole also inhibited veratridine-induced increases in intrasynaptosomal Ca2+ level. Immunostaining confirmed the presynaptic expression of D-1, D-5, D-2 and D-3 receptors, but not D-4 receptors. The array of neurotransmitter phenotypes of the striatal nerve endings expressing D-1, D-5, D-2 or D-3 varied for each receptor subtype. These results suggest that presynaptic D-1-like and D-2-like receptors induce increases in Ca2+ levels in different subsets of nerve terminals via Na+ channel-mediated membrane depolarization, which, in turn, induces the opening of voltage-gated calcium channels. D-2-like receptors also reduce nerve terminal Ca2+ in a different but larger subset of synaptosomes, consistent with the predominant presynaptic action of dopamine in the striatum being inhibitory.

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