4.6 Article

Signal transduction pathways of group I metabotropic glutamate receptor-induced long-term depression at sensory spinal synapses

期刊

PAIN
卷 118, 期 1-2, 页码 145-154

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.08.004

关键词

intracellular Ca2+ stores; L-type VDCC; nociception; protein kinase C; rat (S)-3,5-DHPG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of spinal group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) may have antinociceptive or pro-nociceptive effects in different pain models. Pharmacological activation of group I mGluRs leads to long-term depression (LTD) of synaptic strength between Ab-fibers and neurons in lamina 11 of spinal dorsal horn of the rat. Here, we studied the signal transduction pathways involved. Synaptic strength between A delta-fibers and lamina 11 neurons was assessed by perforated whole-cell patch-clamp recordings in a spinal cord-dorsal root slice preparation of young rats. Bath application of the specific group I mGluR agonist (S)-3,5-dihydroxyphenylglycine [(S)-3,5-DHPG] produced an LTD of A delta-fiber-evoked responses. LTD induction by (S)-3,5-DHPG was prevented, when intracellular Ca2+ stores were depleted by thapsigargin or cyclopiazonic acid (CPA). Preincubation with ryanodine to inhibit Ca2+-induced Ca2+ release had no effect on LTD-induction by (S)-3,5-DHPG. In contrast, pretreatment with 2-aminoethoxydiphenyl borate (2-APB), an inhibitor of inositol-1.4.5-tfisphosphate (IP3)-sensitive Ca2+ stores prevented LTD induction. Preincubation with the specific protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitors bisindolylmaleimide I (BIM) or cheterythrine, respectively, had no effect. Inhibition of L-type VDCCs by verapamil or nifedipine prevented LTD-induction by (S)-3,5-DHPG. The presently identified signal transduction cascade may be relevant to the long-term depression of sensory information in the spinal cord, including nociception. (c) 2005 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by 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

4.6
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