4.5 Article

The CRF1 receptor antagonist, NBI-35965, abolished the activation of locus coeruleus neurons induced by colorectal distension and intracisternal CRF in rats

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1056, 期 1, 页码 85-96

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.07.010

关键词

extracellular recording; LC discharge; astressin; NBI-35965; stress; colorectal distension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) receptors have been reported to play a role in tonic colorectal distension (CRD)-induced activation of locus coeruleus (LC) neurons. We examined the influence of repeated phasic CRDs and intracisternal (ic) CRF on the spontaneous discharge rate of LC neurons in chloral hydrate-anesthetized rats and the role of CRF receptors using the nonselective CRF1/CRF2 antagonist, astressin, and the water-soluble CRF, receptor antagonist, NBI-35965. Two consecutive phasic CRDs (43.7 +/- 1.1 mm Hg, 30 s each) at a 10-min interval increased LC activity to 184.9 +/- 15% and 171.9 +/- 12.2%, respectively. There was no difference in magnitude, onset (within 1 s), and duration (5-7 min) of the LC responses between the 1 st and 2nd CRDs. CRF (300 ng/rat, ic) injected 10 min after the 2nd CRD increased LC activity to 191.1 +/- 11.2%. Astressin (3 mu g, ic) completely blocked the 2nd CRD- and is CRF-induced LC activation. Neither is vehicle nor astressin influenced basal LC neuronal activity. NBI-35965 (10 mg/kg, iv) prevented the 2nd CRD- and is CRF-induced LC neuronal activation, while at 5 mg significantly reduced the LC response to the 2nd CRD by 80%, but did not block that of is CRF injected 30 min later. These findings indicate a primary role of brain CRF interacting with CRF, receptors in mediating the activation of LC neurons in response to a phasic CRD within the nociceptive range (> 40 mm Hg). This activation may have relevance to irritable bowel syndrome characterized by lower pain threshold to CRD and hypervigilance to colonic input. (c) 2005 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