4.4 Article

Persistent sodium currents in mesencephalic V neurons participate in burst generation and control of membrane excitability

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 2710-2722

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00636.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE-06193] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The functional and biophysical properties of a persistent sodium current (I-NaP) previously proposed to participate in the generation of subthreshold oscillations and burst discharge in mesencephalic trigeminal sensory neurons (Mes V) were investigated in brain stem slices ( rats, p7 - p12) using whole cell patch-clamp methods. I-NaP activated around - 76 mV and peaked at - 48 mV, with V-1/2 of -58.7 mV. Ramp voltage-clamp protocols showed that I-NaP undergoes time- as well as voltage-dependent inactivation and recovery from inactivation in the range of several seconds (tau(onset) = 2.04 s, tau(recov) = 2.21 s). Riluzole (<= 5 mu M) substantially reduced I-NaP, membrane resonance, postinhibitory rebound (PIR), and subthreshold oscillations, and completely blocked bursting, but produced modest effects on the fast transient Na+ current (I-NaT). Before complete cessation, burst cycle duration was increased substantially, while modest and inconsistent changes in burst duration were observed. The properties of the I-NaT were obtained and revealed that the amplitude and voltage dependence of the resulting window current were not consistent with those of the observed I-NaP recorded in the same neurons. This suggests an additional mechanism for the origin of I-NaP. A neuronal model was constructed using Hodgkin-Huxley parameters obtained experimentally for Na+ and K+ currents that simulated the experimentally observed membrane resonance, subthreshold oscillations, bursting, and PIR. Alterations in the model g(NaP) parameters indicate that I-NaP is critical for control of subthreshold and suprathreshold Mes V neuron membrane excitability and burst generation.

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

4.4
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