4.5 Article

Binding and functional activity of nicotinic cholinergic receptors in selected rat brain regions are increased following long-term but not short-term nicotine treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 40-49

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2004.02482.x

关键词

acetylcholine; chronic nicotine; cytisine; epibatidine; nicotine dependence; nicotine replacement therapy

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK056920] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic nicotine exposure up-regulates neuronal nicotinic receptors, but the functional consequences for these receptors is less well understood. Following 2 weeks of nicotine or saline treatment by osmotic minipump, the functional activity of nicotinic receptors was measured by concentration-response curves for epibatidine-stimulated Rb-86 efflux. Nicotine-treated animals had a significantly higher maximal efflux in cerebral cortex and superior colliculus, but not in thalamus or interpeduncular nucleus plus medial habenula. This increase was confirmed in a separate experiment with stimulation by single concentrations of epibatidine (cortex, superior colliculus) or nicotine (cortex only). Chronic nicotine did not alter Rb-86 efflux stimulated by cytisine, an alpha3beta4-selective agonist, or by potassium chloride, in any region. Short-term (16 h) nicotine exposure caused no changes in either Rb-86 efflux or receptor binding measured with [H-3]epibatidine. Binding was significantly increased after 2 weeks nicotine exposure in cortex, superior colliculus and thalamus, but not in interpeduncular nucleus plus medial habenula. The increases in epibatidine-stimulated Rb-86 efflux in the four regions tested was linearly correlated with the increases in [H-3]epibatidine binding in these regions (R-2 = 0.91), suggesting that rat brain receptors up-regulated by chronic nicotine are active. These results have important consequences for understanding nicotinic receptor neurobiology in smokers and users of nicotine replacement therapy.

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