4.8 Article

GABA uptake into astrocytes is not associated with significant metabolic cost: Implications for brain imaging of inhibitory transmission

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2132096100

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synaptically released glutamate has been identified as a signal coupling excitatory neuronal activity to increased glucose utilization. The proposed mechanism of this coupling involves glutamate uptake into astrocytes resulting in increased intracellular Na+ (Na-i(+)) and activation of the Na+/K+-ATPase. Increased metabolic demand linked to disruption of Na-i(+) homeostasis activates glucose uptake and glycolysis in astrocytes. Here, we have examined whether a similar neurometabolic coupling could operate for the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), also taken up by Na+-dependent transporters into astrocytes. Thus, we have compared the Na-i(+) response to GABA and glutamate in mouse astrocytes by microspectrofluorimetry. The Na-i(+) response to GABA consisted of a rapid rise of 4-6 mM followed by a plateau that did not, however, significantly activate the pump. Indeed, the GABA transporter-evoked Na+ influxes are transient in nature, almost totally shutting off within approximate to30 sec of GABA application. The metabolic consequences of the GABA-induced Na-i(+) response were evaluated by monitoring cellular ATP changes indirectly in single cells and measuring 2-deoxyglucose uptake in astrocyte populations. Both approaches showed that, whereas glutamate induced a robust metabolic response in astrocytes (decreased ATP levels and glucose uptake stimulation), GABA did not cause any measurable metabolic response, consistent with the Na-i(+) measurements. Results indicate that GABA does not couple inhibitory neuronal activity with glucose utilization, as does glutamate for excitatory neurotransmission, and suggest that GABA-mediated synaptic transmission does not contribute directly to brain imaging signals based on deoxyglucose.

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

4.8
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