4.7 Article

Sensitivity to selective adenosine A1 and A2A receptor antagonists of the release of glutamate induced by ischemia in rat cerebrocortical slices

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 201-210

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3908(03)00156-4

关键词

ischemia; glutamate release; cerebrocortical slices; adenosine; A(1) receptors; A(2A) receptors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenosine released during cerebral ischemia is considered to act as a neuroprotectant, possibly through the inhibition of glutamate release. The involvement of A(1) and A(2A) receptors in the control of the rise of extracellular glutamate during ischemia was investigated by monitoring the effects of selective A(1) and A(2A) receptor antagonists on ischemia-evoked glutamate release in rat cerebrocortical slices. Slices were superfused with oxygen- and glucose-deprived medium and [H-3]D-aspartate or endogenous glutamate was measured in the superfusate fractions. Withdrawal of Ca2+ ions or addition of tetrodotoxin more than halved the ischemia-evoked efflux of [H-3]D-aspartate or glutamate, compatible with a vesicular-like release. The glutamate transporter inhibitor DL-TBOA prevented the ischemia-evoked efflux of [H-3]D-aspartate by about 40%, indicating a carrier-mediated efflux. The ischemia-evoked efflux of [H-3]D-aspartate or glutamate was increased by the A(1) receptor antagonist DPCPX. The A(2A) antagonist SCH 58261 decreased [H-3]D-aspartate or endogenous glutamate efflux (50 and 55% maximal inhibitions; EC50: 14.9 and 7.6 nM, respectively); the drug was effective also if added during ischemia. No effect of either the A(1) or the A(2A) receptor antagonist was found on the ischemia-evoked efflux of [H-3]D-aspartate in Ca2+-free medium. Our data suggest that adenosine released during cerebral ischemia can activate inhibitory A, and stimulatory A(2A) receptors that down- or up-regulate the vesicular-like component of glutamate release. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.7
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