4.5 Article

NMDA receptor regulation by amyloid-β does not account for its inhibition of LTP in rat hippocampus

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 968, 期 2, 页码 263-272

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(03)02269-8

关键词

hippocampus; amyloid; long-term potentiation; long-term depression; NMDA receptor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulation of amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta) is widely believed to play a critical role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. Although amyloid-containing plaques are a key neuropathological feature of AD, soluble forms of Abeta can interfere with synaptic plasticity in the brain, suggesting that this form of the peptide may be responsible for much of the memory deficit seen early in the disease. Here, we investigate the mechanism underlying the effects of Abeta on long-term potentiation (LTP) in area CAI of rat hippocampus. Extracellular field recordings were made in area CAI of hippocampal slices taken from young, adult male rats. A non-toxic concentration of Abeta (200 nM) produced a rapid inhibition of LTP induced by 100 Hz stimulation while having no long-term effect on normal synaptic transmission. The same dose of Abeta had no effect on long-term depression (LTD) induced by 1200 pulses at 1 or 3 Hz. Picrotoxin had no effect on the inhibition of LTP, suggesting Abeta does not act by enhancing GABAergic transmission. Since the LTP induction in this study was dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation, we looked at the effect of Abeta on isolated NMDA receptor-mediated field potentials. Abeta produced a small but significant inhibition of NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic potentials (similar to 25%). However, a low dose of MK-801 (0.5 muM) that produced a similar inhibition of NMDA potentials had no effect on LTP induction but completely blocked LTD induction. These results suggest that Abeta does not inhibit LTP via effects on NMDA receptors, but rather interferes with a downstream pathway. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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