4.6 Article

Reelin and ApoE receptors cooperate to enhance hippocampal synaptic plasticity and learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 277, 期 42, 页码 39944-39952

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M205147200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL20948, R37 HL063762, HL63762] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD24064] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [MH57014] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS43408, NS37444] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two apolipoprotein E (apoE) receptors, the very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) receptor and apoE receptor 2 (apoER2), are also receptors for Reelin, a signaling protein that regulates neuronal migration during brain development. In the adult brain, Reelin is expressed by GABA-ergic interneurons, suggesting a potential function as a modulator of neurotransmission. ApoE receptors have been indirectly implicated in memory and neurodegenerative disorders because their ligand, apoE, is genetically associated with Alzheimer disease. We have used knockout mice to investigate the role of Reelin and its receptors in cognition and synaptic plasticity. Mice lacking either the VLDL receptor or the apoER2 show contextual fear conditioning deficits. VLDL receptor-deficient mice also have a moderate defect in long term potentiation (LTP), and apoER2 knockouts have a pronounced one. The perfusion of mouse hippocampal slices with Reelin has no effect on baseline synaptic transmission but significantly enhances LTP in area CA1. This Reelin-dependent augmentation of LTP is abolished in VLDL receptor and apoER2 knockout mice. Our results reveal a role for Reelin in controlling synaptic plasticity in the adult brain and suggest that both of its receptors are necessary for Reelin-dependent enhancement of synaptic transmission in the hippocampus. Thus, the impairment of apoE receptor-dependent neuromodulation may contribute to cognitive impairment and synaptic loss in Alzheimer disease.

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

4.6
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