4.6 Article

Nicotine facilitates glycine release in the rat spinal dorsal horn

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 536, 期 1, 页码 101-110

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.t01-1-00101.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Nicotinic effects on glycine release were investigated in slices of lumbar spinal cord using conventional whole-cell recordings. In most of the substantia gelatinosa (SG) neurons tested, nicotine increased the frequency of the glycinergic spontaneous miniature inhibitory postsynaptic currents (mIPSCs). In a smaller proportion, nicotine evoked not only this same presynaptic response but also a postsynaptic response. 2. Nicotinic facilitation of glycinergic mIPSCs was investigated in mechanically dissociated So neurons using nystatin-perforated patch recordings. Nicotine (3 x 10(-6) to 10(-5) m) reversibly enhanced the frequency of glycinergic mIPSCs without, altering their amplitudes, thus indicating that nicotine facilitates glycine release through a presynaptic mechanism. 3. Choline, a selective alpha7 subunit of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonist, had no effect on the mIPSC frequency while anatoxin A, a broad-spectrum agonist of nAChR, facilitated the mIPSC frequency. 4. alpha -Bungarotoxin, a selective alpha7 subunit antagonist, failed to block the nicotinic facilitatory action. Mecamylamine, a broad-spectrum nicotinic antagonist, reversibly inhibited nicotinic action. Dihydro-beta -erythroidine, a selective antagonist of nAChRs containing alpha4-beta2 subunits, completely blocked nicotinic action. 5. Ca2+-free but not Cd2+-containing bath solutions blocked nicotinic actions. 6. We therefore conclude that nicotine facilitates glycine release in the substantia gelatinosa of the spinal dorsal horn via specific nAChRs containing alpha4-beta2 subunits. This action on a subset of presynaptic nAChRs may underlie nicotine's modulation of noxious signal transmission and provide a cellular mechanism for the analgesic function of nicotine.

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