4.5 Article

D2-like dopamine receptor activation excites rat dorsal raphe 5-HT neurons in vitro

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 125-134

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01616.x

关键词

membrane depolarization; nonselective cation current; whole-cell recording

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of dopamine (DA) on the excitability of dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) neurons using the patch-clamp technique in brain slices. Bath application of DA (1-300 mum) produced a concentration-dependent membrane depolarization in all 5-HT neurons examined. This effect persisted in the presence of tetrodotoxin (TTX; 1 mum) and low extracellular calcium. Moreover, blockade of ionotropic glutamate receptors with 6,7-dinitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (DNQX) and 2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (AP5) did not prevent DA-induced depolarization, indicating that it was mediated by a direct effect of DA on 5-HT neurons. The DA-induced depolarization was not antagonized by selective alpha (1)-adrenergic receptor antagonists, prazosin and WB 4101, but by a nonselective DA receptor antagonist, haloperidol. In addition, the selective D-2-like receptor agonist quinpirole and antagonist sulpiride mimicked and blocked DA-induced depolarization, respectively. These results indicate that DA-induced membrane depolarization in DRN 5-HT neurons is mediated by the activation of D-2-like DA receptors. The DA-induced membrane depolarization and inward current were associated with an increase in membrane conductance. Examination of the current-voltage (I-V) relationship for the DA-induced inward current revealed that the amplitude of the current increased with membrane hyperpolarization and reversed polarity at a potential near -15 mV. These data suggest that DA-induced depolarization in DRN 5-HT neurons is not mediated by a decrease in potassium conductance, but most likely by the activation of a nonselective cation current.

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