4.7 Article

Loss of the major GABAA receptor subtype in the brain is not lethal in mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 10, 页码 3409-3418

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-10-03409.2001

关键词

GABA(A) receptor; mouse; cerebellum; radioligand; benzodiazepine; inhibitory current; locomotor activity; rotarod

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The alpha1 beta2 gamma2 is the most abundant subtype of the GABA(A) receptor and is localized in many regions of the brain. To gain more insight into the role of this receptor subtype in the modulation of inhibitory neurotransmission, we generated mice lacking either the alpha1 or beta2 subunit. In agreement with the reported abundance of this subtype,.50% of total GABA(A) receptors are lost in both alpha1/-/- and 2 mice. Surprisingly, homozygotes of both mouse lines are viable, fertile, and show no spontaneous seizures. Initially half of the alpha1-2/- 2 mice died prenatally or perinatally, but they exhibited a lower mortality rate in subsequent generations, suggesting some phenotypic drift and adaptive changes. Both adult alpha1-/- and beta2-/- mice demonstrate normal performances on the rotarod, but beta2-/- mice displayed increased locomotor activity. Purkinje cells of the cerebellum primarily express alpha1 beta2 gamma2 receptors, and in electrophysiological recordings from alpha1-/- mice GABA currents in these neurons are dramatically reduced, and residual currents have a benzodiazepine pharmacology characteristic of alpha2- or alpha3- containing receptors. In contrast, the cerebellar Purkinje neurons from beta2-/- mice have only a relatively small reduction of GABA currents. In beta2-/- mice expression levels of all six a subunits are reduced by similar to 50%, suggesting that the beta2 subunit can coassemble with a subunits other than just alpha1. Our data confirm that alpha1 beta2 gamma2 is the major GABA(A) receptor subtype in the murine brain and demonstrate that, surprisingly, the loss of this receptor subtype is not lethal.

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