4.5 Article

D-glucose prevents glutathione oxidation and mitochondrial damage after glutamate receptor stimulation in rat cortical primary neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 1618-1624

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2000.0751618.x

关键词

glutamate; mitochondria; nitric oxide; glutathione; neurodegeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The possible neuroprotective effect of D-glucose against glutamate-mediated neurotoxicity was studied in rat cortical neurons in primary culture. Brief (5-min) exposure of neurons to glutamate (100 mu M) increased delayed (24-h) necrosis and apoptosis by 3- and 1.8-fold, respectively. Glutamate-mediated neurotoxicity was accompanied by a D-(-)-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoate (100 mu M) and N-omega-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (1 mM)-inhibitable, time-dependent ATP depletion (55% at 24 h), confirming the involvement of NMDA receptor stimulation followed by nitric oxide synthesis in this process. Furthermore, the presence of D-glucose (20 mM), but not its inactive enantiomer, L-glucose, fully prevented glutamate-mediated delayed ATP depletion, necrosis, and apoptosis. Succinate-cytochrome c reductase activity, but not the activities of NADH-coenzyme Q(1) reductase or cytochrome c oxidase, was inhibited by 32% by glutamate treatment, an effect that was abolished by incubation with D-glucose, Lactate accumulation in the culture medium was unmodified by any of these treatments, ruling out the possible involvement of the glycolysis pathway in either glutamate neurotoxicity or D-glucose neuroprotection. In contrast, D-glucose, but not L-glucose, abolished glutamate-mediated glutathione oxidation and NADPH depletion. Our results suggest that NADPH production from D-glucose accounts for glutathione regeneration and protection from mitochondrial dysfunction. This supports the notion that the activity of the pentose phosphate pathway may be an important factor in protecting neurons against glutamate neurotoxicity.

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