4.6 Article

Immunohistochemical localization of the VIP1 receptor (VPAC1R) in rat cerebral blood vessels:: Relation to PACAP and VIP containing nerves

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1205-1214

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/00004647-200008000-00006

关键词

cerebral blood vessels; immunohistochemistry; innervation; vascular smooth muscle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The two structurally related peptides, vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP), are present in cerebral vascular nerve fibers. Biologic actions of VIP are exerted through two receptors, VPAC(1) and VPAC(2), having similar binding affinity for both VIP and PACAP. In the current study, the authors have developed a specific antibody against the rVPAC(1) receptor to examine the localization of rVPAC(1) immunoreactivity in cerebral arteries and arterioles of the rat by immunohistochemistry using fluorescence confocal microscopy. Specificity of the antiserum was ensured by immunoblotting and immunocytochemistry of cells transfected with cDNA encoding the different PACAP-VIP receptor subtypes. The rVPAC(1) receptor immunoreactivity was localized to the plasmalemma of circularly orientated smooth muscle cells on superficial cerebral arteries and arterioles taken from the basal surface of the brain. By double immunostaining VIP immunoreactive nerve fibers and, to a lesser extent, those containing PACAP were shown to have intimate contact with the receptor protein. Vasoactive intestinal polypeptide and PACAP containing cerebrovascular nerve fibers were found in separate nerve populations with different distribution pattern and density. In brain sections processes of cortical VIP-, but not PACAP-, containing neurons seemed to innervate the rVPAC(1) receptor of pial arterioles on the brain surface. The current findings provide the neuroanatomical substrate for a role of VIP and maybe PACAP in the regulation of cerebral blood flow.

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