4.5 Article

Corticostriatal dysfunction underlies diminished striatal ascorbate release in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington's disease

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1290, 期 -, 页码 111-120

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.019

关键词

Ascorbate; Cerebral cortex; Huntington's disease; Striatum; Voltammetry

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS-35663, R01 NS035663-09, F31 NS060218, F31 NS-064791, R01 NS035663, F31 NS064791] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [F31 S-060218-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A behavior-related deficit in the release of ascorbate (AA), an antioxidant vitamin, occurs in the striatum of R6/2 mice expressing the human mutation for Huntington's disease (HD), a dominantly inherited condition characterized by striatal dysfunction. To determine the role of corticostriatal fibers in AA release, we combined slow-scan voltammetry with electrical stimulation of cortical afferents to measure evoked fluctuations in extracellular AA in wildtype (WT) and R6/2 striatum. Although cortical stimulation evoked a rapid increase in AA release in both groups, the R6/2 response had a significantly shorter duration and smaller magnitude than WT. To determine if corticostriatal dysfunction also underlies the behavior-related AA deficit in R6/2s, we measured striatal AA release in separate groups of mice treated with D-amphetamine (5 mg/kg), a psychomotor stimulant known to release AA from corticostriatal terminals independently of dopamine. Relative to WT, both AA release and behavioral activation were diminished in R6/2 mice. Collectively, our results show that the corticostriatal pathway is directly involved in AA release and that this system is dysfunctional in HD. Moreover, because AA release requires glutamate uptake, a failure of striatal AA release in HD is consistent with an overactive glutamate system and diminished glutamate transport, both of which are thought to be central to HD pathogenesis. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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