4.5 Article

Mitochondrial uncoupling agents antagonize rotenone actions in rat substantia nigra dopamine neurons

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1395, 期 -, 页码 86-93

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.04.032

关键词

Coenzyme Q(10); 2,4-dinitrophenol; FCCP; N-methyl-D-aspartate; Dopamine neuron; Uncoupling agent

资金

  1. Veterans Affairs Merit Review grant [0383]
  2. Portland Veterans Affairs Parkinson's Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mild uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation has been reported to reduce generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and therefore may be neuroprotective. We reported previously that the mitochondrial poison rotenone enhanced currents evoked by N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) by a ROS-dependent mechanism in rat midbrain dopamine neurons. Thus, rotenone, which produces a model of Parkinson's disease in rodents, may increase the risk of dopamine neuron excitotoxicity. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that oxidative phosphorylation uncoupling agents would antagonize the effect of rotenone on NMDA current. We used patch pipettes to record whole-cell currents under voltage-clamp (-60 mV) in substantia nigra dopamine neurons in slices of rat brain. Rotenone, NMDA and uncoupling agents were added to the brain slice superfusate. Inward currents evoked by NMDA (30 mu M) more than doubled in amplitude after slices were superfused for 30 min with 100 nM rotenone. Continuous superfusion with the uncoupling agent carbonyl cyanide-p-trifluoromethoxy-phenylhydrazone (1-3 nM) or 2,4-dinitrophenol (100 nM) significantly antagonized and delayed the ability of rotenone to potentiate NMDA currents. Coenzyme Q(10) (1-10 nM), which has been reported to facilitate uncoupling protein activity, also antagonized this action of rotenone. These results suggest that mild uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation may protect dopamine neurons against injury from mitochondrial poisons such as rotenone. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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