4.6 Article

Mesopontine rostromedial tegmental nucleus neurons projecting to the dorsal raphe and pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus: psychostimulant-elicited Fos expression and collateralization

期刊

BRAIN STRUCTURE & FUNCTION
卷 217, 期 3, 页码 719-734

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00429-011-0368-z

关键词

RMTg; Psychostimulant; Fos; Addiction

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008306] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS023805] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mesopontine rostromedial tegmental nucleus (RMTg) is a GABAergic structure in the ventral midbrain and rostral pons that, when activated, inhibits dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra compacta. Additional strong outputs from the RMTg to the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus pars dissipata, dorsal raphe nucleus, and the pontomedullary gigantocellular reticular formation were identified by anterograde tracing. RMTg neurons projecting to the ventral tegmental area express the immediate early gene Fos upon psychostimulant administration. The present study was undertaken to determine if neurons in the RMTg that project to the additional structures listed above also express Fos upon psychostimulant administration and, if so, whether single neurons in the RMTg project to more than one of these structures. We found that about 50% of RMTg neurons exhibiting retrograde labeling after injections of retrograde tracer in the dorsal raphe or pars dissipata of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus express Fos after acute methamphetamine exposure. Also, we observed that a significant number of RMTg neurons project both to the ventral tegmental area and one of these structures. In contrast, methamphetamine-elicited Fos expression was not observed in RMTg neurons labeled with retrograde tracer following injections into the pontomedullary reticular formation. The findings suggest that the RMTg is an integrative modulator of multiple rostrally projecting structures.

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