4.6 Article

Characterisation of cannabinoid 1 receptor expression in the perikarya, and peripheral and spinal processes of primary sensory neurons

期刊

BRAIN STRUCTURE & FUNCTION
卷 218, 期 3, 页码 733-750

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00429-012-0425-2

关键词

Anti-nociception; Somatosensory; Viscerosensory; Peptidergic; Non-peptidergic

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [K05DA021696, R01DA011322] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA011322, K05 DA021696] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptor is expressed by a sub-population of primary sensory neurons. However, data on the neurochemical identity of the CB1 receptor-expressing cells, and CB1 receptor expression by the peripheral and central terminals of these neurons are inconsistent and limited. We characterised CB1 receptor expression in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) and spinal cord at the lumbar 4-5 level, as well as in the urinary bladder and glabrous skin of the hindpaw. About 1/3 of DRG neurons exhibited immunopositivity for the CB1 receptor, the majority of which showed positivity for the nociceptive markers calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or/and Griffonia (bandeiraea) simplicifolia IB4 isolectin-binding. Virtually all CB1 receptor-immunostained fibres showed immunopositivity for CGRP in the skin, while very few did in the urinary bladder. No CB1 receptor-immunopositive nerve fibres were IB4 positive in either peripheral tissue. Spinal laminae I and II-outer showed the highest density of CB1 receptor-immunopositive punctae, the majority of which showed positivity for CGRP or/and IB4 binding. These data indicate that a major sub-population of nociceptive primary sensory neurons expresses CB1 receptors that are transported to both peripheral and central terminals of these cells. Therefore, the present data suggest that manipulation of endogenous CB1 receptor agonist levels in these areas may significantly reduce nociceptive input into the spinal cord.

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