4.5 Article

The opposite effects of stress on dendritic spines in male vs. female rats are NMDA receptor-dependent

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 145-150

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.03065.x

关键词

corticosterone; estrogen; glutamate; hippocampus; learning; synapse

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH059970, R01 MH059970-02, R01 MH059970-03, R01 MH059970-04, MH59970, F31 MH063568-01A2, MH3568, F31 MH063568] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH059970, F31MH063568] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dendritic spines in the hippocampus are sources of synaptic contact that may be involved in processes of learning and memory [Moser (11999) Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 55, 593-600]. These structures are sensitive to sex differences as females in proestrus possess a greater density than males and females in other stages of the estrous cycle [Woolley et al. (1990) J Neurosci., 10, 4035-4039]. Moreover, exposure to an acute stressful event increases spine density in the male hippocampus but decreases spine density in the female hippocampus [Shors et al.. (2001) J. Neurosci., 21, 6292-6297]. Here we demonstrate that antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors prevents the increase in spine density as females transition from diestrus 2 to proestrus, when estrogen levels are rising. Antagonism of NMDA receptors during exposure to the stressful event also prevented the changes in spine density in males and females, despite differences in the direction of these effects. Thus, the stress-induced increase in spine density was prevented in the male hippocampus as was the stress-induced decrease in spine density in the female hippocampus. NMDA receptor antagonism during exposure to the stressful event did not alter corticosterone levels or the corticosterone response to stress. These data suggest that both increases and decreases in spine density can be dependent on NMDA receptor activation.

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