4.5 Article

Green fluorescent protein expression and colocalization with calretinin, parvalbumin, and somatostatin in the GAD67-GFP knock-in mouse

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 467, 期 1, 页码 60-79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.10905

关键词

GABA; central nervous system; in situ hybridization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic neurons in the central nervous system regulate the activity of other neurons and play a crucial role in information processing. To assist an advance in the research of GABAergic neurons, here we produced two lines of glutamic acid decarboxylase-green fluorescence protein (GAD67-GFP) knock-in mouse. The distribution pattern of GFP-positive somata was the same as that of the GAD67 in situ hybridization signal in the central nervous system. We encountered neither any apparent ectopic GFP expression in GAD67-negative cells nor any apparent lack of GFP expression in GAD67-positive neurons in the two GAD67-GFP knock-in mouse lines. The timing of GFP expression also paralleled that of GAD67 expression. Hence, we constructed a map of GFP distribution in the knock-in mouse brain. Moreover, we used the knock-in mice to investigate the colocalization of GFP with NeuN, calretinin (CR), parvalbumin (PV), and somatostatin (SS) in the frontal motor cortex. The proportion of GFP-positive cells among NeuN-positive cells (neocortical neurons) was approximately 19.5%. All the CR, PV, and SS-positive cells appeared positive for GFP. The CR-, PV, and SS-positive cells emitted GFP fluorescence at various intensities characteristics to them. The proportions of CR-, PV-, and SS-positive cells among GFP-positive cells were 13.9%, 40.1%, and 23.4%, respectively. Thus, the three subtypes of GABAergic neurons accounted for 77.4% of the GFP-positive cells. They accounted for 6.5% in layer I. In accord with unidentified GFP-positive cells, many medium-sized spherical somata emitting intense GFP fluorescence were observed in layer I. (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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