4.5 Article

Sensory deafferentation transsynaptically alters neuronal GluR1 expression in the external plexiform layer of the adult mouse main olfactory bulb

期刊

CHEMICAL SENSES
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 201-210

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjm079

关键词

AMPA receptor; confocal microscopy; immunohistochemistry; olfaction; optical disector; plasticity

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC03112, R01 DC007876, DC005676, DC05739, R01 DC003112] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Altered distribution of the alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4-propionic acid (AMPA) receptor subunit GluR1 has been linked to stimulation-dependent changes in synaptic efficacy, including long-term potentiation and depression. The main olfactory bulb (OB) remains plastic throughout life; how GluR1 may be involved in this plasticity is unknown. We have previously shown that neonatal naris occlusion reduces numbers of interneuron cell bodies that are immunoreactive for GluR1 in the external plexiform layer (EPL) of the adult mouse OB. Here, we show that immunoreactivity of mouse EPL interneurons for GluR1 is also dramatically reduced following olfactory deafferentation in adulthood. We further show that expression of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) 65, 1 of 2 GAD isoforms expressed by adult gamma-aminobutyric acidergic interneurons, is reduced, but to a much smaller extent, and that in double-labeled cells, immunoreactivity for the Ca2+-binding protein parvalbumin (PV) is also reduced. In addition, GluR1 expression is reduced in presumptive tufted cells and interneurons that are negative for GAD65 and PV. Consistent with previous reports, sensory deafferentation resulted in little neuronal degeneration in the adult EPL, indicating that these differences were not likely due to death of EPL neurons. Together, these results suggest that olfactory input regulates expression of the GluR1 AMPA receptor subunit by tufted cells that may in turn regulate GluR1 expression by interneurons within the OB EPL.

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