4.7 Article

MsrA knockout mouse exhibits abnormal behavior and brain dopamine levels

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 193-200

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.04.003

关键词

dopamine; oxidative stress; methionine oxidation; neurodegenerative diseases

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R03 AG027363-01A1, AG027363, R03 AG027363] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD02528, P30 HD002528] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidative stress can cause methionine oxidation that has been implicated in various proteins malfunctions, if not adequately reduced by the methionine sulfoxide reductase system. Recent evidence has found oxidized methionine residues in neurodegenerative conditions. Previously, we have described elevated levels of brain pathologies and an abnormal walking pattern in the methionine sulfoxide reductase A knockout (MsrA(-/-)) mouse. Here we show that MsrA(-/-) mice have compromised complex task learning capabilities relative to wild-type mice. Likewise, MsrA(-/-) mice exhibit lower locomotor activity and altered gait that exacerbated with age. Furthermore, MsrA(-/-) mice were less responsive to amphetamine treatment. Consequently, brain dopamine levels were determined. Surprisingly, relative to wild-type mice, MsrA(-/-) brains contained significantly higher levels of dopamine up to 12 months of age, while lower levels of dopamine were observed at 16 months of age. Moreover, striatal regions of MsrA(-/-) mice showed an increase of dopamine release parallel to observed dopamine levels: Similarly, the expression pattern of tyrosine hydroxylase activating protein correlated with the age-dependent dopamine levels. Thus, it is suggested that dopamine regulation and signaling pathways are impaired in MsrA(-/-) mice, which may contribute to their abnormal behavior. These observations may be relevant to age-related neurological diseases associated with oxidative stress. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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