4.2 Article

Localization and behaviors in null mice suggest that ASIC1 and ASIC2 modulate responses to aversive stimuli

期刊

GENES BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 179-194

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12108

关键词

Acid-sensing ion channel; ASIC1; ASIC2; brain; carbon dioxide; fear conditioning; immunocytochemistry

资金

  1. Fondazione Cariplo grant [2009-2528]
  2. FISM - Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla grant [2009/R/2]
  3. Iowa Cardiovascular Interdisciplinary Research Fellowship [HL07121]
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs
  5. National Institutes of Mental Health [1R01MH085724-01]
  6. National Institute of Heart Lung and Blood [5 R01 HL113863-01]
  7. McKnight Neuroscience of Brain Disorders Award
  8. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program [2 UL1 TR000442-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) generate H+-gated Na+ currents that contribute to neuronal function and animal behavior. Like ASIC1, ASIC2 subunits are expressed in the brain and multimerize with ASIC1 to influence acid-evoked currents and facilitate ASIC1 localization to dendritic spines. To better understand how ASIC2 contributes to brain function, we localized the protein and tested the behavioral consequences of ASIC2 gene disruption. For comparison, we also localized ASIC1 and studied ASIC1(-/-) mice. ASIC2 was prominently expressed in areas of high synaptic density, and with a few exceptions, ASIC1 and ASIC2 localization exhibited substantial overlap. Loss of ASIC1 or ASIC2 decreased freezing behavior in contextual and auditory cue fear conditioning assays, in response to predator odor and in response to CO2 inhalation. In addition, loss of ASIC1 or ASIC2 increased activity in a forced swim assay. These data suggest that ASIC2, like ASIC1, plays a key role in determining the defensive response to aversive stimuli. They also raise the question of whether gene variations in both ASIC1 and ASIC2 might affect fear and panic in humans.

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

4.2
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