4.7 Article

Early Development of Electrical Excitability in the Mouse Enteric Nervous System

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 32, 期 32, 页码 10949-10960

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1426-12.2012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0878755]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0878755] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural activity is integral to the development of the enteric nervous system (ENS). A subpopulation of neural crest-derived cells expresses pan-neuronal markers at early stages of ENS development (at E10.5 in the mouse). However, the electrical activity of these cells has not been previously characterized, and it is not known whether all cells expressing neuronal markers are capable of firing action potentials (APs). In this study, we examined the activity of neuron-like cells (expressing pan-neuronal markers or with neuronal morphology) in the gut of E11.5 and E12.5 mice using whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology and compared them to the activity of neonatal and adult enteric neurons. Around 30-40% of neuron-like cells at E11.5 and E12.5 fired APs, some of which were very similar to those of adult enteric neurons. All APs were sensitive to tetrodotoxin (TTX), indicating that they were driven by voltage-gated Na+ currents. Expression of mRNA encoding several voltage-gated Na+ channels by the E11.5 gut was detected using RT-PCR. The density of voltage-gated Na+ currents increased from E11.5 to neonates. Immature active responses, mediated in part by TTX- and lidocaine-insensitive channels, were observed in most cells at E11.5 and E12.5, but not in P0/P1 or adult neurons. However, some cells expressing neuronal markers at E11.5 or E12.5 did not exhibit an active response to depolarization. Spontaneous depolarizations resembling excitatory postsynaptic potentials were observed at E12.5. The ENS is one of the earliest parts of the developing nervous system to exhibit mature forms of electrical activity.

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