4.5 Article

PACEMAKER CURRENTS IN MOUSE LOCUS COERULEUS NEURONS

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 170, 期 1, 页码 166-177

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.028

关键词

electrophysiology; pacemaker currents; sodium channels; potassium channels; calcium channels; voltage clamp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have characterized the currents that flow during the interspike interval in mouse locus coeruleus (LC) neurons, by application of depolarizing ramps and pulses, and compared our results with information available for rats. A tetrodotoxin (TTX)-sensitive current was the only inward conductance active during the interspike interval; no TTX-insensitive Na+ or oscillatory currents were detected. Ca2+-free and Ba2+-containing solutions failed to demonstrate a Ca2+ current during the interspike interval, although a Ca2+ current was activated at membrane potentials positive to -40 mV. A high- tetraethylammonium chloride (TEA) (15 mM) sensitive current accounted for almost all the K+ conductance during the interspike interval. Ca2+-activated K+, inward rectifier and low-TEA (10 mu M) sensitive currents were not detected within the interspike interval. Comparison of these findings to those reported for neonatal rat LC neurons indicates that the pacemaker currents are similar, but not identical, in the two species with mice lacking a persistent Ca2+ current during the interspike interval. The net pacemaking current determined by differentiating the interspike interval from averaged action potential recordings closely matched the net ramp-induced currents obtained either under voltage clamp or after reconstructing this current from pharmacologically isolated currents. In summary, our results suggest the interspike interval pacemaker mechanism in mouse LC neurons involves a combination of a TTX-sensitive Na+ current and a high TEA-sensitive K+ current. In contrast with rats, a persistent Ca2+ current is not involved. (C) 2010 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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