4.6 Article

Lesions of the Basal Forebrain Cholinergic System in Mice Disrupt Idiothetic Navigation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053472

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [569507, 569886, 569601]
  2. Mason Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of integrity of the basal forebrain cholinergic neurons is a consistent feature of Alzheimer's disease, and measurement of basal forebrain degeneration by magnetic resonance imaging is emerging as a sensitive diagnostic marker for prodromal disease. It is also known that Alzheimer's disease patients perform poorly on both real space and computerized cued (allothetic) or uncued (idiothetic) recall navigation tasks. Although the hippocampus is required for allothetic navigation, lesions of this region only mildly affect idiothetic navigation. Here we tested the hypothesis that the cholinergic medial septo-hippocampal circuit is important for idiothetic navigation. Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons were selectively lesioned in mice using the toxin saporin conjugated to a basal forebrain cholinergic neuronal marker, the p75 neurotrophin receptor. Control animals were able to learn and remember spatial information when tested on a modified version of the passive place avoidance test where all extramaze cues were removed, and animals had to rely on idiothetic signals. However, the exploratory behaviour of mice with cholinergic basal forebrain lesions was highly disorganized during this test. By contrast, the lesioned animals performed no differently from controls in tasks involving contextual fear conditioning and spatial working memory (Y maze), and displayed no deficits in potentially confounding behaviours such as motor performance, anxiety, or disturbed sleep/wake cycles. These data suggest that the basal forebrain cholinergic system plays a specific role in idiothetic navigation, a modality that is impaired early in Alzheimer's disease.

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

4.6
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