4.6 Article

Drosophila Ryanodine Receptors Mediate General Anesthesia by Halothane

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 118, 期 3, 页码 587-601

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827e52c6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health, Division of Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although in vitro studies have identified numerous possible targets, the molecules that mediate the in vivo effects of volatile anesthetics remain largely unknown. The mammalian ryanodine receptor (Ryr) is a known halothane target, and the authors hypothesized that it has a central role in anesthesia. Methods: Gene function of the Drosophila Ryr (dRyr) was manipulated in the whole body or in specific tissues using a collection of mutants and transgenes, and responses to halothane were measured with a reactive climbing assay. Cellular responses to halothane were studied using Ca2+ imaging and patch clamp electrophysiology. Results: Halothane potency strongly correlates with dRyr gene copy number, and missense mutations in regions known to be functionally important in the mammalian Ryrs gene cause dominant hypersensitivity. Tissue-specific manipulation of dRyr shows that expression in neurons and glia, but not muscle, mediates halothane sensitivity. In cultured cells, halothane-induced Ca2+ efflux is strictly dRyr-dependent, suggesting a close interaction between halothane and dRyr. Ca2+ imaging and electrophysiology of Drosophila central neurons reveal halothane-induced Ca2+ flux that is altered in dRyr mutants and correlates with strong hyperpolarization. Conclusions: In Drosophila, neurally expressed dRyr mediates a substantial proportion of the anesthetic effects of halothane in vivo, is potently activated by halothane in vitro, and activates an inhibitory conductance. The authors' results provide support for Ryr as an important mediator of immobilization by volatile anesthetics.

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