Hölscher Christian
Faculty of Biology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Tübingen University, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Eur J Pharmacol. 2002 Dec 20;457(2-3):99-106. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(02)02641-9.
Nitric oxide is presumed to play important roles in the induction of synaptic plasticity and learning. Previous publications, however, reported contradictory results. Block of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) has been shown to impair the induction of long-term potentiation of synaptic transmission in some studies. Other studies observed a partial block of long-term potentiation depending on experimental conditions, while yet other studies did not find an effect of NOS inhibitors under any conditions tested. Some reasons for these differences had been identified, e.g. the temperature of the slice buffer, the age of the animals, and the specific stimulation protocols used. Still, even when taking these parameters into account, not all results can be explained. The present study compares three strains of rats and observes large differences in sensitivity to nitric oxide synthase (NOS) blockers on the induction of long-term potentiation. While Wistar rats showed an almost complete block of long-term potentiation when using the NOS inhibitors 7-nitro-indazole (30 mg/kg ip) or 1-(2-trifluoromethylphenyl) imidazole (TRIM; 150 nmol/5 microl icv), 117+/-5 S.E.M. of % of baseline slope values of excitatory postsynaptic potentials. Sprague-Dawley and Long-Evans rats showed no or only weak effects of drugs on the induction of long-term potentiation (166+/-17 S.E.M. of % of baseline slopes in Sprague-Dawley rats, 173+/-24 S.E.M. of % of baseline values in Long-Evans rats). The results could explain at least some of the discrepancies of the efficacy of NOS inhibitors on synaptic plasticity that is found in the literature. Such large strain differences suggest that results from studies that use laboratory rats could have strain-dependent components and should be generalised cautiously.
一氧化氮被认为在突触可塑性的诱导和学习过程中发挥重要作用。然而,以往的研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。在一些研究中,一氧化氮合酶(NOS)的阻断已被证明会损害突触传递长期增强的诱导。其他研究则观察到,根据实验条件,长期增强存在部分阻断,而还有其他研究在任何测试条件下都未发现NOS抑制剂有作用。这些差异的一些原因已被确定,例如切片缓冲液的温度、动物的年龄以及所使用的特定刺激方案。即便如此,即使考虑到这些参数,也并非所有结果都能得到解释。本研究比较了三种品系的大鼠,并观察到它们在对一氧化氮合酶(NOS)阻断剂诱导长期增强的敏感性上存在巨大差异。当使用NOS抑制剂7-硝基吲唑(30毫克/千克腹腔注射)或1-(2-三氟甲基苯基)咪唑(TRIM;150纳摩尔/5微升脑室内注射)时,Wistar大鼠的兴奋性突触后电位基线斜率值的长期增强几乎完全被阻断,为117±5标准误(%)。Sprague-Dawley大鼠和Long-Evans大鼠显示药物对长期增强的诱导没有或只有微弱影响(Sprague-Dawley大鼠基线斜率的166±17标准误(%),Long-Evans大鼠基线值的173±24标准误(%))。这些结果至少可以解释文献中发现的NOS抑制剂对突触可塑性作用效果的一些差异。如此大的品系差异表明,使用实验大鼠的研究结果可能具有品系依赖性成分,应谨慎推广。