Danks J A, Rothman R B, Cascieri M A, Chicchi G G, Liang T, Herkenham M
Brain Res. 1986 Oct 22;385(2):273-81. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(86)91073-5.
The relative potencies of tachykinin peptide analogs competing for binding of [125I]Bolton Hunter-conjugated substance P ([125I]BH-SP) or [125I]Bolton Hunter-conjugated eledoisin ([125I]BH-ED) in slide-mounted rat brain sections are very different, indicating the presence of two distinct tachykinin binding sites. The structure-activity profiles resemble those described in peripheral bioassay studies in which two tachykinin receptors have been postulated. Autoradiography of the two iodinated ligands bound with selective and one-site in vitro incubation conditions shows two discrete and distinctly different distribution patterns in brain. Binding sites for [125I]BH-ED are densely distributed in the accessory olfactory bulb, intermediate layers of the cerebral neocortex, portions of the hippocampal CA fields, hypothalamic supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei, central portions of the interpeduncular nucleus, sphenoid nucleus, medial subdivision of the solitary tract complex, and the substantia gelatinosa of the spinal cord. Binding sites for [125I]BH-SP are present in many of these same structures, but the densities and distribution patterns are different. In addition, [125I]BH-SP binds in numerous structures not labeled by [125I]BH-ED. Neither pattern matches the locations of terminations of endogenous tachykinin pathways marked by immunohistochemistry. The results suggest that it would be inappropriate to name brain tachykinin receptors according to the endogenous ligand which binds with highest affinity.
速激肽肽类似物在载玻片上的大鼠脑切片中竞争结合[125I]博尔顿·亨特偶联的P物质([125I]BH-SP)或[125I]博尔顿·亨特偶联的eledoisin([125I]BH-ED)时,其相对效价差异很大,这表明存在两种不同的速激肽结合位点。结构-活性谱类似于外周生物测定研究中所描述的情况,在该研究中已假定存在两种速激肽受体。在选择性和单点体外孵育条件下结合的两种碘化配体的放射自显影显示,脑中存在两种离散且明显不同的分布模式。[125I]BH-ED的结合位点密集分布在副嗅球、大脑新皮质中间层、海马CA区部分、下丘脑视上核和室旁核、脚间核中央部分、蝶骨核、孤束复合体内侧亚群以及脊髓的胶状质中。[125I]BH-SP的结合位点存在于许多相同的结构中,但密度和分布模式不同。此外,[125I]BH-SP在许多未被[125I]BH-ED标记的结构中也有结合。这两种模式均与免疫组织化学标记的内源性速激肽通路的终末位置不匹配。结果表明,根据具有最高亲和力的内源性配体来命名脑速激肽受体是不合适的。