The study demonstrates that topographically segregated regions within the rat parabrachial nucleus receive diverse cardiovascular inputs, particularly from baroreceptors and systemic angiotensin II.
Provides segregated parabrachial targets for cardiovascular integration in rodents; leaves open translation to human baroreflex or angiotensin pathways.
The rat pontine parabrachial nucleus is a prominent recipient of autonomic-related information from the more caudal levels of the neuraxis. The present experiments examined the responsiveness of neurons within the parabrachial nucleus to the following three specific cardiovascular stimuli: the activation of peripheral arterial baroreceptors, right atrial stretch receptors, and the administration of systemic angiotensin (ANG) II. Extracellular recordings in urethan-anesthetized animals indicate the presence of cells, mostly within the lateral parabrachial nucleus, that increase (17.5%, 28 of 160 cells) and decrease (48.1%, 77 of 160 cells) their excitability consequent to baroreceptor activation. A similar profile of alteration in cellular firing rates was observed with intravenous ANG II (increase in 15.8%, 16 of 101 cells; decrease in 28.7%, 29 of 101 cells). In contrast, fewer neurons located within the medial parabrachial and the Kölliker-Fuse nuclei were activated by these stimuli. A majority of cells (80%, n = 15) displayed a lack of response to right atrial stretch receptor activation. Of ANG II-sensitive lateral parabrachial cells, 23% (n = 43) revealed an alteration in excitability that could not be explained on the basis of a response to elevation in blood pressure. It is possible that this group of cells may be activated by the actions of systemic ANG II on neurons of the area postrema, a circumventricular structure, whose central projections are directed toward the parabrachial nucleus. These findings also support the notion of a diversity of cardiovascular inputs to topographically segregated regions within the parabrachial nucleus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jhamandas et al. (1991) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: