PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 2, 2008Journal of Neuroscience59 citationsOpen Access

Endogenous Glutamatergic Control of Rhythmically Active Mammalian Respiratory Motoneurons In Vivo

HSHendrik W. SteenlandHLH. LiuRHRichard L. Horner

Key Result

In freely behaving rats, NMDA receptor antagonism decreased respiratory-related genioglossus activity during active wakefulness and NREM sleep, whereas non-NMDA receptor antagonism had no effect, contrasting with significant contributions from both receptors under anesthesia.

Structured PICO

P
Population
27 male Wistar rats implanted with electrodes and microdialysis probes to study respiratory motoneuron control across sleep-wake states and under anesthesia.
I
Intervention
Microdialysis perfusion of NMDA receptor antagonist (D-APV), non-NMDA receptor antagonist (CNQX), or glutamate uptake inhibitor (dihydrokainate [DHK]) into the hypoglossal motor nucleus (HMN)
C
Comparator
Control perfusion of artificial CSF (ACSF) into the HMN in the same animals
O
Outcome
Respiratory-related and tonic genioglossus muscle activity across sleep-wake states and under anesthesiasurrogate

Glutamatergic respiratory drive to hypoglossal motoneurons is prominent under anesthesia but low in the behaving organism, where glutamate primarily modulates tonic motor tone.

Main Result

p-value: p=<0.03

Limitations

  • Transient genioglossal motor activations in active wakefulness and REM sleep may not be purely respiratory.
  • Anesthesia significantly alters the magnitude of respiratory-related hypoglossal motor activity compared to conscious states.

Abstract

The transmission of rhythmic drive to respiratory motoneurons in vitro is critically dependent on glutamate acting primarily on non-NMDA receptors. We determined whether both non-NMDA and NMDA receptors contribute to respiratory drive transmission at respiratory motoneurons in the intact organism, both in the state of anesthesia and in the same animals during natural behaviors. Twenty-seven rats were implanted with electroencephalogram and neck electrodes to record sleep-wake states and genioglossus and diaphragm electrodes for respiratory muscle recordings. Microdialysis probes were inserted into the hypoglossal motor nucleus (HMN). Under anesthesia, non-NMDA or NMDA receptor antagonism significantly decreased respiratory-related genioglossus activity, indicating a contribution of each receptor to respiratory drive transmission at the HMN. However, despite the presence of respiratory-related genioglossus activity in the same rats across sleep-wake states, neither non-NMDA receptor antagonism at the HMN nor glutamate uptake inhibition had any effect on respiratory-related genioglossus activity. These results showed that, compared with anesthesia, respiratory drive transmission through the non-NMDA receptor is low in the behaving organism. In contrast, glutamate uptake inhibition increased tonic genioglossus activity in wakefulness and non-rapid-eye-movement sleep, indicating a functional endogenous glutamatergic modulation of tonic, but not respiratory, motor tone. Such an effect on tonic drive may contribute to the suppression of both tonic and respiratory-related genioglossus activity in wakefulness and sleep with NMDA receptor antagonism at the HMN. These data do not refute previous identification of a glutamatergic (mostly non-NMDA receptor activating) respiratory drive to hypoglossal motoneurons, but this mechanism is more prominent in anesthetized or in vitro preparations.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Steenland et al. (2008) studied Healthy (animal model) (n=27). Glutamate receptor antagonists (D-APV, CNQX) and reuptake inhibitor (DHK) vs. Artificial CSF (ACSF) was evaluated on Amplitude of respiratory-related genioglossus muscle activity (p=<0.03). In freely behaving rats, NMDA receptor antagonism decreased respiratory-related genioglossus activity during active wakefulness and NREM sleep, whereas non-NMDA receptor antagonism had no effect, contrasting with significant contributions from both receptors under anesthesia.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a870ad2cbde9db34bcb93echttps://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1019-08.2008
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper