Physiological release of striatal acetylcholine in vivo: modulation by D1 and D2 dopamine receptor subtypes.
Abstract
Our experiments assessed the modulation of striatal acetylcholine (ACh) output by dopamine (DA) receptor subtypes under physiological conditions using in vivo microdialysis in awake rats. The degree to which the dopaminergic modulation of striatal cholinergic neurons might vary as a function of local extracellular ACh level also was examined by application of varying concentrations of the acetylcholinesterase (AChE), inhibitor neostigmine (NEO) in the microdialysis perfusate. Under physiological conditions (O NEO), the amount of ACh in the dialysates was 25.1 +/- 2.2 fmol/20-microliters sample (n = 20) whereas values of 67.9 +/- 3.5 (n = 35) and 527.7 +/- 56.1 (n = 13) fmol/20-microliters sample were obtained when the applied NEO concentration was 10 and 100 nM, respectively. In the absence of NEO, a low dose of the indirect DA agonist amphetamine (AMPH; 2 mg/kg i.p.) failed to affect striatal ACh output; a higher AMPH dose (10 mg/kg i.p.) significantly decreased the amount of ACh in dialysates. Under physiological conditions, the direct D2-selective agonist quinpirole (3 mg/kg i.p.) decreased extracellular ACh in striatum to nondetectable levels and the direct D1-selective agonist SKF-38393 (10 mg/kg i.p.) produced a significant increase in this measure. Analysis of the changes in striatal ACh output produced by administration of these DA compounds in the absence vs. presence of local NEO revealed that 10 nM NEO did not qualitatively alter the pharmacological responsivity of this system as compared to the physiological condition. However, in the presence of 100 nM NEO, 2 mg/kg AMPH elicited a significant increase in striatal ACh output. At the 100 nM NEO concentration it also was observed that the amplitude of the quinpirole-induced inhibition of ACh efflux did not increase further in proportion to basal ACh levels whereas the amplitude of the increase in ACh output produced by SKF-38393 was linearly related to basal ACh levels across all NEO concentrations. Under conditions where cholinergic pharmacological responsivity was minimally affected (10 nM NEO), the D2 receptor antagonist haloperidol (1 mg/kg i.p.) increased striatal ACh output by 50% and the D1 receptor antagonist SCH-23390 (0.5 mg/kg i.p.) decreased this variable by 41%. Under these conditions, the inhibitory action of quinpirole on ACh output could be reversed by subsequent administration of AMPH (5 mg/kg i.p.) and this effect of AMPH could then be blocked by administration of SCH-23390. Thus, under physiological or low NEO (10 nM) conditions a prevalent D2-mediated inhibition as well as an opposing D1-mediated excitation of striatal ACh output can be demonstrated. At a higher NEO concentration (100 nM), regulation of the striatal ACh system by DA receptor subtypes is differentially affected such that the D2-mediated inhibitory influence no longer predominates over the D1-mediated excitatory drive. Caution should be exercised when interpreting ACh efflux data obtained using microdialysis under conditions of AChE inhibition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The inter-relationship between power transfer and data communication in neural implants introduces additional difficulty.
“Furthermore, the inter-relationship between power transfer and data communication in these implants introduces additional layers of difficulty.”
From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Deboer and Abercrombie, 1996
Solutions for balancing power delivery and data transmission can result in compromises such as trade-offs between implant size and power capacity or between energy efficiency and data rate.
“However, these solutions can sometimes result in compromises, such as trade-offs between the size of the implant and its power capacity or between the energy efficiency and the data rate (Santiago and Westerink, 1990; Deboer and Abercrombie, 1996; Jaquins-Gerstl and Michael, 2009; Kozai et al., 2012).”
From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Deboer and Abercrombie, 1996
Smaller devices, like carbon fiber electrodes, show reduced tissue damage and inflammatory responses while maintaining better signal quality.
“Conversely, smaller devices, like carbon fiber electrodes, show reduced tissue damage and inflammatory responses while maintaining better signal quality (Santiago and Westerink, 1990; Deboer and Abercrombie, 1996).”
From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Deboer and Abercrombie, 1996
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brain Tissue Responses to Neural Implants Impact Signal Sensitivity and Intervention Strategies
Kozai, T. D. Y., Jaquins-Gerstl, A. S., Vazquez, A. L., Michael, A. C., & Cui, X. T. (2015) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/cn500256e · Cited by 622 · see citing works
Coincident but Distinct Messages of Midbrain Dopamine and Striatal Tonically Active Neurons
Morris, G., Arkadir, D., Nevet, A., Vaadia, E., & Bergman, H. (2004) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.06.012 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Multiphasic modulation of cholinergic interneurons by nigrostriatal afferents
Straub, C., Tritsch, N. X., Hagan, N. A., Gu, C., & Sabatini, B. L. (2014) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0589-14.2014 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
The role of quantitative electroencephalography in child and adolescent psychiatric disorders
Chabot, R. J., di Michele, F., & Prichep, L. (2005) · Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.chc.2004.07.005 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants
Miziev, S., Pawlak, W. A., & Howard, N. (2024) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1320441 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- DeBoer, P., & Abercrombie, E. D.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 277
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 775-783
- ISSN
- 0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165928147
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01da008086-05)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 08086)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 19608)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
- Keywords
- striatum, acetylcholine release, dopamine receptor subtypes, dopamine D1 receptor, dopamine D2 receptor, cholinergic neurons, neostigmine, acetylcholinesterase inhibition, quinpirole, SKF 38393, amphetamine, in vivo microdialysis
- MeSH terms
- Acetylcholine, Animals, Corpus Striatum, Ergolines, Haloperidol, Male, Neostigmine, 2,3,4,5-Tetrahydro-7,8-dihydroxy-1-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepine, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Receptors, Dopamine D1, Receptors, Dopamine D2, Quinpirole, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review