Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
THIS WEEK IN THE JOURNAL

This Week in the Journal

Journal of Neuroscience 28 January 2004, 24 (4)
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded ImageCellular/Molecular

Glycine Receptor Activation: When Three Out of Five Is Enough

Marco Beato, Paul J. Groot-Kormelink, David Colquhoun, and Lucia G. Sivilotti (see pages 895–906)

The prototypic member of the acetylcholine receptor family, the muscle nicotinic receptor, is a heteromeric complex with five subunits but only two ligand-binding sites. However, some members of this receptor superfamily are homomeric, containing five seemingly identical binding sites. Whether activation actually requires binding of five agonist molecules in this situation is unclear. Such questions cannot be answered using classical pharmacological methods. Thus Beato et al. analyzed the single-channel activity of recombinant glycine receptors containing five α1 subunits, the principal juvenile form of this inhibitory synaptic receptor. The channels opened more efficaciously as the glycine concentration increased, but gating saturated when three glycine molecules were bound. They could not resolve whether the fourth and fifth bindings occur or are silent. The three out of five odds may be a general rule, because similar results have been suggested for homomeric GABAC and 5-HT3 channels.

Embedded ImageDevelopment/Plasticity/Repair

The Mouse Repulsive Guidance Molecule (RGM) Family

Vera Niederkofler, Rishard Salie, Markus Sigrist, and Silvia Arber (see pages 808–818)

Topographically organized axonal projections are guided by gradients of attractive and repulsive molecules, an idea first espoused by Roger Sperry to explain the pattern of retinal ganglia cell termination zones in the chick optic tectum. The search for molecules expressed in such patterns led to the Ephrins and the less-characterized chick repulsive guidance molecule (cRGM). In an effort to define an in vivo role for RGM, Niederkofler et al. have now identified three mouse homologs. Mouse RGMa (mRGMa) and mRGMb were expressed in a nonoverlapping pattern in the nervous system, whereas mRGMc was confined to skeletal muscle. Despite its expression in the superior colliculus, mRGMa is not essential for patterning of ganglion termination zones, as demonstrated by normal retinotectal mapping in mRGMa-deficient mice. Instead, one-half of the mRGMa-deficient embryos were exencephalic (they failed to close the neural tube), suggesting a more significant role in early development. The latter function appears to be a role shared with the Ephrins.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Dorsal head view of embryonic day 10.5 mice showing exencephalic phenotype in mRGMa-deficient mice (J) compared with wild-type mice (I).

Embedded ImageBehavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Painful Memories

Thomas Klein, Walter Magerl, Hanns-Christian Hopf, Jürgen Sandkühler, and Rolf-Detlef Treede (see pages 964–971)

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) are among the best-studied examples of synaptic plasticity. These lasting changes in synaptic efficacy are candidate mechanisms for learning and memory, but there is little definitive evidence linking these cellular mechanisms to human behavior. In this week's Journal, Klein et al. build on observations that high- or low-frequency electrical stimulation induces LTP- and LTD-like phenomena in spinal nociceptive pathways in animals. They focused on a behavioral correlate that is easy to evoke and measure in humans: pain. While both stimulation patterns led to a corresponding change in perception (hyperalgesia with LTP-like stimuli and hypoalgesia with LTD-like stimuli), the specific outcomes and mechanisms differed subtly. Although the underlying mechanisms may be complex, these results add to the idea that LTP-like plasticity contributes to hyperalgesia and chronic pain, whereas LTD-like plasticity may contribute to the analgesia associated with treatments such as transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) and perhaps its ancient relative, acupuncture.

Embedded ImageNeurobiology of Disease

CRE, Transcription, and HD

Karl Obrietan and Kari R. Hoyt (see pages 791–796)

The neurodegeneration in Huntington's disease (HD) has been linked to polyglutamine repeats in the huntingtin protein. The consequences of this mutation, and indeed the normal function of the protein, remain a mystery. Recently, in vitro evidence suggested that huntingtin-related intranuclear inclusions interfere with cAMP-response element (CRE)-mediated gene transcription, presumably by binding of mutant huntingtin with CREB-binding protein (CBP). However, in this issue Obrietan and Hoyt report facilitated gene transcription in an HD animal in vivo. They crossed an HD mouse with a mouse that expressed a CRE-dependent marker protein. In addition to increased CRE-mediated marker expression (notably in the striatum), the HD mice also expressed elevated amounts of phosphorylated CREB and a CREB-regulated protein. Intracellular inclusions were present in the HD mice; thus they were not sufficient to prevent transcription or translation. Why the discrepancy with previous reports? The authors wonder if high expression levels of huntingtin as used in the previous in vitro studies may allow a low-affinity interaction between CBP and huntingtin.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 24 (4)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 24, Issue 4
28 Jan 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • AbstractBrowser.pdf
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
This Week in the Journal
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
This Week in the Journal
Journal of Neuroscience 28 January 2004, 24 (4)

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
This Week in the Journal
Journal of Neuroscience 28 January 2004, 24 (4)
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Cellular/Molecular
    • Development/Plasticity/Repair
    • Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
    • Neurobiology of Disease
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • This Week in The Journal
  • This Week in The Journal
  • This Week in The Journal
Show more This Week in The Journal
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.