Premium
Distribution of the voltage‐dependent calcium channel α 1G subunit mRNA and protein throughout the mature rat brain
Author(s) -
Craig P. J.,
Beattie R. E.,
Folly E. A.,
Reeves M. B.,
Priestley J. V.,
Carney S. L.,
Sher E.,
PerezReyes E.,
Volsen S. G.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
european journal of neuroscience
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.346
H-Index - 206
eISSN - 1460-9568
pISSN - 0953-816X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00711.x
Subject(s) - riboprobe , in situ hybridization , messenger rna , protein subunit , biology , voltage dependent calcium channel , calcium channel , microbiology and biotechnology , gene expression , immunohistochemistry , neuroscience , calcium , chemistry , gene , biochemistry , immunology , organic chemistry
The molecular identity of a gene which encodes the pore‐forming subunit (α 1G ) of a member of the family of low‐voltage‐activated, T‐type, voltage‐dependent calcium channels has been described recently. Although northern mRNA analyses have shown α 1G to be expressed predominantly in the brain, the detailed cellular distribution of this protein in the central nervous system (CNS) has not yet been reported. The current study describes the preparation of a subunit specific α 1G riboprobe and antiserum which have been used in parallel in situ mRNA hybridization and immunohistochemical studies to localize α 1G in the mature rat brain. Both α 1G mRNA and protein were widely distributed throughout the brain, but variations were observed in the relative level of expression in discrete nuclei. Immunoreactivity for α 1G was typically localized in both the soma and dendrites of many neurons. Whilst α 1G protein and mRNA expression were often observed in cells known to exhibit T‐type current activity, some was also noted in regions, e.g. cerebellar granule cells, in which T‐type activity has not been described. These observations may reflect differences between the subcellular distribution of channels that can be identified by immunohistochemical methods compared with electrophysiological techniques.