Distinct rat neurohypophysial nerve terminal populations identified by size, electrophysiological properties and neuropeptide content

Oxytocin-induced elevation of ADP-ribosyl cyclase activity, cyclic ADP-riboseor Ca2+ concentrations is involved in autoregulation of oxytocin secretionin the hypothalamus and posterior pituitary in male mice

“…Isolated never terminals were prepared from ICR male mice as previously described (OuYang et al, 2004;Sasaki et al, 2005). Briefly, the posterior pituitary lobes were carefully removed and incubated in normal Locke's solution containing (in mM): NaCl, 140; KCl, 5; MgCl 2 , 1.2; CaCl 2, 2.2; glucose, 10; HEPES, 10; BSA, 0.1%, adjusted to pH 7.25 with Tris-HCl.…”

Identification of the neuropeptide content of individual rat neurohypophysial terminals

“…This was also true for fractions of the bovine posterior pituitary in which the AVP/OT ratio increased from the lightest to the densest fractions indicating that AVP neurosecretosomes were larger than OT neurosecretosomes (Bindler et al, 1967). However, a recent report identified rat NHTs by the immunoblot method (Wang et al, 1991) and found that OTpositive and colabeled terminals were larger than AVP-positive terminals (OuYang et al, 2004). This discrepancy could be due to the method's detection sensitivity and/or the limitation in the size of the terminals identified with the immunoblot method, even though this was similar to the size of terminals identified with the ELISA in the present study.…”

Multiple cytosolic calcium buffers in posterior pituitary nerve terminals

“…Our results suggest that cytosolic buffer content is also heterogeneous. Posterior pituitary nerve terminals have also been distinguished on the basis of volume, electrophysiologic properties, and presence of other neuropeptides ( Bondy et al, 1989 ; OuYang et al, 2004 ). The nerve terminals with only low-affinity buffer had a mean volume of 1,730 ± 570 µm 3 , compared with 1,390 ± 230 µm 3 for terminals with both buffer components; however, this difference was not statistically significant.…”