Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
A pharmacological and genetic blockade of the dopamine D3 receptor (D3R) has shown to be neuroprotective in models of Parkinson's disease (PD). The anxiolytic drug buspirone, a serotonin receptor 1A agonist, also functions as a potent D3R antagonist. To test if buspirone elicited neuroprotective activities, C57BL/6 mice were subjected to rotenone treatment (10mg/kg i.p for 21 days) to induce PD-like pathology and were co-treated with increasing dosages of buspirone (1, 3, or 10 mg/kg i.p.) to determine if the drug could prevent rotenone-induced damage to the central nervous system (CNS). We found that high dosages of buspirone prevented the behavioural deficits caused by rotenone in the open field test. Molecular and histological analyses confirmed that 10 mg/kg of buspirone prevented the degeneration of TH-positive neurons. Buspirone attenuated the induction of interleukin-1β and interleukin-6 expression by rotenone, and this was paralleled by the upregulation of arginase-1, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and activity-dependent neuroprotective protein (ADNP) in the midbrain, striatum, prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus. Buspirone treatment also improved mitochondrial function and antioxidant activities. Lastly, the drug prevented the disruptions in the expression of two neuroprotective peptides, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP). These results pinpoint the neuroprotective efficacy of buspirone against rotenone toxicity, suggesting its potential use as a therapeutic agent in neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases, such as PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.