Erica R Hendrikse1, Tayla A Rees1, Zoe Tasma1, Christelle Le Foll2, Thomas A Lutz2, Andrew Siow1,3, Peter J Wookey4, Christopher S Walker1,5, Debbie L Hay5,6. 1. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Institute of Veterinary Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. School of Chemical Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Department of Medicine-Austin, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia. 5. Maurice Wilkins Centre for Molecular Biodiscovery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Therapeutics that reduce calcitonin gene-related peptide activity are effective migraine treatments. However, gaps remain in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms that link calcitonin gene-related peptide to migraine. The amylin 1 receptor responds potently to calcitonin gene-related peptide, and to the related peptide amylin, but its role in relation to either peptide or to migraine is unclear. We sought to better understand the expression of the amylin 1 receptor protein subunit, the calcitonin receptor, in the rodent brain. METHODS: We profiled three antibodies for immunodetection of calcitonin receptor, using immunocytochemistry, western blotting, and calcitonin receptor conditional knockout mouse tissue. Selected migraine-relevant rat brain regions were then examined for calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity. RESULTS: All three antibodies detected calcitonin receptor protein but only one (188/10) produced robust immunostaining in rodent brain, under the conditions used. Calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity was apparent in the rat brainstem and midbrain including the locus coeruleus, periaqueductal grey and spinal trigeminal nucleus. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-calcitonin receptor antibodies require comprehensive profiling to ensure confidence in the detection of calcitonin receptor. Using a validated antibody, calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity was detected in several brain regions relevant to migraine. Further research is needed to understand the functional consequences of calcitonin receptor expression for calcitonin gene-related peptide or amylin physiology and pathophysiology.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Therapeutics that reduce calcitonin gene-related peptide activity are effective migraine treatments. However, gaps remain in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms that link calcitonin gene-related peptide to migraine. The amylin 1 receptor responds potently to calcitonin gene-related peptide, and to the related peptide amylin, but its role in relation to either peptide or to migraine is unclear. We sought to better understand the expression of the amylin 1 receptor protein subunit, the calcitonin receptor, in the rodent brain. METHODS: We profiled three antibodies for immunodetection of calcitonin receptor, using immunocytochemistry, western blotting, and calcitonin receptor conditional knockout mouse tissue. Selected migraine-relevant rat brain regions were then examined for calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity. RESULTS: All three antibodies detected calcitonin receptor protein but only one (188/10) produced robust immunostaining in rodent brain, under the conditions used. Calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity was apparent in the rat brainstem and midbrain including the locus coeruleus, periaqueductal grey and spinal trigeminal nucleus. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-calcitonin receptor antibodies require comprehensive profiling to ensure confidence in the detection of calcitonin receptor. Using a validated antibody, calcitonin receptor-like immunoreactivity was detected in several brain regions relevant to migraine. Further research is needed to understand the functional consequences of calcitonin receptor expression for calcitonin gene-related peptide or amylin physiology and pathophysiology.
Entities:
Keywords:
AMY1; CGRP; G protein-coupled receptor; amylin; migraine; pain
Authors: Claudia G Liberini; Christina N Boyle; Carlo Cifani; Marco Venniro; Bruce T Hope; Thomas A Lutz Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Mathias Uhlen; Anita Bandrowski; Steven Carr; Aled Edwards; Jan Ellenberg; Emma Lundberg; David L Rimm; Henry Rodriguez; Tara Hiltke; Michael Snyder; Tadashi Yamamoto Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Johannes Keller; Philip Catala-Lehnen; Antje K Huebner; Anke Jeschke; Timo Heckt; Anja Lueth; Matthias Krause; Till Koehne; Joachim Albers; Jochen Schulze; Sarah Schilling; Michael Haberland; Hannah Denninger; Mona Neven; Irm Hermans-Borgmeyer; Thomas Streichert; Stefan Breer; Florian Barvencik; Bodo Levkau; Birgit Rathkolb; Eckhard Wolf; Julia Calzada-Wack; Frauke Neff; Valerie Gailus-Durner; Helmut Fuchs; Martin Hrabĕ de Angelis; Susanne Klutmann; Elena Tsourdi; Lorenz C Hofbauer; Burkhard Kleuser; Jerold Chun; Thorsten Schinke; Michael Amling Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Nathalie Percie du Sert; Viki Hurst; Amrita Ahluwalia; Sabina Alam; Marc T Avey; Monya Baker; William J Browne; Alejandra Clark; Innes C Cuthill; Ulrich Dirnagl; Michael Emerson; Paul Garner; Stephen T Holgate; David W Howells; Natasha A Karp; Stanley E Lazic; Katie Lidster; Catriona J MacCallum; Malcolm Macleod; Esther J Pearl; Ole H Petersen; Frances Rawle; Penny Reynolds; Kieron Rooney; Emily S Sena; Shai D Silberberg; Thomas Steckler; Hanno Würbel Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Tayla A Rees; Andrew F Russo; Simon J O'Carroll; Debbie L Hay; Christopher S Walker Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.755