c-Fos expression within the L_5 spinal cord dorsal horn after spinal nerve ligation in rats Is intraplantar administration of glutamate different from intrathecal administration?

BACKGROUND： Injection of glutamate （Glu） in normal animals can cause neuronal c-Fos expression; however, whether Glu can induce spinal neuronal c-Fos expression in pain models is unclear. OBJECTIVE： To examine the effects of intraplantar and intrathecal injection of Glu on c-Fos expression in the L5 spinal cord dorsal horn Ⅰ/Ⅱ and Ⅲ/Ⅳ layers after spinal nerve ligation, and to study the effects of the N-methyI-D-aspartic acid （NMDA） receptor antagonist, D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoate （D-AP5）, and a selective group I mGluR antagonist, 7-hydroyiminocyclo propan[a]chromen-lacarboxylic acid ethyl ester （cpccoEt）. DESIGN, TIME AND SETTING： A randomized, controlled animal study was performed at the Department of Pharmacology, Oral Anatomy, and Neurobiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, from December 2005 to December 2006. MATERIALS： Glu （5 μmol）, D-AP5 （50 nmot） and cpccoEt （250 nmol） were provided by Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan, and diluted in saline （50 μL）. The pH of all solutions was adjusted to 7.4. METHODS： Twelve rats were randomly divided into sham operation （n = 6） and spinal nerve ligation （SNL; n = 6） groups for behavioral assessments of neuropathic pain after ligation surgery of the left L5-6 nerve segment. Another 60 rats were randomly divided into sham operation, SNL, saline-intraplantar, saline-intrathecal, Glu-intraplantar, Glu-intrathecal, D-AP5-intrathecal, Glu-D-AP5-intrathecal, cpccoEt-intrathecal, and Glu-cpccoEt-intrathecal groups, with 6 rats in each group. All groups except sham operation group received a similar SNL. On day 14, rats received a 50-μL injection of saline, Glu, D-AP5, and/or cpccoEt into the left intraplantar or intrathecal L5-4 segments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： The number of c-Fos positive neurons in both Ⅰ/Ⅱ and Ⅲ/Ⅳ spinal layers at L6 was observed using immunohistochemistry 2 hours after administration. RESULTS： （1） SNL increased the level of c-Fos expression in two sides of the spinal cord, particularly on Ⅲ/Ⅳ spinal layers of the ligated side. （2） Intraplantar or intrathecal administration of saline significantly increased the c-Fos labeled neurons in Ⅰ/Ⅱ spinal layers of the ligated side, compared with SNL alone （P 〈 0.01）. （3） Intraplantar Glu （5 μmol） increased the number of c-Fos positive neurons in Ⅰ/Ⅱ spinal layers compared with intraplantar saline （P〈 0.01）. （4） The number of c-Fos neurons in Ⅰ/Ⅱ spinal layers on both the ipsilateral and contralateral side after intraplantar Glu was lower than intrathecal Glu （P〈 0.01）, with a 3-fold higher induction by intrathecal Glu. （5） Co-administration of D-AP5 or cpccoEt reduced the effects of intrathecal Glu （P 〈 0.01）. CONCLUSION： Intrathecal Glu increases c-Fos expression more than intraplantar Glu. Antagonists of NMDA and group I mGluRs block this effect.

Mechanisms of antinociceptive effects of ouabain in combination with neostigmine in the rat

BACKGROUND： It has been previously shown that intrathecal administration of either ouabain or neosdgmine can produce antinociceptive effects. Moreover, ouabain and neostigmine are differently associated with acetylcholine. OBJECTIVE： It has been hypothesized that intrathecal administration of ouabain, in combination with neostigmine, can produce antinociceptive synergistic effects. Atropine, as a competitive antagonist, was pre-injected to verify the mechanisms of action. DESIGN, TIME AND SETTING： This study was a randomized, controlled, animal experiment, performed at the State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China between May 2006 and February 2007. MATERIALS： A total of 102 healthy, adult, Sprague Dawley rats were included. Ouabain and neostigmine （Sigma, USA）, as well as atropine （Tanabe Seiyaku, Japan）, were also used. METHODS： Varied doses of ouabain, neostigmine, and a combination of the two were intrathecally injected into rats. Six rats were allotted for each dose group. Intrathecal pretreatment with atropine was tested 10 minutes prior to intrathecal administration of neostigmine or the combination of ouabain and neostigmine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： Tail-flick tests were performed to measure tail-flick latency （seconds） prior to and after administration. The response in the tail-flick test was expressed as the percentage of maximum possible effect （% MPE）, where % MPE = [tail-flick latency after administration （seconds） -mean baseline value for tail-flick latency]/[ 10 seconds - the mean baseline value for tail-flick latency （seconds）] x 100%. RESULTS： Rat spinal intrathecal administration of either ouabain or neostigmine alone produced antinociceptive effects in a dose-dependent manner. Intrathecally administration of neostigmine （0.05, 0.1, 0.3 μg ） in combination with ouabain （1 μ g ） produced enhanced antinociceptive effects, with a % MPE of 29%, 78%, and 95%, respectively （P 〈 0.05）. Intrathecally administration of 0.3μg neostigmine （% MPE： 45%）, in combination with 1 μ g ouabain （% MPE： 27%） produced potent antinociceptive effects （% MPE： 95%）. Intrathecally pre-injected atropine antagonized the antinociceptive effects of neostigmine （3 μg）, or a combination of ouabain （1 μg） and neostigmine （0.3 μg） （P 〈 0.01）. CONCLUSION： Rat spinal intrathecal administration of either ouabain or neostigmine alone produced dose-dependent andnociceptive effects. Ouabain enhanced the antinociceptive effects of neostigmine. Atropine antagonized the antinociceptive effects of neostigmine or the combination of ouabain and neostigmine. This occurs possibly due to the fact that atropine is a competitive antagonist of the muscarinic acetylcboline receptors.