| Literature DB >> 19116032 |
Jang-Su Park1, Myron Yaster, Xiaowei Guan, Ji-Tian Xu, Ming-Hung Shih, Yun Guan, Srinivasa N Raja, Yuan-Xiang Tao.
Abstract
Spinal cord alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPARs) mediate acute spinal processing of nociceptive and non-nociceptive information, but whether and how their activation contributes to the central sensitization that underlies persistent inflammatory pain are still unclear. Here, we examined the role of spinal AMPARs in the development and maintenance of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA)-induced persistent inflammatory pain. Intrathecal application of two selective non-competitive AMPAR antagonists, CFM-2 (25 and 50 microg) and GYKI 52466 (50 microg), significantly attenuated mechanical and thermal hypersensitivities on the ipsilateral hind paw at 2 and 24 h post-CFA injection. Neither CFM-2 nor GYKI 52466 affected the contralateral basal responses to thermal and mechanical stimuli. Locomotor activity was not altered in any of the drug-treated animals. CFA-induced inflammation did not change total expression or distribution of AMPAR subunits GluR1 and GluR2 in dorsal horn but did alter their subcellular distribution. The amount of GluR2 was markedly increased in the crude cytosolic fraction and decreased in the crude membrane fraction from the ipsilateral L4-5 dorsal horn at 24 h (but not at 2 h) post-CFA injection. Conversely, the level of GluR1 was significantly decreased in the crude cytosolic fraction and increased in the crude membrane fraction from the ipsilateral L4-5 dorsal horn at 24 h (but not at 2 h) post-CFA injection. These findings suggest that spinal AMPARs might participate in the central spinal mechanism of persistent inflammatory pain.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19116032 PMCID: PMC2628655 DOI: 10.1186/1744-8069-4-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Pain ISSN: 1744-8069 Impact factor: 3.395
Figure 1Effect of intrathecal injection of CFM-2 (5, 25, and 50 μg) on the paw withdrawal responses to mechanical (A and B) and thermal (C and D) stimuli on the ipsilateral (A and C) and contralateral (B and D) sides at 2 and 24 h after intraplantar CFA injection. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. n = 6 rats/dose/test, except n = 7 for the vehicle-treated group. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 vs the corresponding vehicle-treated group.
Figure 2Effects of intrathecal injection of GYKI 52466 (50 μg, . Data are presented as mean ± SEM. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01 vs the corresponding vehicle-treated group.
Effect of selective and non-selective AMPA receptor antagonists on locomotor functions
| Treated group | Placing | Grasping | Righting |
| Saline | 5 (0) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) |
| DMSO (10%) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) |
| CNQX (6.1 μg) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) |
| CFM-2 (50 μg) | 5 (0) | 4.8 (0.45) | 5 (0) |
| GYKI 52466 (50 μg) | 4.6 (0.25) | 5 (0) | 5 (0) |
Mean (SE), n = 5, 5 trials
Figure 3Expression and distribution of total GluR1 and GluR2 in spinal cord dorsal horn. A and B: Top: representative Western blots showing GluR1 protein (A) and GluR2 protein (B) in total soluble fraction derived from the ipsilateral and contralateral L4–5 dorsal horns of naïve rats (n = 4) and the rats at 2 and 24 h post-saline (S; n = 4/time point) or post-CFA injection (C; n = 4/time point). Bottom: statistical summary of the densitometric analysis expressed relative to the corresponding loading control (β-actin). C: Representative photographs showing the distribution of GluR1 immunoreactive cells (arrow heads) in lamina V and of GluR2 immunoreactive cells (arrows) in laminae II-III. Scale bar: 20 μm. D and E: Representative photographs showing distribution of GluR1 (D) and GluR2 (E) immunoreactivity in the ipsilateral and contralateral L4 dorsal horns at 2 and 24 h post-CFA injection. Scale bar: 200 μm. F: Statistical summary of the optical density of GluR1 and GluR2 immunoreactivity in the ipsilateral and contralateral L4–5 dorsal horns at 2 and 24 h post-saline (n = 3/time point) or post-CFA (n = 3/time point) injection. N: naïve (n = 3). Data are presented as mean ± SEM.
Figure 4The relative levels of GluR2 (A and B) and GluR1 (C and D) in the crude cytosolic (A and C) and plasma membrane fractions (B and D) from the ipsilateral L. Naïve rats (n = 4–8) were used as a control group. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. n = 4–8 rats/treatment. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 vs the corresponding naïve group. E: The specificity of the fractionation procedure. Top: representative Western blots showing the expression of N-cadherin, PSD-95, and β-actin in total soluble fraction, plasma membrane fraction, and cytosolic fraction from L4–5 dorsal horns of naïve rats (n = 3). Bottom: statistical summary of the densitometric analysis expressed relative to the corresponding protein levels in the total soluble fraction.