AIMS: Pain depresses expression of many behaviors, and one goal of analgesic treatment is to restore pain-depressed behaviors. Assays that focus on pain-depressed behaviors may contribute to preclinical assessment of candidate analgesics. MAIN METHODS: This study compared effects of the mu opioid receptor agonist morphine (an acknowledged analgesic), the dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol (a non-analgesic sedative), the adenosine receptor antagonist caffeine (a non-analgesic stimulant) and the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist CJ 11,974-01 (a candidate analgesic) on acetic acid-induced writhing (a traditional pain-stimulated behavior) and acetic acid-induced suppression of locomotor activity (a pain-depressed behavior) in male ICR mice. Drug effects on non-depressed (baseline) locomotor activity were also examined. KEY FINDINGS: I.P. administration of acetic acid (0.18-1%) was equipotent in stimulating writhing and depressing locomotor activity. Morphine blocked both acid-induced stimulation of writhing and depression of locomotion, although it was 56-fold less potent in the assay of acid-depressed locomotion. Haloperidol and CJ 11,974-01 decreased acid-stimulated writhing, but failed to block acid-induced depression of locomotion. Caffeine had no effect on acid-stimulated writhing or acid-depressed locomotor activity, although it did increase non-depressed locomotion. Thus, morphine was the only drug to block both acid-stimulated writhing and acid-depressed locomotion. SIGNIFICANCE: Complementary assays of pain-stimulated and pain-depressed behaviors may improve the predictive validity of preclinical studies that assess candidate analgesic drugs. The low potency of morphine to block acid-induced depression of locomotion suggests that locomotor activity may be a relatively insensitive measure for studies of pain-depressed behavior.
AIMS: Pain depresses expression of many behaviors, and one goal of analgesic treatment is to restore pain-depressed behaviors. Assays that focus on pain-depressed behaviors may contribute to preclinical assessment of candidate analgesics. MAIN METHODS: This study compared effects of the mu opioid receptor agonist morphine (an acknowledged analgesic), the dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol (a non-analgesic sedative), the adenosine receptor antagonist caffeine (a non-analgesic stimulant) and the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist CJ 11,974-01 (a candidate analgesic) on acetic acid-induced writhing (a traditional pain-stimulated behavior) and acetic acid-induced suppression of locomotor activity (a pain-depressed behavior) in male ICR mice. Drug effects on non-depressed (baseline) locomotor activity were also examined. KEY FINDINGS: I.P. administration of acetic acid (0.18-1%) was equipotent in stimulating writhing and depressing locomotor activity. Morphine blocked both acid-induced stimulation of writhing and depression of locomotion, although it was 56-fold less potent in the assay of acid-depressed locomotion. Haloperidol and CJ 11,974-01 decreased acid-stimulated writhing, but failed to block acid-induced depression of locomotion. Caffeine had no effect on acid-stimulated writhing or acid-depressed locomotor activity, although it did increase non-depressed locomotion. Thus, morphine was the only drug to block both acid-stimulated writhing and acid-depressed locomotion. SIGNIFICANCE: Complementary assays of pain-stimulated and pain-depressed behaviors may improve the predictive validity of preclinical studies that assess candidate analgesic drugs. The low potency of morphine to block acid-induced depression of locomotion suggests that locomotor activity may be a relatively insensitive measure for studies of pain-depressed behavior.
Authors: G Lorimer Moseley; Nadia Zalucki; Frank Birklein; Johan Marinus; Jacobus J van Hilten; Hannu Luomajoki Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-05-15
Authors: Lakeisha A Lewter; Janet L Fisher; Justin N Siemian; Kashi Reddy Methuku; Michael M Poe; James M Cook; Jun-Xu Li Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 4.418
Authors: Lara A Weaver; Cheryl A Blaze; Deborah E Linder; Karl A Andrutis; Alicia Z Karas Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 1.232
Authors: Michael D Leitl; Sara Onvani; M Scott Bowers; Kejun Cheng; Kenner C Rice; William A Carlezon; Matthew L Banks; S Stevens Negus Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Laurence L Miller; Mitchell J Picker; Karl T Schmidt; Linda A Dykstra Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 4.530