| Literature DB >> 27642352 |
Bo Deng1, Liqun Jia1, Lin Pan1, Aiping Song1, Yuanyuan Wang2, Huangying Tan1, Qing Xiang1, Lili Yu1, Dandan Ke2.
Abstract
One of the main dose-limiting complications of the chemotherapeutic agent oxaliplatin (OXL) is painful neuropathy. Glial activation and nociceptive sensitization may be responsible for the mechanism of neuropathic pain. The Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Wen-luo-tong (WLT) has been widely used in China to treat chemotherapy induced neuropathic pain. However, there is no study on the effects of WLT on spinal glial activation induced by OXL. In this study, a rat model of OXL-induced chronic neuropathic pain was established and WLT was administrated. Pain behavioral tests and morphometric examination of dorsal root ganglia (DRG) were conducted. Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunostaining was performed, glial activation was evaluated, and the excitatory neurotransmitter substance P (SP) and glial-derived proinflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were analyzed. WLT treatment alleviated OXL-induced mechanical allodynia and mechanical hyperalgesia. Changes in the somatic, nuclear, and nucleolar areas of neurons in DRG were prevented. In the spinal dorsal horn, hypertrophy and activation of GFAP-positive astrocytes were averted, and the level of GFAP mRNA decreased significantly. Additionally, TNF-α mRNA and protein levels decreased. Collectively, these results indicate that WLT reversed both glial activation in the spinal dorsal horn and nociceptive sensitization during OXL-induced chronic neuropathic pain in rats.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27642352 PMCID: PMC5014954 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3629489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Constituents of Wen-luo-tong.
| Botanical name | Chinese name | English name | Weight (g) | Voucher numbers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Yinyanghuo | Epimedium herb | 30 | 1508113 |
|
| Laoguancao | Geranium wilfordii | 20 | 302415101 |
|
| Guizhi | Cassia Twig | 15 | SA7181 |
|
| Honghua | Carthamus tinctorius | 10 | SA8221 |
Primer sequence for real-time PCR.
| Gene | Primer sequence | |
|---|---|---|
| GFAP | Forward | 5′-CCAAGATGAAACCAACCT-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-CGCTGTGAGGTCTGGCTT-3′ | |
|
| ||
| TNF- | Forward | 5′-GGCCACCACGCTCTTCTGTC-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-GGGCTACGGGCTTGTCACTC-3′ | |
|
| ||
| GAPDH | Forward | 5′-GCCAAGGCTGTGGGCAAGGT-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-TCTCCAGGCGGCACGTCAGA-3′ | |
Figure 2Pathological analysis of dorsal root ganglia (DRG) (×1000). (a) Control group: no morphometric change. (b) Model group: decreases in somatic, nuclear, and nucleolar areas induced by OXL. (c) TCM group: somatic, nuclear, and nucleolar areas were significantly larger as compared to model group.
Percentages of paw withdrawal responses to mechanical stimulation (n = 8).
| Group | Mechanical allodynia (%) | Mechanical hyperalgesia (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 5.00 ± 5.35 | 18.75 ± 8.35 |
| Model group | 46.25 ± 20.65ΔΔ | 60.00 ± 16.04ΔΔ |
| TCM group | 16.25 ± 10.61 | 33.75 ± 15.06 |
Notes: Kruskal-Wallis test, ΔΔ P < 0.01, compared with control group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, compared with model group.
Morphometric analysis of DRG in different groups (n = 6).
| Group | Somatic area ( | Nuclear area ( | Nucleolar area ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 2331.98 ± 420.66 | 332.27 ± 54.11 | 20.69 ± 4.74 |
| Model group | 335.67 ± 93.43ΔΔ | 65.80 ± 13.11ΔΔ | 3.81 ± 1.22ΔΔ |
| TCM group | 1595.95 ± 304.03ΔΔ | 275.43 ± 133.10 | 14.75 ± 2.99 |
Notes: one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test, ΔΔ P < 0.01, compared with control group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, compared with model group.
Comparison of GFAP protein expression in spinal cord (n = 6).
| Group | IOD | Area ( |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 0.55 ± 0.07 | 191.44 ± 171.04 |
| Model group | 1.27 ± 0.33ΔΔ | 1366.17 ± 486.86ΔΔ |
| TCM group | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 129.85 ± 54.31 |
Notes: one-way ANOVA, ΔΔ P < 0.01, compared with control group; P < 0.01, compared with model group.
Comparison of SP and TNF-α protein levels in different groups (n = 8).
| Group | SP (pg/mL) | TNF- | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spinal cord | Plasma | Spinal cord | DRG | |
| Control group | 51.43 ± 13.47 | 8.23 ± 4.62 | 119.23 ± 21.17 | 102.18 ± 17.52 |
| Model group | 156.83 ± 14.88ΔΔ | 24.32 ± 9.32ΔΔ | 329.14 ± 46.48ΔΔ | 135.30 ± 37.05Δ |
| TCM group | 110.43 ± 41.57Δ | 17.42 ± 6.88Δ | 226.48 ± 43.50ΔΔ | 105.14 ± 0.82 |
Notes: one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test, Δ P < 0.05 and ΔΔ P < 0.01, compared with control group; P < 0.01, compared with model group.
Comparison of GFAP and TNF-α mRNA expression in different groups (n = 6).
| Group | GFAP (2−ΔΔCT) | TNF- |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 1.01 ± 0.16 | 1.02 ± 0.23 |
| Model group | 1.88 ± 0.57ΔΔ | 2.21 ± 0.72ΔΔ |
| TCM group | 0.96 ± 0.64 | 1.07 ± 0.40 |
Notes: Kruskal-Wallis test, ΔΔ P < 0.01, compared with control group; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, compared with model group.