| Literature DB >> 28341636 |
Hideo Shindou1,2,3, Seiji Shiraishi2,4, Suzumi M Tokuoka4, Yoshikazu Takahashi5, Takeshi Harayama5, Takaya Abe6, Kana Bando6,7, Kanako Miyano2,4, Yoshihiro Kita4,8, Yasuhito Uezono2,9,10, Takao Shimizu5,8.
Abstract
Neuropathic pain resulting from peripheral neuronal damage is largely resistant to treatment with currently available analgesic drugs. Recently, ATP, lysophosphatidic acid, and platelet-activating factor (PAF) have been reported to play important inductive roles in neuropathic pain. In the present study, we found that pain-like behaviors resulting from partial sciatic nerve ligation (PSL) were largely attenuated by deficiency of lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase (LPCAT)2, which is one of the PAF biosynthetic enzymes. By contrast, deficiency of the other PAF biosynthetic enzyme, LPCAT1, did not ameliorate neuropathic pain. With regard to the mechanism of the observed effects, LPCAT2 was detected in wild-type spinal cord microglia, and the absence of LPCAT2 expression precluded spinal PAF expression in LPCAT2-knockout mice. Furthermore, ATP-stimulated PAF biosynthesis in macrophages was decreased by pretreatment with the PAF receptor antagonist ABT-491, indicating the existence of a positive feedback loop of PAF biosynthesis, which we designated the PAF-pain loop. In conclusion, LPCAT2 is a novel therapeutic target for newly categorized analgesic drugs; in addition, our data call for the re-evaluation of the clinical utility of PAF receptor antagonists.-Shindou, H., Shiraishi, S., Tokuoka, S. M., Takahashi Y., Harayama, T., Abe, T., Bando, K., Miyano, K., Kita, Y., Uezono, Y., Shimizu, T. Relief from neuropathic pain by blocking of the platelet-activating factor-pain loop.Entities:
Keywords: LPCAT2; PAF; analgesic drug; feedback loop; lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase 2
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28341636 PMCID: PMC5471516 DOI: 10.1096/fj.201601183R
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FASEB J ISSN: 0892-6638 Impact factor: 5.191
Figure 1.LPCAT2 deficiency decreased PAF production. A–D) Peritoneal macrophages were stimulated with LPS for 30 min (A, B) or 18 h (C, D) (n = 3). A, B) Phosphorylation (A) and activation (B; PAF biosynthetic activity) of LPCAT2 were detected in WT, but not in LPCAT2-KO, cells. C, D) Increased protein expression (C) and LPCAT2 activity (D; PAF biosynthetic activity) were also observed in cells from WT but not LPCAT2-KO mice. Calnexin was used as an internal control. E) PAF production was examined in peritoneal macrophages stimulated with 5 µM A23187 for 5 min (n = 3) and in several tissues, including brain (n = 5), thymus (WT; n = 4, KO; n = 5), liver (n = 5), spleen (n = 5), kidney (n = 5), colon (n = 5), and spinal cord (WT; n = 4, KO; n = 3). PAF was almost undetectable in LPCAT2-KO tissues. All data are expressed as means ± se. #P < 0.05, 1-way ANOVA with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's multiple-comparison tests; *P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test.
Figure 2.PSL-induced pain model. A–D) PSL was performed in LPCAT2-KO (A, B) and LPCAT1-KO (C, D) mice, and the resultant pain level was evaluated by using the paintbrush (A, C) and von Frey (B, D) tests. Sham-test mice in C did not show any pain. Values are means ± se: WT/sham test (n = 11), WT/PSL (n = 14), LPCAT2-KO/sham test (n = 10), and LPCAT2-KO/PSL (n = 11)(A, B); WT (n = 3) and LPCAT1-KO (n = 3) (C, D). P values: 1-way ANOVA with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple-comparison tests (A, C); 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni test (B, D). E) PAF level of spinal cord from LPCAT1-KO was similar to that of WT. Values are means ± se of results in 4 independent experiments.
Figure 3.Expression of LPCAT2 in microglia of the spinal cord dorsal horn. Expression of LPCAT2 and microglia were detected with anti-LPCAT2 antibody/NBT-BCIP (purple) and anti-Iba1 antibody/diaminobenzidine (brown), respectively. Arrowheads: LPCAT2 and Iba 1 localization. Four independent experiments were performed with similar results. Scale bars, 50 µm.
Figure 4.PAF–pain loop. A) Peritoneal macrophages were stimulated with 1 mM ATP, and PAF synthesis was measured. PAF production peaked at 5 min after stimulation. Values are means ± se of results in 4 experiments. B) Pretreatment with PAFR antagonist ABT-491 (100 nM) for 10 min decreased PAF production after peak (late phase), but not before. Vehicle control data (n = 3) are the same as depicted in A. Data are expressed as means ± se of results in 3 independent experiments. P < 0.05, unpaired t test. C) Schematic representation of the proposed PAF–pain loop. PAF and/or ATP stimulate cells to enhance PAF production. Next, PAF in turn activates nearby cells and further increases PAF production in a positive feedback loop. Neuropathic pain may be exacerbated and perpetuated by the PAF–pain loop. TSI-01 is a specific inhibitor of LPCAT2.