| Literature DB >> 29213232 |
Beverley Greenwood-Van Meerveld1,2,3, Anthony C Johnson3.
Abstract
Visceral pain is generally poorly localized and characterized by hypersensitivity to a stimulus such as organ distension. In concert with chronic visceral pain, there is a high comorbidity with stress-related psychiatric disorders including anxiety and depression. The mechanisms linking visceral pain with these overlapping comorbidities remain to be elucidated. Evidence suggests that long term stress facilitates pain perception and sensitizes pain pathways, leading to a feed-forward cycle promoting chronic visceral pain disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Early life stress (ELS) is a risk-factor for the development of IBS, however the mechanisms responsible for the persistent effects of ELS on visceral perception in adulthood remain incompletely understood. In rodent models, stress in adult animals induced by restraint and water avoidance has been employed to investigate the mechanisms of stress-induce pain. ELS models such as maternal separation, limited nesting, or odor-shock conditioning, which attempt to model early childhood experiences such as neglect, poverty, or an abusive caregiver, can produce chronic, sexually dimorphic increases in visceral sensitivity in adulthood. Chronic visceral pain is a classic example of gene × environment interaction which results from maladaptive changes in neuronal circuitry leading to neuroplasticity and aberrant neuronal activity-induced signaling. One potential mechanism underlying the persistent effects of stress on visceral sensitivity could be epigenetic modulation of gene expression. While there are relatively few studies examining epigenetically mediated mechanisms involved in visceral nociception, stress-induced visceral pain has been linked to alterations in DNA methylation and histone acetylation patterns within the brain, leading to increased expression of pro-nociceptive neurotransmitters. This review will discuss the potential neuronal pathways and mechanisms responsible for stress-induced exacerbation of chronic visceral pain. Additionally, we will review the importance of specific experimental models of adult stress and ELS in enhancing our understanding of the basic molecular mechanisms of pain processing.Entities:
Keywords: animal model; brain; colon; early life; gastrointestinal tract; irritable bowel syndrome; pain; stress
Year: 2017 PMID: 29213232 PMCID: PMC5702626 DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00086
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Syst Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5137
Figure 1Mediators of chronic stress-induced visceral pain. Prolonged exposure to stressor can cause central dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis by changing the expression of glucocorticoid receptors (GR) and mineralocorticoid receptors (MR) in limbic brain areas, such as the amygdala. Such changes lead to increased expression of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), which facilitates further activation of the HPA axis and neuronal sensitization of the central pain matrix. Stress also disrupts endocannabinoid signaling that participates in fast-feedback inhibition of the HPA axis to modulate neuronal sensitivity within with the central pain matrix. Preclinical studies in visceral and neuropathic pain models have demonstrated roles for CRH to modulate spinal sensitization as well as GABA-ergic and glutamatergic signaling to modulate spinal sensitization to promote chronic pain. Within the dorsal root ganglia, roles for endocannabinoid signaling modulated by the GR have been demonstrated models of stress-induced pain. Additionally, local release of CRH within the enteric nervous system can modify sensitivity of extrinsic primary afferents to distension. Thus, multiple neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, and/or stress-responsive receptors are activated by chronic stressor leading to the development of chronic visceral pain.
Figure 2Rodent models of stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity in adult animals. Here we highlight four experimental approaches for increasing visceral sensitivity in adult rodents. In each stress model, we present the duration of the stressor required to produce visceral hypersensitivity and have indicated which sex has been investigated. Please note that the duration and timing of the stressors reflect the range of procedures used within the literature, rather than a specific experimental protocol.
Comparisons of models to assess stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity in adult animals.
| Rat, Sprague Dawley, Male | 2 h stress | 60 mmHg | 3.2 ± 0.8 | Ohashi-Doi et al., |
| 2 h stress/day, 4 days | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 4.8 ± 1.0 | Shen et al., | |
| Rat, Sprague Dawley, Female | 2 h stress | 1.2 ml | 5.2 ± 1.1 | Zhao et al., |
| Rat, Wistar, Male | 2 h stress | 1.2 ml | 2.1 ± 0.6 | Gué et al., |
| 2 h stress/day, 7 days | 60 mmHg | 1.9 ± 0.7 | Xu et al., | |
| 1 h stress/day, 14 days | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 3.4 ± 1.0 | Yi et al., | |
| Rat, Wistar, Female | 2 h stress | 1.2 ml | 1.3 ± 0.6 | Bradesi et al., |
| 1.9 ± 0.6 | Fioramonti et al., | |||
| 1.6 ± 0.6 | Ait-Belgnaoui et al., | |||
| 1.6 ± 0.5 | Agostini et al., | |||
| 1.9 ± 0.5 | Miquel et al., | |||
| 60 mmHg | 1.7 ± 0.6 | Ait-Belgnaoui et al., | ||
| 2.3 ± 0.7 | Agostini et al., | |||
| 0.6 ± 0.5 | Eutamene et al., | |||
| 1.2 ± 0.4 | Silos-Santiago et al., | |||
| 2.5 ± 0.8 | Gilet et al., | |||
| 2 h stress/day, 4 days | 1.2 ml | 2.1 ± 0.6 | Bradesi et al., | |
| Mouse, C57BL/6J, Male | 1 h stress/day, 4 days | 0.06 ml | 0.8 ± 0.5 | Annaházi et al., |
| 1.2 ± 0.6 | Nébot-Vivinus et al., | |||
| Rat, Fischer 344, Male | 1 h stress | 60 mmHg | 2.0 ± 0.7 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, |
| 1 h stress /day, 7 days | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 1.5 ± 0.7 | ||
| 2.1 ± 0.7 | Tran et al., | |||
| 2.1 ± 0.8 | Tran et al., | |||
| 3.5 ± 1.1 | Johnson et al., | |||
| Rat, Long Evans, Male | 1 h stress | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 2.7 ± 0.8 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, |
| 1 h stress/day, 7 days | 2.5 ± 0.7 | |||
| Rat, Long Evans, Female | 1 h stress | 5.2 ± 1.1 | ||
| 1 h stress/day, 7 days | 5.9 ± 1.3 | |||
| Rat, Sprague Dawley, Male | 1 h stress | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 0.8 ± 0.5 | Watson et al., |
| 1 h stress/day, 10 days | 1.6 ± 0.6 | Hong et al., | ||
| 2.9 ± 0.8 | Hong et al., | |||
| 2.7 ± 0.8 | Hong et al., | |||
| 2.5 ± 0.8 | Zheng et al., | |||
| Rat, Wistar, Male | 1 h stress | 60 mmHg | 1.4 ± 0.6 | Nash et al., |
| 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 2.8 ± 0.6 | Schwetz et al., | ||
| 1.0 ± 0.5 | Bradesi et al., | |||
| 1.0 ± 0.5 | Eutamene et al., | |||
| 1 h stress /day, 4 days | 60 mmHg | 1.8 ± 0.6 | Da Silva et al., | |
| 1 h stress/day, 10 days | 60 mmHg | 0.6 ± 0.3 | Bradesi et al., | |
| 4.0 ± 1.1 | Wang W. et al., | |||
| 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 1.2 ± 0.6 | Bradesi et al., | ||
| 2.8 ± 0.9 | Bradesi et al., | |||
| 2.0 ± 0.6 | Xu et al., | |||
| 1.7 ± 0.7 | Tang et al., | |||
| 5.1 ± 0.6 | Sun et al., | |||
| Rat, Wistar, Female | 1 h stress/day, 10 days | 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 4.9 ± 1.1 | Gilet et al., |
| Mouse, C3H/HeN, Male | 19 days | 65 mmHg | 2.5 ± 0.8 | Tramullas et al., |
| Rat, Sprague Dawley, Male | 9 days | 60 mmHg | 1.5 ± 0.6 | Zhou et al., |
| 1.2 ± 0.6 | Chen et al., | |||
| 1.9 ± 0.6 | Zhang et al., | |||
| 60 mmHg, 24 h post-stress | 3.6 ± 0.8 | Wang et al., | ||
| 1.8 ± 0.6 | Zhou et al., | |||
| 2.7 ± 0.7 | Zhang et al., | |||
| 21 days | 1.2 ml | 0.9 ± 0.5 | Chen et al., | |
| Rat, Wistar, Male | 9 days | 60 mmHg | 1.3 ± 0.4 | Winston et al., |
| Area under the curve, 24 h post-stress | 2.8 ± 0.7 | Winston et al., | ||
| Rat, Wistar, Female | 3.6 ± 1.0 | |||
| Rat, Fischer 344, Male | 7-day post-implant | 30 mmHg | 1.7 ± 0.6 | Greenwood-Van Meerveld et al., |
| 60 mmHg | 2.3 ± 0.7 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | ||
| 2.6 ± 0.8 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 2.7 ± 0.8 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 2.5 ± 0.6 | Tran et al., | |||
| 2.6 ± 0.8 | Johnson and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 3.4 ± 0.7 | Johnson et al., | |||
| 14-day post-implant | 60 mmHg | 2.4 ± 0.8 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |
| 2.5 ± 0.6 | Tran et al., | |||
| 28-day post-implant | 60 mmHg | 3.0 ± 0.9 | Myers and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |
| 2.8 ± 0.7 | Johnson et al., | |||
Due to differences between species, strain, sex, and the methods used to evaluate colonic sensitivity, an effect size for the sham stress vs. stress group was calculated so that the studies could be evaluated and compared on the same scale. For the effect size, Hedges' d with unbiased standard error (se) was estimated from the data presented in the cited paper, based on the formulas 1, 2, 14, and 17 in Nakagawa and Cuthill (.
Figure 3Rodent models of early life stress (ELS)-induced visceral hypersensitivity. Here we highlight three experimental approaches for increasing visceral sensitivity in adult rodents in response to early life stress. In each model, we have summarized the typical post-natal period of the stress exposure, the duration of the stressor, and the effect on colonic sensitivity in adulthood, along with the sex of the rat reliably showing colonic hypersensitivity. Please note that the duration and timing of the ELS reflects the range of procedures used within the literature, rather than a specific experimental protocol.
Comparisons of models to assess early life stress (ELS)-induced visceral hypersensitivity in adult animals.
| Mouse, C57BL/AJ, Male | 180 min separation, PN 2-14 | 0.1 ml | 1.1 ± 0.5 | Miquel et al., |
| Mouse, C57BL/10JNju, Both | 180 min separation x 2/day, PN 2-15 | 40 mmHg | 1.9 ± 0.6 | Tang et al., |
| Rat, Long Evans, Male | 180 min separation, PN 2-14 | 60 mmHg | 0.5 ± 0.3 | Coutinho et al., |
| 1.0 ± 0.4 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 180 min separation, PN 2-14, sensitivity testing after 1 h WAS | 60 mmHg | 0.7 ± 0.4 | Coutinho et al., | |
| 2.0 ml | 1.6 ± 0.6 | van den Wijngaard et al., | ||
| Area under the curve | 2.5 ± 0.6 | van den Wijngaard et al., | ||
| 2.6 ± 0.7 | Stanisor et al., | |||
| 4.8 ± 1.0 | Botschuijver et al., | |||
| Rat, Wistar, Male | 120 min separation, PN 1-14 | 1.2 ml | 1.4 ± 0.5 | Rosztóczy et al., |
| Rat, Wistar, Female | 1.3 ± 0.5 | |||
| Rat, Long Evans, Male | PN 2-9 | 60 mmHg | 2.5 ± 0.6 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, |
| Rat, Sprague Dawley, Male | PN 2-9 | 60 mmHg | 1.4 ± 0.5 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, |
| Rat, Wistar, Male | PN 2-9 | 60 mmHg | 1.1 ± 0.5 | Holschneider et al., |
| Rat, Wistar, Female | 1.1 ± 0.5 | |||
| Rat, Long Evans, Both | PN 8-12 | 60 mmHg | 1.5 ± 0.7 | Tyler et al., |
| Rat, Long Evans, Female | 1.4 ± 0.6 | Chaloner and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | ||
| 5.2 ± 1.2 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 1.3 ± 0.5 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
| 5.2 ± 1.3 | Prusator and Greenwood-Van Meerveld, | |||
Due to differences between species, strain, sex, and methods used to evaluate colonic sensitivity, an effect size for the sham stress vs. stress group was calculated so that the studies could be evaluated and compared on the same scale. All colonic sensitivity assessments were performed in adult animals. For the effect size, Hedges' d with unbiased standard error (se) was estimated from the data presented in the cited paper, based on the formulas 1, 2, 14, and 17 in Nakagawa and Cuthill (.
Figure 4Epigenetic regulation of chronic stress-induced visceral pain. Epigenetics describes the processes by which the environment influences gene expression to cause persistent changes in behaviors. Stressors (early life stress, adult stressors, or both) induce changes in the methylation status of DNA promoter regions to enhance or repress transcription rates. Stressors also change the state of histone acetylation around the gene promoter regions to facilitate or hinder the binding of the transcription complex, which also affects gene transcription. These stress-induced changes in DNA methylation and histone acetylation cause changes in gene expression that persist well beyond the duration of the stressor. Additionally, due to hormonal differences across the lifespan, sex differences in response to stressors can also modify the epigenetically induced changes in gene expression. The net effect is the development of chronic visceral pain following stressors that persist through the individual's lifetime due to epigenetically induced changes in gene expression leading to enhanced neuronal sensitivity.