| Literature DB >> 36248405 |
Sisi Li1,2, Xia Jiang3, Qiaoyun Wu1,2, Yun Jin1,2, Rong He1,2, Jie Hu1,2, Yuyin Zheng1,2.
Abstract
Neuropathic pain remains a chronic and intractable pain. Recent studies have shown a close relationship between gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptor and neuropathic pain. Spinal cord GABAA receptors are key modulators of pain processing. Electroacupuncture (EA) is currently used worldwide to relieve pain. The immunomodulatory effect of EA in animals has been proposed in previous studies. However, it remains unclear how EA contributes to alleviating neuropathic pain. In this study, the chronic constriction injury (CCI) rat model was used to explore the relationship between GABAA receptor and neuropathic pain. We also investigated whether EA treatment could ameliorate pain hypersensitivity by modulating the GABAA receptor. To determine the function of EA in neurological diseases, in this study, the mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT) and thermal withdrawal latency (TWL) were assessed to determine the threshold of pain. In addition, we used Western blot, immunofluorescence, and real-time quantitative PCR to confirm whether EA treatment relieves pain hypersensitivity by regulating GABAA receptors. The morphology of synapse was examined using an electron microscope. In the present study, EA relieved mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia. EA also inhibited microglial activation in the spinal cord, accompanied by increased levels of GABAARα2, GABAARα3, and GABAARγ2 subunits. However, the analgesic effect of EA was attenuated by treatment with the GABAA receptor antagonist bicuculine. Overall, the present results indicate that microglia and GABAA receptor might participate in EA analgesia. These results contribute to our understanding of the impact of EA on rats after sciatic nerve compression, providing a theoretical basis for the clinical application of EA analgesia.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248405 PMCID: PMC9568313 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4505934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1EA relieves mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia in CCI rats through the GABAA receptor. (a) The flow chart of the experiment. (b) Schematic of the locations of the acupoints in rats. (c) Thermal withdrawal latency (TWL). (d) Mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT). The data are presented as the means ± SD (n = 8 per group). P < 0.01 compared with the Sham group; #P < 0.05 compared with the CCI group; &&P < 0.01 compared with the CCI + EA group.
Primers sequence for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
| Gene | Forward primer (5′-3′) | Reverse primer (5′-3′) |
|---|---|---|
| GABAAR | ACAGTCCAAGCCGAATGTCCAATG | CTTCCGAGGTCGTGTAAGCATAGC |
| GABAAR | CACCACTGTTCTCACCATGACCAC | CAGACGGCTATGAACCAGTCCATG |
| GABAAR | TTTGGATGGCAAGGACTG | AGAAGGCGGTAGGGAAGA |
|
| TGGCTCTATCCTGGCCTCAC | CGCAGCTCAGTAACAGTCCG |
Figure 2EA attenuates the overexpression of activated microglia in the spinal cord of CCI rats. (a) Western blot analysis of Iba1 (microglia marker) expression level. (b) The expression of Iba1 increased in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury. Scale bar, 200 μm. (c) Immunofluorescence staining shows Iba1 (in green) expression in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury. Nuclei were stained with DAPI and are visualised in blue. Scale bar = 50 μm, and magnification scale bar = 20 μm.
Figure 3EA treatment increases protein levels of GABAARα2, GABAARα3, and GABAARγ2 at 14 days after CCI. (a, b) Western blot analysis of GABAARα2 expression level. (c, d) Western blot analysis of GABAARα3 expression level. (e, f) Western blot analysis of GABAARγ2 expression level. The data are presented as the means ± SD (n = 3–4 per group). P < 0.01 compared with the Sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the CCI group; &&P < 0.01 compared with the CCI + EA group.
Figure 4EA treatment increases mRNA levels of GABAARα2 and GABAARγ2 at 14 days after CCI in CCI rats. (a) GABAARα2 mRNA levels. (b) GABAARα3 mRNA levels. (c) GABAARγ2 mRNA levels. The data are presented as the means ± SD (n = 3–4 per group). P < 0.01 compared with the Sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the CCI group; &&P < 0.01 compared with the CCI + EA group.
Figure 5Immunofluorescence for the expression of GABAARα2 and GABAARγ2 in the spinal dorsal horn from rats in each group (400×). (a) Immunofluorescence staining shows GABAARα2 (in green) expression in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury. Nuclei were stained with DAPI and are visualised in blue. Scale bar = 50 μm. (b) Immunofluorescence staining shows GABAARα3 (in green) expression in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury. Nuclei were stained with DAPI and are visualised in blue. Scale bar = 50 μm. (c) Immunofluorescence staining shows GABAARγ2 (in green) expression in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury. Nuclei were stained with DAPI and are visualised in blue. Scale bar = 50 μm.
Figure 6The ultrastructure of synapses in the spinal dorsal horns of all groups. (a) Ultrastructures of the synapses in the spinal dorsal horn ipsilateral to the nerve injury using TEM. Scale bar = 0.5 μm. (b) Schematic of the presynaptic (green) and postsynaptic (violet) structures. (c) The number of synapses in the spinal dorsal horn in each group. (d) Width of the synaptic space (nm). The data are presented as the means ± SD (n = 3 per group). P < 0.01 compared with the Sham group; #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01 compared with the CCI group; &P < 0.05 and &&P < 0.01 compared with the CCI + EA group.