4.5 Article

The role of sex hormones on formalin-induced nociceptive responses

Journal

BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 958, Issue 1, Pages 139-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(02)03661-2

Keywords

sex hormones; ovariectomy; sexual difference; rat; nociception; formalin test

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many chronic pain conditions are more frequent in women than in men. This observation suggests that there is a potential role of sex hormones on pain perception. In the present study, we measured nociceptive responses to the formalin test in normal and gonadectomized male and female rats. The nociceptive responses to formalin injection were divided in four phases: acute (phase 1), interphase and late phases (phases II and III). Four groups of rats were tested: (a) males (n = 15), (b) females (n = 16), (c) ovariectomized females (OVX) (n = 15) and (d) castrated males (CAST) (n = 15). Females presented significantly more nociceptive responses than males during phase 1, interphase and phase II (P < 0.01). They also presented significantly more nociceptive responses than OVX females during the interphase (P < 0.05). CAST males presented significantly more nociceptive responses during the phases I (P < 0.01), II (P < 0.01) and III (P < 0.05) than the male rats. Finally, the responses of CAST males and OVX females were virtually identical, suggesting that the differences recorded between males and females in the formalin test were related to an activational effect of the sex hormones rather than an organizational effect. In conclusion, these results permit the support of the role of sex hormones on the modulation of pain perception. Interestingly, male and female sex hormones seem to act specifically on the different phases of the formalin test, suggesting some specific roles for sex hormones in different pain conditions. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available