4.7 Article

A Leptin-Mediated Central Mechanism in Analgesia-Enhanced Opioid Reward in Rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 34, 期 29, 页码 9779-9788

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0386-14.2014

关键词

conditioned place preference; leptin; nucleus accumbens; opioid; pain; reward

资金

  1. NIH [P20DA26002, R01 DA036564]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Opioid analgesics are commonly used in chronic pain management despite a potential risk of rewarding. However, it remains unclear whether opioid analgesia would enhance the opioid rewarding effect thereby contributing to opioid rewarding. Utilizing a rat paradigm of conditioned place preference (CPP) combined with ankle monoarthritis as a condition of persistent nociception, we showed that analgesia induced by either morphine or the nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen increased CPP scores in arthritic rats, suggesting that analgesia itself had a rewarding effect. However, arthritic rats exhibited a significantly higher CPP score in response to morphine than ibuprofen. Thus, the rewarding effect of morphine was enhanced in the presence of persistent nociception, producing a phenomenon of analgesia-enhanced opioid reward. At the cellular level, administration of morphine activated a cascade of leptin expression, glial activation, and dopamine receptor upregulation in the nucleus accumbens (NAc), while administration of ibuprofen decreased glial activation with no effect on leptin expression in the NAc. Furthermore, the morphine rewarding effect was blocked in leptin deficient ob/ob mice or by neutralizing leptin or interleukin-1 beta in the NAc without diminishing morphine analgesia. The data indicate that systemic opioid can activate a leptin-mediated central mechanism in the NAc that led to the enhanced opioid rewarding effect. These findings provide evidence for an interaction between opioid analgesia and opioid rewarding, which may have implications in clinical opioid dose escalation in chronic pain management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据