4.8 Article

TAFA4 relieves injury-induced mechanical hypersensitivity through LDL receptors and modulation of spinal A-type K+ current

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109884

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (ANRCE16-Myochronic)
  2. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale (FRM) [FRM-EQP202003010192]
  3. CNRS
  4. Aix-Marseille-Universite
  5. Biotrail PhD fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pain, whether acute or persistent, is a serious medical problem worldwide. However, the management of pain remains unsatisfactory and new analgesic molecules are needed. The study shows that TAFA4 can reverse different forms of pain-induced mechanical hypersensitivity by restoring normal spinal neuron activity, highlighting its considerable potential as a treatment for injury-induced mechanical pain.
Pain, whether acute or persistent, is a serious medical problem worldwide. However, its management remains unsatisfactory, and new analgesic molecules are required. We show here that TAFA4 reverses inflammatory, postoperative, and spared nerve injury (SNI)-induced mechanical hypersensitivity in male and female mice. TAFA4 requires functional low-density lipoprotein receptor-related proteins (LRPs) because their inhibition by RAP (receptor-associated protein) dose-dependently abolishes its antihypersensitive actions. SNI selectively decreases A-type K+ current (IA) in spinal lamina II outer excitatory interneurons (L-IIo ExINs) and induces a concomitant increase in IA and decrease in hyperpolarization-activated current (Ih) in lamina II inner inhibitory interneurons (L-IIi InhINs). Remarkably, SNI-induced ion current alterations in both IN subtypes were rescued by TAFA4 in an LRP-dependent manner. We provide insights into the mechanism by which TAFA4 reverses injury-induced mechanical hypersensitivity by restoring normal spinal neuron activity and highlight the considerable potential of TAFA4 as a treatment for injury-induced mechanical pain.

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

4.8
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