4.7 Article

Peripheral and spinal 5-HT receptors participate in cholestatic itch and antinociception induced by bile duct ligation in rats

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep36286

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSFC (National Natural Science Foundation of China) [31371179, 81300968]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Jiangsu province [BK20140372]
  3. Jiangsu Province [2015-JY-029, SJLX15_0582]
  4. Soochow university preponderant clinic discipline group project [XKQ2015007]
  5. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although 5-HT has been implicated in cholestatic itch and antinociception, two common phenomena in patients with cholestatic disease, the roles of 5-HT receptor subtypes are unclear. Herein, we investigated the roles of 5-HT receptors in itch and antinociception associated with cholestasis, which was induced by common bile duct ligation (BDL) in rats. 5-HT-induced enhanced scratching and antinociception to mechanical and heat stimuli were demonstrated in BDL rats. 5-HT level in the skin and spinal cord was significantly increased in BDL rats. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis showed 5-HT1B, 5-HT1D, 5-HT2A, 5-HT3A, 5-HT5B, 5-HT6, and 5-HT7 were up-regulated in peripheral nervous system and 5-HT1A, 5-HT1F, 5-HT2B, and 5-HT3A were down-regulated in the spinal cord of BDL rats. Intradermal 5-HT2, 5-HT3, and 5-HT7 receptor agonists induced scratching in BDL rats, whereas 5-HT3 agonist did not induce scratching in sham rats. 5-HT1A, 5-HT2, 5-HT3, and 5-HT7 agonists or antagonists suppressed itch in BDL rats. 5-HT1A agonist attenuated, but 5-HT1A antagonist enhanced antinociception in BDL rats. 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 agonists or antagonists attenuated antinociception in BDL rats. Our data suggested peripheral and central 5-HT system dynamically participated in itch and antinociception under cholestasis condition and targeting 5-HT receptors may be an effective treatment for cholestatic itch.

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