4.7 Article

NS383 Selectively Inhibits Acid-Sensing Ion Channels Containing 1a and 3 Subunits to Reverse Inflammatory and Neuropathic Hyperalgesia in Rats

期刊

CNS NEUROSCIENCE & THERAPEUTICS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 135-145

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cns.12487

关键词

Acid-sensing ion channel; Acid-sensing ion channel blockers; Electrophysiology; Hyperalgesia; Morphine

资金

  1. IMK Almene Fond, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Here, we investigate the pharmacology of NS383, a novel small molecule inhibitor of acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs). Methods: ASIC inhibition by NS383 was characterized in patch-clamp electrophysiological studies. Analgesic properties were evaluated in four rat behavioral models of pain. Results: NS383 inhibited H+-activated currents recorded from rat homomeric ASIC1a, ASIC3, and heteromeric ASIC1a+3 with IC50 values ranging from 0.61 to 2.2 mu M. However, NS383 was completely inactive at homomeric ASIC2a. Heteromeric receptors containing AISC2a, such as ASIC1a+2a and ASIC2a+3, were only partially inhibited, presumably as a result of stoichiometry-dependent binding. NS383 (10-60 mg/kg, i.p.), amiloride (50-200 mg/kg, i.p.), acetaminophen (100-400 mg/kg, i.p.), and morphine (3-10 mg/kg, i.p.) all dose-dependently attenuated nocifensive behaviors in the rat formalin test, reversed pathological inflammatory hyperalgesia in complete Freund's adjuvant-inflamed rats, and reversed mechanical hypersensitivity in the chronic constriction injury model of neuropathic pain. However, in contrast to acetaminophen and morphine, motor function was unaffected by NS383 at doses at least 8-fold greater than those that were effective in pain models, whilst analgesic doses of amiloride were deemed to be toxic. Conclusions: NS383 is a potent and uniquely selective inhibitor of rat ASICs containing 1a and/or 3 subunits. It is well tolerated and capable of reversing pathological painlike behaviors, presumably via peripheral actions, but possibly also via actions within central pain circuits.

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