3.8 Article

Effects of intraplantar administration of Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA) on rotarod performance in mice

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 805-811

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0358

关键词

CFA; rotarod; pain; von Frey; mice

资金

  1. Jordan University of Science and Technology grant [39/2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Preclinical animal models are crucial to study pain mechanisms and assess antinociceptive effects of medications. One major problem with current animal behavioral models is their lack of face validity with human nociception and the vulnerability for false-positive results. Here, we evaluated the usefulness of rotarod as a new way to assess inflammatory nociception in rodents. Methods: Adult male mice were injected with saline or Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA) in the left hindpaws. Mechanical allodynia and rotarod performance were evaluated before and after the administration of CFA. Mechanical allodynia was measured using von Frey filaments. Long-term effect of CFA on rotarod performance was also assessed for 2 weeks. Results: Our results showed that CFA administration decreased pain threshold and increased sensitivity to von Frey filaments compared to control group. In rotarod experiments, the starting speed of the rod rotation started at four RPM, and accelerated until it reached 40 RPM in 5 min. Rotarod performance was enhanced from day to day in the control group. However, rotarod performance in CFA group was attenuated after CFA administration, which was significant after 24 h compared to vehicle. This attenuation was blocked by ibuprofen. Haloperidol administration (positive control) produced similar results to CFA administration. CFA did not produce significant attenuation of rotarod performance after 1 week post-injection. Conclusions: Collectively, our findings could encourage the use of rotarod assay to measure acute (but not chronic) inflammatory nociception as a useful tool in rodents.

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

3.8
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