4.7 Article

Effect of two novel CGRP-binding compounds in a closed cranial window rat model

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 567, 期 1-2, 页码 117-124

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.04.004

关键词

migraine; CGRP; electrical stimulation; middle cerebral artery; middle meningeal artery; CGRP antibody; RNA-Spiegelmer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the in vivo effects of two novel calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) binding molecules in the genuine closed cranial window model in the rat. The RNA-Spiegelmer (NOX-C89) and the monoclonal CGRP antibody are CGRP scavengers and might be used as an alternative to CGRP-receptor antagonists in the treatment of migraine. Rats were anaesthetized and a closed cranial window established. Changes in dural and pial artery diameter and mean arterial blood pressure were measured simultaneously. Infusion of the RNA-Spiegelmer or the CGRP antibody alone had no effect on the arteries or the mean arterial blood pressure. We then used a bolus of 0.3 mu g/kg CGRP (n=6) or electrical stimulation (25 V, 5 Hz, 1 ms pulse width and of 10 s of duration) (n=6) to induce dilatation of dural and pial arteries (mediated via CGRP-receptors). Pre-treatment with the RNA-Spiegelmer inhibited CGRP-induced vasodilatation of the dural artery (from 38 +/- 17% to 7 +/- 3%) and the pial artery (from 14 +/- 1% to 3 +/- 2%) (P < 0.05). The RNA-Spiegelmer, however, did not significantly inhibit dilatation induced by electrical stimulation (P > 0.05). The CGRP antibody caused a significant reduction of the dural artery diameter caused by intravenous CGRP-in fusion (from 23 +/- 5% to 12 +/- 3%) (P < 0.05), but did not inhibit dilatation caused by electrical stimulation (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the CGRP scavengers effectively inhibited the effect of circulating CGRP but do not modify the effect of electdcal stimulation and the consequent liberation of CGRP from perivascular sensory nerve fibres. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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