4.6 Article

Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) is a modulator of joint pain in a rat model of osteoarthritis

期刊

PAIN
卷 123, 期 1-2, 页码 98-105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.015

关键词

algesiometry; incapacitance; joint pain; neuropeptides; osteoarthritis; monoiodoacetate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating disease in which primarily weight-bearing joints undergo progressive degeneration. Despite the widespread prevalence of OA in the adult population, very little is known about the factors responsible for the generation and maintenance of OA pain. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) was identified in the synovial fluid of arthritis patients nearly 20 years ago and the aim of this study was to examine whether VIP could be involved in the generation of OA pain. Hindlimb weight bearing was used as a measure of joint pain, while von Frey hair algesiometry applied to the plantar surface of the ipsilateral hindpaw tested for secondary mechanical hyperalgesia. Intra-articular injection of VIP into normal rat knee joints caused a significant shift in weight bearing in favour of the contralateral non-injected hindlimb as well as causing a reduction in ipsilateral paw withdrawal threshold. These pain responses were blocked by co-administration of the VPAC receptor antagonist VIP6-28. Induction of OA by intra-articular sodium monoiodoacetate injection resulted in a reduction in weight bearing on the affected leg, but no evidence of secondary hyperalgesia in the paw. Treatment of OA knees with a single injection Of VIP6-28 diminished hindlimb incapacitance while increasing paw withdrawal threshold. This study showed for the first time that peripheral application of VIP causes increased knee joint allodynia and secondary hyperalgesia. Furthermore, antagonists that inhibit VIP activity may prove beneficial in the alleviation of OA pain. (c) 2006 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by 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

4.6
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