4.4 Article

Nerve growth factor mediates peripheral mechanical hypersensitivity that accompanies experimental cystitis in mice

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 392, 期 3, 页码 193-197

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.09.026

关键词

NGF; peripheral nociception; cystitis; cyclophosphamide; mice

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01DK57258, R01DK066349] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

increased sensitivity to somatic stimuli has been noted in the presence of visceral inflammation. Cystitis was induced by intraperitoneal injection of cyclophosphamide (CYP) in female mice. Sensitivity of hind paws to mechanical stimuli was determined prior to and 4,9 and 24 h after CYP, and sensitivity of the tail to thermal stimuli was determined prior to, 4 and 24 h after CYP treatment. To investigate the role of nerve growth factor (NGF) in these processes, other groups of mice received NGF antiserum, normal serum, or K252a intravenously 30 min after CYP administration. CYP induced bladder inflammation that was not ablated by treatment with NGF antiserum or K252a. Sensitivity to mechanical stimuli was increased 4 and 9 h after CYP administration. This was reversed by NGF antiserum or K252a but not by normal serum. After 24 h, no differences were observed in withdrawal threshold among groups. None of the treatments had any effect on sensitivity to thermal stimuli. To further investigate the role of NGF in this process, NGF was instilled into the bladders of mice in the presence or absence of intravenous NGF antiserum. Four hours after intravesical instillation of NGF, the threshold of the hind paws to mechanical stimulation was significantly decreased, and this effect was reversed by prior treatment with NGF antiserum. This model of visceral pain causes increased sensitivity to peripheral application of mechanical stimuli. This effect is at least partially mediated by NGF, and the bladder may be the source of NGF in this process. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.4
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