4.5 Article

Orexin 1 receptor activation attenuates neurogenic dural vasodilation in an animal model of trigeminovascular nociception

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.105.090951

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pathophysiology underlying the pulsating quality of the pain of a migraine attack is not fully understood, although trigeminal vascular afferents containing the sensory neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide ( CGRP) must have a role. Antimigraine drugs, such as triptans, serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine(1B/1D) receptor agonists, reproducibly block neurogenic vasodilation associated with CGRP release. We examined the effects of the hypothalamic neuropeptides orexin A and orexin B on neurogenic dural vasodilation, dissecting out the receptor pharmacology with the novel orexin 1 (OX1) receptor antagonist N-(2-methyl-6-benzoxazolyl)-N-1,5-naphthyridin4-yl urea (SB-334867). Electrical stimulation of dural afferents (50-300 mu A) resulted in reproducible dural vasodilation of 136 +/- 9%. Orexin A 30 mu g kg(-1), but not 3 and 10 mu g kg(-1), inhibited the dilation brought about by electrical stimulation over 60 min and maximally after 15 min by 60% (t(7) = 7.138; P < 0.001; n = 8). This response was reversed by pretreatment with the OX 1 receptor antagonist SB-334867. Addition of CGRP(8-37) at the point of maximal effect of orexin A produced a further significant decrease in neurogenic dural vasodilation compared with orexin A only. CGRP administration (1 mu g kg(-1)) produced a reproducible dural blood vessel dilation of 145 = 7% that was not inhibited by intravenous administration of orexin A (30 mu g kg(-1)). Orexin B had no significant effect even at the highest dose. The current study demonstrates that orexin A is able to inhibit neurogenic dural vasodilation via activation of the OX1 receptor, resulting in inhibition of prejunctional release of CGRP from trigeminal neurons.

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

4.5
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