4.5 Article

Effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist perzinfotel [EAA-090; [2-(8,9-dioxo-2,6-diazabicyclo[5.2.0]non-1(7)-en-2-yl)-ethyl] phosphonic acid] on chemically induced thermal hypersensitivity

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.105.084467

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perzinfotel [EAA-090; [2-(8,9-dioxo-2,6-diazabicyclo[5.2.0]non-1( 7)-en-2-yl)-ethyl]phosphonic acid] is a selective, competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist with high affinity for the glutamate site. The current study evaluated whether perzinfotel would have antinociceptive effects or block thermal hypersensitivity associated with the administration of chemical irritants in rats. Perzinfotel lacked antinociceptive effects but dose- and time-dependently blocked prostaglandin E-2 (PGE(2))- and capsaicin-induced thermal hypersensitivity in a warm-water tail-withdrawal assay in rats. Doses of 10 mg/kg intraperitoneal or 100 mg/kg oral blocked PGE(2)-induced hypersensitivity by 60 to 80%. The magnitude of reversal was greater than other negative modulators of the NMDA receptor studied, such as uncompetitive channel blockers (e.g., memantine, dizocilpine, and ketamine), a NR2B selective antagonist ( e. g., ifenprodil), and other glutamate antagonists [ e. g., selfotel, 3-(2-carboxypiperazin-4-yl)propyl-1-phosphonic acid (CPP), D,L-(E)-2-amino-4-propyl-5-phosphono-3-pentenoic acid (CGP-39653)], up to doses that suppressed operant rates of responding. In contrast to other negative modulators of the NMDA receptor studied, which typically decreased operant rates of responding at doses that lacked antinociceptive effects, perzinfotel did not modify response rates at doses that blocked irritant-induced thermal hypersensitivity. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that perzinfotel has therapeutic ratios for effectiveness versus adverse effects superior to those seen with other competitive and uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists studied.

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