3.8 Article

Modification by L-NAME of codeine induced analgesia: Possible role of nitric oxide

期刊

RECEPTORS & CHANNELS
卷 10, 期 5-6, 页码 139-145

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10606820490926098

关键词

analgesia; codeine; L-NAME; nitric oxide; opioid receptors; potentiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives were to investigate the effect of nonselective nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor, L-NAMEon codeine-induced analgesia and to see the role of NO in its antinociceptive effect. Also, to see if L-NAME can potentiate the antinociceptive response of sub-effective dose of codeine and to explore if opioid receptors have some role to play in L-NAME effects. Mice were injected with selected doses of codeine or other selected agents intraperitoneally and the latency to hot plate was recorded at zero, 15, 30, and 60 min of the treatments. The antinociceptive response of codeine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) was studied in comparison to those of the NOS inhibitor, L-NAME, and of nitric oxide donor, sodium nitroprusside (SNP). Assessment of nitrates and nitrites (NOx) in the sera of treated mice were also made. Codeine ( 20 mg/kg dose), induced analgesia significantly and dose dependently only after 15 min. L-NAME at 20, 40, and 80 mg/kg dose levels significantly changed the nonanalgesic effect of codeine (10 mg/kg) to highly significant analgesia. The effect of L-NAME 40 mg/kg was significantly higher than the other two doses and was almost equal to that of the higher dose of codeine. Naloxone itself did not show any intrinsic effect but almost abolished the L-NAME-codeine induced analgesia. Similarly, SNP (1 mg/kg) reversed the decrease in reaction time by L-NAME-codeine to its control values, significantly. Pretreatment with L-NAME rendered the nonanalgesic dose of codeine significantly analgesic almost in an equal potency to the high dose of codeine alone and indicate that the NO modulatory effect on the opioid analgesic codeine is probably, at least in part, through opioid receptors.

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

3.8
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