3.8 Article

Spinal cord nitric oxide synthase and heme oxygenase limit morphine induced analgesia

期刊

MOLECULAR BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 95, 期 1-2, 页码 96-102

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-328X(01)00251-0

关键词

nitric oxide synthase; heme oxygenase; cGMP; morphine; hyperalgesia; null-mutant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal cord tissue contains two enzyme systems capable of producing monoxide gasses which in turn are linked to the stimulation of soluble guanylate cyclase, nitric oxide synthase (NOS) which produces NO and heme oxygenase (HO) which produces CO. Reports from several laboratories link these two enzyme systems, to pain of inflammatory and neuropathic etiologies. Additional studies have demonstrated that the activation of the NOS system by morphine limits the spinal analgesic action of this drug. In this study we first employed the hot plate model of pain to demonstrate that the NOS inhibitor L-NAME and the HO inhibitor Sn-P potentiate the analgesic actions of intrathecally administered morphine while having, no intrinsic analgesic action at the doses used. We then determined that L-NAME loses its ability to potentiate morphine in nNOS null-mutant mice, while Sn-P no longer potentiates morphine in mice lacking a functional HO-2 gene The intrathecal injection of the cGMP analog 8-Br cGMP caused hyperalgesia in the hot plate assay. Focusing on, the possible involvement of cGMP metabolism, we documented that morphine stimulates cGMP production in a spinal cord slice model in a concentration dependent and naloxone reversible manner. Both L-NAME and Sn-P were potent inhibitors of morphine-stimulated cGMP production. Buffer containing either CO or the NO donor compound SNAP stimulated cGMP production as well. In spinal cord slices from either nNOS or HO-2 null-mutant animals morphine did not stimulate cGMP production. Taken together our data suggest that spinal monoxide generation modifies the acute analgesic actions of morphine. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

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