4.5 Article

Spinal N-acetyl-α-linked acidic dipeptidase (NAALADase) inhibition attenuates mechanical allodynia induced by paw carrageenan injection in the rat

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 909, 期 1-2, 页码 138-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02650-6

关键词

2-(phosphonomethyl)pentanedioic acid; N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor; N-acetyl-aspartyl-glutamate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-Acetylated-alpha -linked acidic dipeptidase (NAALADase) hydrolyzes N-acetyl-aspartyl-glutamate (NAAG) to liberate N-acetyl-aspartate and glutamate. NAAG is a putative neurotransmitter and acts as a mixed agonist/antagonist on N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and acts as an agonist on the metabotropic glutamate receptor 3 (mGluR3). In the present study, we examined the role of spinal NAALADase in the maintenance of mechanical allodynia induced by carrageenan injection, skin incision and mild thermal injury using 2-(phosphonomethyl)pentanedioic acid (2-PMPA), a specific NAALADase inhibitor, in rats. Mechanical allodynia was induced by injection of 2 mg carrageenan int the paw (carrageenan model), by creating a 1-cm longitudinal skin incision of the plantar aspect of the foot (post-operative model), or by application of thermal stimulation (52.5 degreesC) for 45 s to the hind paw (mild thermal injury model). 2-PMPA was administered intrathecally at the time when the maximum mechanical allodynia occurred. Mechanical allodynia was assessed by the measurement of mechanical threshold using von Frey filaments. The mechanical threshold was measured 5, 15, 30, 60 and 90 min after the drug administration. In the carrageenan model, 100 mug of 2-PMPA attenuated the level of mechanical allodynia. 2-PMPA had no effect on the level of mechanical allodynia in both the post-Operative pain model and the mild thermal injury model. These data suggested that the inhibition of spinal NAALADase alleviated mechanical allodynia induced by paw carrageenan injection. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.5
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