4.5 Article

Chronic intrathecal morphine administration produces homologous mu receptor/G-protein desensitization specifically in spinal cord

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 895, 期 1-2, 页码 1-8

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)03093-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA-02904, DA-05957, DA-06634, DA-07625] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-35523] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have shown that chronic i.v. treatment with morphine or heroin decreased mu opioid receptor activation of G-proteins in specific brain regions. The present study examined the effect of intrathecal (i.t.) morphine administration on receptor/G-protein coupling in the spinal cord. In spinal cord membranes, [S-35]GTP gammaS binding was stimulated by agonists of several G-protein-coupled receptors, including mu opioid (DAMGO), delta opioid (DPDPE), GABA(B) (baclofen), cannabinoid CB1 (WIN 55,212-2), muscarinic cholinergic (carbachol) and adenosine A(1) (PIA). [S-35]GTP gammaS autoradiography revealed that most of this agonist activation of G-proteins was localized to laminae I and II of dorsal hem. To determine the effects of chronic morphine on these receptor activities, rats were treated for 7 days with 0.11 mg/kg/day i.t. morphine, and receptor activation of G-proteins was determined by [S-35]GTP gammaS autoradiography of brain and spinal cord. In spinal cord sections, chronic morphine treatment decreased DAMGO-stimulated [S-35]GTP gammaS binding in laminae I and II at all levels of spinal cord examined. There were no effects of morphine treatment on [S-35]GTP gammaS stimulation in spinal cord by other receptor systems examined (Adenosine A(1) and GABA(B)), and no significant effects of chronic i.t. morphine treatment were observed in brain sections. These data show that homologous desensitization of mu receptor/G-protein coupling occurs specifically in spinal cord following chronic morphine administration. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science BN. 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