4.6 Article

Role of neurokinin receptors in the behavioral effect of intravesical antigen infusion in guinea pig bladder

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 164, 期 1, 页码 197-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67494-0

关键词

neurokinin receptors; pelvic pain; guinea-pig bladder; neurokinin receptor antagonists; interstitial cystitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To characterize a guinea pig behavior model of bladder pain due to intravesical antigen infusion and to determine the role of neurokinin receptor subtypes in mediating this behavior. Materials and Methods: The influence of subtype-selective neurokinin receptor antagonists on increased abdominal licking behavior in response to intravesical antigen infusion in guinea pigs immunized with ovalbumin (OA) was determined. Results: Intravesical OA infusion for 30 minutes induced a significantly greater frequency (about 3-fold) of abdominal licking behavior than during either the 30 minutes pre-challenge or post challenge saline infusions. Treatment with IP capsaicin 7 to 10 days before OA challenge abolished the intravesical antigen-induced behavior. IP injection of the NK1 receptor antagonist CP 99994 (10 mg./kg. or 30 mg./kg.), 30 minutes pretreatment, inhibited the increase in the average number of abdominal licks during antigen infusion. The 30 mg./kg., but not the 10 mg./kg. dose increased the percent of animals showing antinociceptive activity (defined as 4 or less abdominal licks during the antigen infusion). The NK2 receptor antagonist SR 48968 reduced the antigen-induced abdominal licking behavior at IP doses of 3 and 10 mg./kg. but was ineffective at 1 mg./kg. The NK3 receptor antagonist SE 235375 (30 mg./kg., IP) did not reduce this behavior. Conclusions: These results suggest a role for activation of NK1 and NK2, but not NK3 receptors, by tachykinins released from capsaicin-sensitive nerves, in the increased abdominal licking behavior response of guinea pigs to intravesical antigen infusion.

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

4.6
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