4.5 Article

Autotomy behavior correlates with the DRG and spinal expression of sodium channels in inbred mouse strains

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1285, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.012

关键词

Neuropathic pain; Pain genetics; Sciatic nerve; Voltage-gated sodium channels; Dorsal root ganglion; Gene regulation

资金

  1. Swedish Science council [8654]
  2. European Community [LSHM-CT-2004-502800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients who have suffered nerve injury show profound inter-individual variability in neuropathic pain even when the precipitating injury is nearly identical. Variability in pain behavior is also observed across inbred strains of mice where it has been attributed to genetic polymorphisms. identification of cellular correlates of pain variability across strains can advance the understanding of underlying pain mechanisms. Voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs) play a major role in the generation and propagation of action potentials in the primary afferents and are therefore of obvious importance for pain phenotype. Here, we examined the mRNA expression levels of the VGSC alpha-subunits Na(v)1.3, Na(v)1.5, Na(v)1.6, and Na(v)1.7, as well as the auxiliary VGSC-related molecule, Contactin. Dorsal root ganglia (DRG) and spinal cords from 5 inbred mouse strains with contrasting pain phenotype (AKR/J, C3H/HeJ, C57BL/6J, C58/J and CBA/J) were analyzed 7 days following sciatic and saphenous nerve transection. In the DRG, Na(v)1.6, Na(v)1.7 and Contactin were abundantly expressed in control animals. Following nerve injury, the residual mRNA levels of Na(v)1.6 (downregulated in two of the strains) correlated tightly to the extent of autotomy behavior. A suggestive correlation was also seen for the post-injury mRNA levels of Contactin (downregulated in all strains) with autotomy. Thus, our results suggest a contribution by DRG Na(v)1.6, and possibly Contactin to neuropathic pain in the neuroma model in mice. (C) 2009 Elsevier 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