4.7 Article

Involvement of PKA-dependent upregulation of nNOS-CGRP in adrenomedullin-initiated mechanistic pathway underlying CFA-induced response in rats

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 111-119

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.10.006

关键词

Adrenomedullin (AM); Calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP); Dorsal root ganglia (DRG); Neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS); Spinal dorsal horn

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [31171072]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that intrathecal administration of the adrenomedullin (AM) receptor antagonist AM(22-52) produces a long-lasting anti-hyperalgesia effect. This study examined the hypothesis that AM recruits other pronociceptive mediators in complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA)-induced inflammation. Injection of CFA in the hindpaw of rat produced an increase in the expression of nNOS in dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and the spinal dorsal horn. An intrathecal administration of AM(22-52), but not the CGRP antagonist BIBN4096BS, abolished the CFA-induced increase of nNOS. Moreover, AM-induced increase of CGRP was inhibited by the nNOS inhibitors L-NAME and 7-nitroindazole in cultured ganglion explants. Addition of AM to ganglion cultures induced an increase in nNOS protein, which was attenuated by the PICA inhibitor H-89. Treatment with AM also concentration-dependently increased cAMP content and pPKA protein level, but not its non-phosphorylated form, in cultured ganglia. In addition, nNOS was shown to be co-localized with the AM receptor components calcitonin receptor-like receptor and receptor activity-modifying protein 2- and 3 in DRG neurons. The present study suggests that the enhanced activity of nitric oxide (NO) mediates the biological action of AM at the spinal level and that AM recruits NO-CGRP via cAMP/PKA signaling in a mechanistic pathway underlying CFA-induced hyperalgesia. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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