Antkowiak B, Paluch M, Ciechanowska M, Nawrocka M, Bańkowski K, Michalak O, Kocik J, Kowalczyk M, Izdebski J. Antinociceptive effect of D-Lys(2), Dab(4)N-(ureidoethyl)amide, a new cyclic 1-4 dermorphin/deltorphin analog.
Pharmacol Rep 2014;
66:600-5. [PMID:
24948060 DOI:
10.1016/j.pharep.2014.01.007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2013] [Revised: 11/22/2013] [Accepted: 01/30/2014] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
A preliminary evaluation of antinociceptive activity of a new cyclic dermorphin/deltorphin tetrapeptide analog restricted via a urea bridge and containing C-terminal ureidoethylamid {[H-Tyr-d-Lys(&(1))-Phe-Dab(&(2))-CH2CH2NHCONH2][&(1)CO&(2)]} (cUP-1) revealed a significant and long-lasting increase of pain threshold to thermal stimulation after systemic application. The current studies were aimed at further evaluation of cUP-1 activity in animal models of somatic and visceral pain. The influence of cUP-1 on motor functions was also investigated.
METHODS
The influence of cUP-1 (0.5-2mgkg(-1), iv) on nociceptive threshold to mechanical pressure and analgesic efficacy in formalin and acetic acid-induced writhing tests were estimated. The antinociceptive effect of cUP-1 was compared to that of morphine (MF). The influence of cUP-1 (1, 4 and 8mgkg(-1), iv) on locomotor activity, motor coordination and muscle strength was estimated using open field and rota-rod tests and a grip strength measurement.
RESULTS
Administration of cUP-1 in doses of 1 and 2mgkg(-1) elicited a significant increase of nociceptive threshold to mechanical pressure. MF applied in the same doses induced an antinociceptive effect only at the higher dose (2mgkg(-1)). There were no marked differences between the effect of cUP-1 and MF at each dose, at relative time points. In the writhing test and both phases of the formalin test, cUP-1 showed a significant, dose-dependent antinociceptive effect which did not markedly differ from that of MF. cUP-1 did not significantly affect motor functions of mice.
CONCLUSIONS
Systemic application of cUP-1 elicited a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect. The analgesic efficacy of cUP-1 on mechanical nociception, visceral and formalin-induced pain was comparable to that of MF. cUP-1 did not impair motor functions of mice.
Collapse