Morphine-induced depression of spinal excitation is not altered following acute disruption of GABAA or GABAB receptor activity

Different processing of meningeal and cutaneous pain information in the spinal trigeminal nucleus caudalis

Introduction

Within superficial trigeminal nucleus caudalis (Sp5C) (laminae I/II), meningeal primary afferents project exclusively to lamina I, whereas nociceptive cutaneous ones distribute in both lamina I and outer lamina II. Whether such a relative absence of meningeal inputs to lamina II represents a fundamental difference from cutaneous pathways in the central processing of sensory information is still unknown.

Methods

We recorded extracellular field potentials in the superficial Sp5C of anesthetised rats evoked by electrically stimulating the dura mater, to selectively assess the synaptic transmission between meningeal primary afferents and second-order Sp5C neurons, the first synapse in trigeminovascular pathways. We tested the effect of systemic morphine and local glycinergic and GABAAergic disinhibition.

Results

Meningeal stimulation evokes two negative field potentials in superficial Sp5C. The conduction velocities of the activated primary afferents are within the Aδ- and C-fibre ranges. Systemic morphine specifically suppresses meningeal C-fibre-evoked field potentials, and this effect is reversed by systemic naloxone. Segmental glycinergic or GABAAergic disinhibition strongly potentiates meningeal C-fibre-evoked field potentials but not Aδ-fibre ones. Interestingly, the same segmental disinhibition conversely potentiates cutaneous Aδ-fibre-evoked field potentials and suppresses C-fibre ones.

Conclusion

These findings reveal that the different anatomical organization of meningeal and cutaneous inputs into superficial Sp5C is associated with a different central processing of meningeal and cutaneous pain information within Sp5C. Moreover, they suggest that the potentiation upon local disinhibition of the first synapse in trigeminovascular pathways may contribute to the generation of headache pain.

Burst and Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulation Differentially Activate GABAergic Mechanisms to Attenuate Pain in a Rat Model of Cervical Radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is widely used to treat neuropathic pain. Burst SCS, an alternative mode of stimulation, reduces neuropathic pain without paresthesia. However, the effects and mechanisms of burst SCS have not been compared to conventional tonic SCS in controlled investigations. This study compares the attenuation of spinal neuronal activity and tactile allodynia, and the role of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) signaling during burst or tonic SCS in a rat model of cervical radiculopathy.

METHODS

The effects of burst and tonic SCS were compared by recording neuronal firing before and after each mode of stimulation at day 7 following a painful cervical nerve root compression. Neuronal firing was also recorded before and after burst and tonic SCS in the presence of the GABAB receptor antagonist, CGP35348.

RESULTS

Burst and tonic SCS both reduce neuronal firing. The effect of tonic SCS, but not burst SCS, is blocked by CGP35348. In a separate study, spinal cord stimulators were implanted to deliver burst or tonic SCS beginning on day 4 after painful nerve root compression; allodynia and serum GABA concentration were measured through day 14. Burst and tonic SCS both reduce allodynia. Tonic SCS attenuates injury-induced decreases in serum GABA, but GABA remains decreased from baseline during burst SCS.

CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

Together, these studies suggest that burst SCS does not act via spinal GABAergic mechanisms, despite its attenuation of spinal hyperexcitability and allodynia similar to that of tonic SCS; understanding other potential spinal inhibitory mechanisms may lead to enhanced analgesia during burst stimulation.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2008

This paper is the 31st consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2008 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).