![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BEHAVIORAL PHARMACOLOGY
Departments of Chemistry (H.W., R.T.K.), Pharmacology (M.C.H.K., J.H.W., R.T.K.), and Psychology (J.H.W.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Department of Psychology (M.C.H.K.), National Cheng Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan
Received April 12, 2006; accepted June 8, 2006.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Foord et al., 2005). The sequence of the NOP receptor is closely related to each of the classical, well characterized µ-, 
-, and 
-opioid receptors. However, ligands that bind to these classic opioid receptors do not bind NOP receptors with high affinity (Mollereau et al., 1994). The NOP receptor is widely distributed in the central nervous system, and it may participate in a broad range of behavioral and physiological functions (Neal et al., 1999a,b). Nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ), an endogenous peptide at the NOP receptor, inhibits cyclic AMP accumulation and Ca2+ currents and increases K+ conductance in neurons, similar to the effects of agonists at the other opioid receptors (Meunier et al., 1995; Reinscheid et al., 1995; Jennings, 2001). These in vitro studies seem to support an inhibitory function of NOP receptor activation at sensory neurons (Stanfa et al., 1996; Helyes et al., 1997; Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003). Given that the actions of N/OFQ have much in common with those of opioid peptides at the cellular level, it is important to study behavioral effects of centrally administered N/OFQ.
Although early functional studies of N/OFQ focused on supraspinal sites, subsequent studies have shown that spinal administration of N/OFQ produced antinociceptive effects in a variety of pain models in rodents (Erb et al., 1997; Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003; Obara et al., 2005). Given that i.t. administration of opioids is one of the most frequently used methods of analgesia in humans (Dougherty and Staats, 1999; Bennett et al., 2000; Rathmell et al., 2005), it is important to study further the functions of spinal NOP receptors in a primate species. Administration of µ-opioid receptor agonists by the spinal route has become a more popular approach to treatment of pain during the last 2 decades; however, the most common side effect of spinal morphine administration is pruritus (itch sensation), which sometimes is severe and lessens the value of spinal opioids for pain relief (Cousins and Mather, 1984; Waxler et al., 2005). Recent studies have demonstrated that the same µ-opioid receptors mediate i.t. morphine-induced antinociception and itch/scratching responses in monkeys (Ko and Naughton, 2000; Ko et al., 2004), making it difficult to separate these effects. If i.t. administration of N/OFQ produced antinociception without profound scratching in monkeys, the NOP receptor agonist may represent a novel pharmacological agent for spinal opioid analgesia in humans.
Studies of peptide metabolism have indicated that N/OFQ metabolic fragments have biological activity (Terenius et al., 2000). For example, i.t. administration of N/OFQ(1-7), N/OFQ(1-9), and N/OFQ(1-13) alone had no effects, but attenuated i.t. N/OFQ-induced behavioral responses when they were coadministered i.t. with N/OFQ in mice (Sakurada et al., 2000). Although N/OFQ(2-17) has been reported as the major fragment of N/OFQ in human blood (Yu et al., 1996), it is unknown which fragment is the major biotransformation product in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of primates and whether the major fragment of N/OFQ in CSF would modulate any of the behavioral responses produced by i.t. N/OFQ. It would be interesting to compare the biotransformation products of N/OFQ in rodents and primates and to determine whether peptide metabolism generates products that are active or modulate activity (Terenius et al., 2000).
Therefore, the aim of the study was to investigate effects of i.t. N/OFQ in nonhuman primates by using behavioral and mass spectrometric assays. First, experiments were conducted to characterize the time course of antinociceptive and itch/scratching effects produced by i.t. administration of N/OFQ in monkeys. Second, a selective NOP receptor antagonist, J-113397 (Ozaki et al., 2000), and a classic opioid receptor antagonist, naltrexone, were given in conjunction with i.t. N/OFQ to determine that the effects of the peptide agonist were mediated through the NOP receptor, independent from classic opioid receptors. Third, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) was used to identify the major fragment of N/OFQ in the CSF. In addition, synthesized 15N-labeled peptides were used in MALDI-TOF-MS as internal standards for an accurate quantification of the amounts of N/OFQ and its major fragment at specific time points when the effects of i.t. N/OFQ were sustained and when they disappeared. Last, the major fragment of N/OFQ was also administered to determine whether it changed the monkeys' nociceptive threshold and whether it modulated the behavioral responses evoked by i.t. N/OFQ.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Experimental Designs
The first part of the study was to characterize the behavioral effects of i.t. N/OFQ over 5 h. Four male and two female monkeys (n = 6) were used in these experiments. Injections were given no more frequently than every 10 days. Behavioral responses to N/OFQ (0, 10, 30, and 100 nmol) were tested by giving different doses randomly in a single dosing procedure. In addition, behavioral responses to i.t. 100 nmol morphine were also tested for comparison. The antinociceptive effects were measured during the 25th to 40th min of each hour following i.t. administration. Subsequently, monkeys were returned to their home cages, and scratching responses were recorded during the 45th to 60th min of each hour (i.e., 15 min/session) after the antinociceptive measurement.
After establishing the dose-response curve of i.t. N/OFQ, the antagonists, naltrexone and (+)J-113397, were chosen to verify the opioid receptor mediation of the effects of i.t. N/OFQ. The smaller dose of naltrexone, 0.01 mg/kg, was used because it was selective for µ-opioid receptors, and the larger dose, 1 mg/kg, was used because it produced full blockade of µ-, -, and -opioid receptors. This is based on naltrexone's binding affinity in the monkey brain membranes and its in vivo antagonist potency in monkeys (Emmerson et al., 1994; Ko et al., 1998, 2006). The dose of 0.1 mg/kg (+)J-113397 was chosen because this dose was effective in blocking the NOP receptor agonist Ro 64-6198-induced antinociception in monkeys (M. H. Ko, unpublished data). Both antagonists were administered s.c. in the back (i.e., around the scapular region) 5 min before i.t. administration of N/OFQ. The antinociceptive responses were measured every 0.5 h after i.t. administration of N/OFQ for 2 h.
The second part of the study was to quantify the amount of N/OFQ and its major fragment in the monkey CSF using MALDI-TOF-MS. An initial experiment was conducted to collect the monkey CSF at 2- and 5-h time points following i.t. administration of 100 nmol N/OFQ. This experiment confirmed the sensitivity of MALDI-TOF-MS and identified N/OFQ(2-17) as the dominant fragment. Although other fragments such as N/OFQ(1-15) and N/OFQ(1-13) could be found at the 2-h time point, they were not detected at appreciable levels compared with N/OFQ(2-17). Further experiments were conducted using the same monkeys (n = 6) involved in the first part of the study in separate test sessions. The CSF samples were collected before and 1.5 and 4.5 h after i.t. administration of 100 nmol N/OFQ. The dose of N/OFQ and the time points for CSF sampling were chosen based on the results of behavioral studies, showing that antinociception produced by 100 nmol N/OFQ i.t. was sustained at 1.5 h and disappeared completely by 4.5 h after i.t. administration. The obtained samples were cleaned by Ziptip and analyzed by MALDI-TOF-MS. The amount of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) in the CSF were quantified by using [15N6]N/OFQ and [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17) as internal standards.
The third part of the study was to determine the effects of 100 nmol N/OFQ(2-17) i.t. in the absence and presence of i.t. N/OFQ to verify whether the N/OFQ major fragment N/OFQ(2-17) could modulate N/OFQ-induced antinociception following i.t. administration. The temperature-response curve of i.t. N/OFQ(2-17) alone was determined every 0.5 h for 2 h in an additional four monkeys (n = 4). Antinociceptive effects of 100 nmol N/OFQ i.t. with or without 100 nmol N/OFQ(2-17) (i.e., coadministration) were also compared in the same monkeys over a 2-h time course. All experiments using i.t. administration were conducted with a 10-day interinjection interval.
Procedures
Behavioral Assays. Antinociception. The warm water (50°C) tail-withdrawal assay was used to evaluate thermal antinociceptive effects of the test compound (Ko et al., 1998). In brief, monkeys were seated in primate restraint chairs, and the lower part of their shaved tails (approximately 15 cm) were immersed in a thermal flask containing water maintained at 42, 46, 50, or 54°C. Tail-withdrawal latencies were measured using a computerized timer by an experimenter who was blinded to experimental conditions. In each test session, monkeys were tested once with four temperatures given in a random order, and only the stimulus 50°C water was tested twice to confirm the full antinociceptive effect. If the monkeys did not remove their tails within 20 s (cut-off), the flask was removed, and a maximum time of 20 s was recorded. Test sessions began with control determinations at each temperature. Subsequent tail-withdrawal latencies were determined at multiple time points after i.t. administration.
Scratching responses. Scratching responses, inferred as an itch sensation (Ko and Naughton, 2000), were recorded on videotapes when monkeys were in their home cages. Each recording session was conducted for 15 min/test session. A scratch was defined as one short-duration (<1 s) episode of scraping contact of the forepaw or hind paw on the skin surface of other body parts. Scratches usually occurred repetitively at the same location. Scratching responses were scored by trained individuals who were blinded to experimental conditions.
Spinal drug delivery and sampling. Monkeys were positioned in primate restraint chairs and anesthetized by i.v. propofol (2.5-4.0 mg/kg for bolus infusion and 0.3-0.4 mg/kg/min for continuous infusion; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE). The lower back of the trunk was shaved and prepared sterilely with Betadine. A spinal needle (22-gauge x 1.5; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) was inserted into the subarachnoid space between the L4 and L5 lumbar vertebrae. Needle position was confirmed by a free flow of clear CSF. A 1-ml solution of the test compound was infused slowly through the spinal needle within 30 s. This procedure was also used to collect CSF samples at specific time points for mass spectrometric analysis. Monkeys normally recovered from anesthesia within 5 to 10 min following termination of propofol infusion.
Data analysis. Mean values (mean ± S.E.M.) were calculated from individual values for all behavioral endpoints. Comparisons were made for the same monkeys across all test sessions in the same experiment. All data obtained from a single dosing procedure were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance followed by the Newman-Keuls test for multiple (post hoc) comparisons. The criterion for significance was set at p < 0.01.
Mass Spectrometry. Mass spectra were acquired with a MALDI-TOF Spec 2E mass spectrometer (Micromass, Milford, MA) equipped with a delayed extraction source and 337-nm pulsed (4 ns) nitrogen laser operated in reflectron mode (for other details, see Wei et al., 2004). All mass spectra were obtained in positive ion mode with 20-kV source voltage, 2.2-kV extraction pulse voltage, 19.98-kV extraction voltage, 16-kV focus voltage, and suppression mass of 500 m/z with scan extended to 2000 m/z. Mass spectral data were generated by summing 40 to 50 scans (each scan corresponds to five laser shots) into a single spectrum in Masslynx software (Micromass).
Sample preparation using Ziptip. A C18 Ziptip (Millipore, Billerica, MA) was initially wetted by aspirating with acetonitrile (ACN)/water (50:50, v/v) twice followed by rinsing with 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) solution twice (10 µl each rinse) as instructed by the manufacturer. The CSF sample was aspirated into the tip and dispensed out 7 to 10 times to bind the peptides to the stationary phase in the Ziptip. The Ziptip was then washed by aspirating and dispensing to waste 10 µl of 0.1% TFA three times. Peptides were eluted by aspirating and dispensing 10 µl of ACN/0.1% TFA (60:40, v/v) through several cycles into a sample tube. The resulting peptide solution was mixed 1:1 (v/v) with 2.5 mg/ml 
-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid solution in ACN/0.1% TFA (50:50, v/v) before deposition onto a MALDI target plate.
Quantification of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) by MALDI-TOF-MS. Synthetic [15N6]N/OFQ and [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17) were used as internal standards to quantify N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17), respectively, in the CSF of monkeys. CSF samples were first centrifuged at 2000g for 10 min, and supernatants were saved for analysis. For CSF samples obtained 1.5 h after i.t. administration of N/OFQ, 20-µl sample was spiked with 2.5 µl of 21.6 µM[15N6]N/OFQ and 2.5 µl of 30.0 µM [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17). For CSF samples obtained 4.5 h after i.t. N/OFQ, the 20-µl sample was spiked with 2.5 µl of 8.6 µM[15N6]N/OFQ and 2.5 µl of 8.0 µM[15N6]N/OFQ(2-17). Samples were then desalted by Ziptip as described above and deposited by dried-droplet method onto a MALDI target plate. Over 200 shots were summed to generate the spectra for quantification. The spectra were smoothed, and baseline was subtracted and then centered to give a value for the peak area for each monoisotopic peak. The relative intensity of each analyte to its synthetic internal standard was measured as the summed peak area of the first three monoisotopic peaks of the analyte divided by the summed peak area of the first three monoisotopic peaks of the internal standard. With this ratio, the analyte concentration in the sample was calculated from a standard curve. The construction of the standard curves is described in the following.
Five solutions were prepared containing 5.4 µM[15N6]N/OFQ and 0.54 to 10.0 µM N/OFQ. Each solution was mixed with equal volume of -cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid. Six spots were deposited for each solution via dried-droplet method, analyzed by MALDI-TOF-MS, and mass spectra were acquired and processed as described above. A standard curve was constructed by plotting the relative intensity of N/OFQ to [15N6]N/OFQ as a function of the relative concentration of N/OFQ to [15N6]N/OFQ. The same procedures were taken to construct the standard curve for N/OFQ(2-17) except that six solutions were prepared that contained 2 µM[15N6]N/OFQ(2-17) and 0.06 to 3.0 µM N/OFQ(2-17).
Drugs
[15N6]N/OFQ, [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17), and N/OFQ(2-17) were synthesized from the Protein Structure Facility at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI). N/OFQ, naltrexone HCl, morphine sulfate, and (+)J-113397, provided by National Institute on Drug Abuse (Bethesda, MD), were dissolved in sterile water. Doses are presented in the compound forms listed above. For systemic administration, naltrexone and (+)J-113397 were administered at a volume of 0.1 ml/kg.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
|
|
). Therefore, the quantification procedure of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) was based on the ratio of the relative intensity of analyte and the internal standard. The relative standard deviation of each spot on the curve was less than 10% (n = 6) and high linearity (i.e., R2 = 0.995-0.999) was obtained. Thus, quantification of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) could be performed based on the equations derived from the two standard calibration curves.
|
Figure 4B compares mass spectra of CSF samples, spiked with internal standard, obtained 1.5 and 4.5 h after i.t. administration of 100 nmol N/OFQ in a single monkey. The signal intensity of N/OFQ was higher than its internal standard (21.6 µM spiked [15N6]N/OFQ) at 1.5 h (Fig. 4B, 1) and was much lower than the internal standard at 4.5 h, even though a lower concentration of [15N6]N/OFQ (8.6 µM) was used at this time (Fig. 4B, 3). In contrast, the signal intensity of N/OFQ(2-17) was much higher than its internal standard (30.0 µM spiked [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17)) at 1.5 h (Fig. 4B, 2), and it was still detected by a signal higher than the internal standard (8.0 µM spiked [15N6]N/OFQ(2-17)) at 4.5 h (Fig. 4B, 4). These data demonstrate that strong signals can be detected without interference for both the peptide and the internal standard.
Figure 5 shows the quantified amount of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) collected before (i.e., control samples) and 1.5 and 4.5 h after 100 nmol N/OFQ i.t. in monkeys (n = 6). The amounts of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) in the control samples were below the detection limit of the method; therefore, they were reported as 0 ± 0 pmol (n = 6). The average amount of N/OFQ at 1.5 h (204 pmol) was significantly higher than those obtained from the control samples and 4.5-h samples (1.7 pmol) (p < 0.01), and there was no difference between the control and 4.5-h samples. Likewise, the averaged amount of N/OFQ(2-17) at 1.5 h (803 pmol) was significantly higher than those obtained from the control samples and 4.5 h-samples (29.5 pmol) (p < 0.01). Although the amount of N/OFQ(2-17) had decreased dramatically at 4.5 h, it was still detectable, and it was significantly higher than the control sample (p < 0.05). More interesting, the amount of N/OFQ(2-17) was significantly higher than N/OFQ at both time points (i.e., 1.5 and 4.5 h) (p < 0.01).
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003). The present study is the first to document the inhibitory action of spinal N/OFQ in a primate species. Antinociceptive effects of i.t. N/OFQ lasted 2.5 h in monkeys. In contrast, most rodent studies showed that the duration of antinociception induced by i.t. N/OFQ was between 30 and 60 min (Erb et al., 1997; Obara et al., 2005). Future studies can further investigate whether N/OFQ is more resistant to biotransformation in the primate CSF. Full antinociceptive effects could also be observed following i.t. administration of selective µ-opioid, but not -and -opioid, agonists in monkeys under the same procedure (Ko et al., 2003). These findings suggest that activation of spinal NOP receptors produced comparable antinociception as spinal µ-opioid agonists in monkeys evaluated in this acute pain model. It is important to investigate further whether both spinal N/OFQ and µ-opioid agonists produce the same degree of antinociception in monkeys under experimental models using different pain modalities.
Recent studies have demonstrated that activation of spinal µ-opioid receptors mediated both antinociception and itch/scratching concurrently in monkeys (Ko and Naughton, 2000; Ko et al., 2004). For instance, i.t. 32 to 100 µg of morphine produced antinociception against a noxious stimulus, 50°C water, and it also produced profound scratching responses in monkeys (Ko and Naughton, 2000). This observation parallels closely the behavioral effects of spinal morphine in humans (Bailey et al., 1993; Palmer et al., 1999). Accordingly, monkey subjects can be used to validate whether other opioid analgesics possess an itch-eliciting property (Ko et al., 2004). The present study clearly showed that i.t. N/OFQ produced antinociception in the absence of scratching responses. These findings together support the notion that the spinal NOP receptor is an interesting target for research and development of spinal opioid analgesics (Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003). In particular, activation of spinal NOP receptors produced analgesia devoid of pruritus, the most common side effect associated with spinal µ-opioid analgesics in humans (Cousins and Mather, 1984; Waxler et al., 2005).
Antagonist studies verified that i.t. N/OFQ-induced antinociception in monkeys was mainly mediated by the NOP receptors and was independent from classic opioid receptors. The doses of naltrexone used in this study were sufficient to block the effects of µ-, -, and -opioid agonists based on its binding affinity in the monkey brain membranes and its in vivo antagonist potency in monkeys (Emmerson et al., 1994; Ko et al., 1998, 2006). Lack of effects of naltrexone against i.t. N/OFQ-induced antinociception suggested that spinal N/OFQ and µ-opioid agonists produced antinociceptive effects independently by activating distinct receptors. Interestingly, spinal administration of J-113397 increased pain-relevant behaviors in the rat formalin test (Yamamoto et al., 2001). Although systemic J-113397 did not change the nociceptive threshold in this monkey study, it is important to study whether systemic or i.t. administration of J-113397 change the nociceptive threshold of monkeys with inflammatory pain and to investigate further whether there is a difference between primates and rodents in terms of the NOP receptor basal signaling activity regulated by release of N/OFQ.
Spinal N/OFQ inhibits excitatory glutamatergic neurotransmission without affecting GABA or glycine receptor-mediated synaptic responses, which may account for the fact that its antinociceptive action had a pattern similar to that for classic opioids (Luo et al., 2002; Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003). Although there is no anatomical study of the NOP receptor in the CNS of monkeys, studies have shown that messenger RNA of N/OFQ and the NOP receptor are highly expressed in the rat spinal cord (Neal et al., 1999a,b). What is not clear is how activation of spinal NOP receptors produces analgesia without pruritus. This phenomenon may be partially explained by an immunostaining study illustrating that the NOP and µ-opioid receptors were expressed predominantly on different fiber systems in the rat spinal cord (Monteillet-Agius et al., 1998). Given that a neural pathway for central µ-opioid-evoked itch has not been identified in any species, it will be important to investigate whether NOP and µ-opioid receptors have different cellular localizations on specific sensory neurons in the primate spinal cord.
N/OFQ(2-17) was identified as the major fragment of N/OFQ in human blood (Yu et al., 1996). MALDI-TOF-MS applied in this study also identified N/OFQ(2-17) as a dominant fragment of N/OFQ in the monkey CSF. The cleavage at peptide linkage Phe1-Gly2 seems to be the predominant biotransformation pathway in the primate CSF and blood (Yu et al., 1996; Terenius et al., 2000). The amount of N/OFQ(2-17) was approximately 4-fold greater than that of N/OFQ 1.5 h after i.t. administration of N/OFQ. Interestingly, N/OFQ(2-17) was still detectable in the monkey CSF 4.5 h after i.t. administration of N/OFQ. Nevertheless, i.t. administration of a large amount of 100 nmol N/OFQ(2-17) did not change the nociceptive threshold of monkeys. The same amount of N/OFQ(2-17), when coadministered i.t. together with 100 nmol N/OFQ, did not change i.t. N/OFQ-induced antinociception. These results indicated that N/OFQ(2-17) played a minimal role in changing the nociceptive threshold and are in line with other studies indicating N/OFQ(2-17) to be inactive in other biological systems (Champion and Kadowitz, 1997; Kapusta et al., 1999).
MALDI-TOF-MS allowed the sensitive and specific detection and quantification of all major biotransformation products of neuropeptides (Gobom et al., 2000; Wei et al., 2004). At the 1.5-h time point, the concentration of N/OFQ (i.e., 200 pmol/20 µl) in sampled CSF was approximately 1/10 of the original concentration (i.e., 100 nmol in 1 ml) delivered i.t., and the concentration of N/OFQ(2-17) was approximately 800 pmol/20 µl. These results suggested that the total amount of N/OFQ and N/OFQ(2-17) detected at the 1.5-h time point together constituted half of the original concentration of i.t. N/OFQ. The prolonged presence of N/OFQ in the monkey CSF seemed to correspond with the duration of i.t. N/OFQ-induced antinociception because the antinociception had subsided at 4.5 h with a nearly undetectable level of N/OFQ. Although other fragments such as N/OFQ(1-15) and N/OFQ(1-13) were detected by MALDI-TOF-MS, they were much lower than that of N/OFQ(2-17) in the monkey CSF sampled at 1.5 h. In contrast, N/OFQ(1-13), N/OFQ(1-11), N/OFQ(1-9), and N/OFQ(1-7) were the main fragments of N/OFQ identified in the rat brain and spinal cord tissues (Terenius et al., 2000). Although some fragments were active in changing the nociceptive threshold, most of the behavioral responses were mild (i.e., 2-s decrease in response) and transient (i.e., 10-20 min duration) (Sakurada et al., 1999; Suder et al., 1999; Terenius et al., 2000). Future studies using spinally catheterized monkeys can further address the question of whether N/OFQ and its other fragments produce any significant behavioral responses during the first 60 min following i.t. administration.
Taken together, this study demonstrated that i.t. N/OFQ produced antinociception, which was mediated mainly by the NOP receptor, not the classic opioid receptors, in monkeys. It is the first study to provide functional evidence of spinal N/OFQ effects in a primate species, indicating that spinal NOP receptor activation may produce analgesia without pruritus in humans. MALDI-TOF-MS permits a sensitive and specific measurement for defining the role of major fragments of neuropeptides. This study only focused on the behavioral effects of spinal N/OFQ and its major fragment N/OFQ(2-17) in monkeys. Future studies can be extended to determine the functions of spinal NOP receptors by using nonpeptidic NOP agonists and to explore further the potential interaction between the NOP and classic opioid receptors in primates. Given that activation of either peripheral or spinal NOP receptors can produce antinociception in both rodents and primates under different pain modalities (Ko et al., 2002; Obara et al., 2005), newly developed compounds targeting NOP receptors may produce desired analgesia without side effects (Zeilhofer and Calo, 2003).
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
ABBREVIATIONS: N/OFQ, nociceptin/orphanin FQ; NOP, N/OFQ peptide; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; MALDI-TOF-MS, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry; ACN, acetonitrile; TFA, trifluoroacetic acid; J-113397, (1-[3R,4R)-1-cyclooctymethyl-3-hydroxymethyl-4-piperidyl]-3-ethyl-1,3-dihydro-2H-benzimidazol-2-one; Ro 64-6198, (1S,3aS)-8-(2,3,3a,4,5,6-hexahydro-1H-phenalon-1-yl)-1-phenyl-1,3,8-trizaspiro[4.5]decan-4-one; i.t., intrathecal/intrathecally.
Address correspondence to: Dr. M. C. Holden Ko, Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, 1301 MSRB III, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0632. E-mail: mko{at}umich.edu
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Bailey PL, Rhondeau S, Schafer PG, Lu JK, Timmins BS, Foster W, Pace NL, and Stanley TH (1993) Dose-response pharmacology of intrathecal morphine in human volunteers. Anesthesiology 79: 49-59.[Medline]
Bennett G, Serafini M, Burchiel K, Buchser E, Classen A, Deer T, Du Pen S, Ferrante FM, Hassenbusch SJ, Lou L, et al. (2000) Evidence-based review of the literature on intrathecal delivery of pain medication. J Pain Symptom Manage 20: S12-36.[CrossRef][Medline]
Champion HC and Kadowitz PJ (1997) [Tyr1]-nociceptin has naloxone-insensitive vasodilator activity in the hindquarters vascular bed of the rat. Life Sci 61: PL403-PL408.[CrossRef]
Cousins MJ and Mather LE (1984) Intrathecal and epidural administration of opioids. Anesthesiology 61: 276-310.[Medline]
Dougherty PM and Staats PS (1999) Intrathecal drug therapy for chronic pain: from basic science to clinical practice. Anesthesiology 91: 1891-1918.[CrossRef][Medline]
Emmerson PL, Liu M-R, Woods JH, and Medzihradsky F (1994) Binding affinity and selectivity of opioids at mu, delta and kappa receptors in monkey brain membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 271: 1630-1637.
Erb K, Liebel JT, Tegeder I, Zeilhofer HU, Brune K, and Geisslinger G (1997) Spinally delivered nociceptin/orphanin FQ reduces flinching behaviour in the rat formalin test. Neuroreport 8: 1967-1970.[Medline]
Foord SM, Bonner TI, Neubig RR, Rosser EM, Pin J-P, Davenport AP, Spedding M, and Harmar AJ (2005) International Union of Pharmacology: XLVI. G protein-coupled receptor list. Pharmacol Rev 57: 279-288.
Gobom J, Kraeuter KO, Persson R, Steen H, Roepstorff P, and Ekman R (2000) Detection and quantification of neurotensin in human brain tissue by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 72: 3320-3326.[Medline]
Helyes Z, Nemeth J, Pinter E, and Szolcsanyi J (1997) Inhibition by nociceptin of neurogenic inflammation and the release of SP and CGRP from sensory nerve terminals. Br J Pharmacol 121: 613-615.[Medline]
Jennings EA (2001) Postsynaptic K+ current induced by nociceptin in medullary dorsal horn neurons. Neuroreport 12: 645-648.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kapusta DR, Chang JK, and Kenigs VA (1999) Central administration of [Phe1psi(CH2-NH)Gly2]nociceptin(1-13)-NH2 and orphanin FQ/nociceptin (OFQ/N) produce similar cardiovascular and renal responses in conscious rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 289: 173-180.
Ko MC, Butelman ER, Traynor JR, and Woods JH (1998) Differentiation of kappa opioid agonist-induced antinociception by naltrexone apparent pA2 analysis in rhesus monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 285: 518-526.
Ko MCH, Divin MF, Lee H, Woods JH, and Traynor JR (2006) Differential in vivo potencies of naltrexone and 6
-naltrexol in the monkey. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 316: 772-779.
Ko MCH, Lee H, Traynor JR, Woods JH, and Naughton NN (2003) Differential antino-ciceptive effects of intrathecally administered opioid agonists selective for mu, kappa, and delta opioid receptors in monkeys. Drug Alcohol Depend 69 (Suppl): 87.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ko MCH and Naughton NN (2000) An experimental itch model in monkeys: characterization of intrathecal morphine-induced scratching and antinociception. Anesthesiology 92: 795-805.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ko MCH, Naughton NN, Traynor JR, Song MS, Woods JH, Rice KC, and McKnight AT (2002) Orphanin FQ inhibits capsaicin-induced thermal nociception in monkeys by activation of peripheral ORL1 receptors. Br J Pharmacol 135: 943-950.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ko MCH, Song MS, Edwards T, Lee H, and Naughton NN (2004) The role of central mu opioid receptors in opioid-induced itch in primates. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 310: 169-176.
Luo C, Kumamoto E, Furue H, Chen J, and Yoshimura M (2002) Nociceptin inhibits excitatory but not inhibitory transmission to substantia gelatinosa neurones of adult rat spinal cord. Neuroscience 109: 349-358.[CrossRef][Medline]
Meunier J-C, Mollereau C, Toll L, Suaudeau C, Moisand C, Alvinerie P, Butour J-L, Guillemot J-C, Ferrara P, Monsarrat B, et al. (1995) Isolation and structure of the endogenous agonist of opioid receptor-like ORL1 receptor. Nature (Lond) 377: 532-535.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mogil JS and Pasternak GW (2001) The molecular and behavioral pharmacology of the orphanin fq/nociceptin peptide and receptor family. Pharmacol Rev 53: 381-415.
Mollereau C, Parmentier M, Mailleux P, Butour JL, Moisand C, Chalon P, Caput D, Vassart G, and Meunier JC (1994) ORL1, a novel member of the opioid receptor family: cloning, functional expression and localization. FEBS Lett 341: 33-38.[CrossRef][Medline]
Monteillet-Agius G, Fein J, Anton B, and Evans CJ (1998) ORL-1 and mu opioid receptor antisera label different fibers in areas involved in pain processing. J Comp Neurol 399: 373-383.[CrossRef][Medline]
Neal CR Jr, Mansour A, Reinscheid R, Nothacker HP, Civelli O, Akil H, and Watson SJ Jr (1999b) Opioid receptor-like (ORL1) receptor distribution in the rat central nervous system: comparison of ORL1 receptor mRNA expression with (125)I-[(14)Tyr]-orphanin FQ binding. J Comp Neurol 412: 563-605.[CrossRef][Medline]
Neal CR Jr, Mansour A, Reinscheid R, Nothacker HP, Civelli O, and Watson SJ Jr (1999a) Localization of orphanin FQ (nociceptin) peptide and messenger RNA in the central nervous system of the rat. J Comp Neurol 406: 503-547.[CrossRef][Medline]
Obara I, Przewlocki R, and Przewlocka B (2005) Spinal and local peripheral antiallodynic activity of Ro64-6198 in neuropathic pain in the rat. Pain 116: 17-25.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ozaki S, Kawamoto H, Itoh Y, Miyaji M, Azuma T, Ichikawa D, Nambu H, Iguchi T, Iwasawa Y, and Ohta H (2000) In vitro and in vivo pharmacological characterization of J-113397, a potent and selective non-peptidyl ORL1 receptor antagonist. Eur J Pharmacol 402: 45-53.[CrossRef][Medline]
Palmer CM, Emerson S, Volgoropolous D, and Alves D (1999) Dose-response relationship of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia. Anesthesiology 90: 437-444.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rathmell JP, Lair TR, and Nauman B (2005) The role of intrathecal drugs in the treatment of acute pain. Anesth Analg 101: S30-S43.
Reinscheid RK, Nothacker H-P, Bourson A, Ardati A, Henningsen RA, Bunzow JR, Grandy DK, Langen H, Monsma FJ Jr, and Civelli O (1995) Orphanin FQ: A neuropeptide that activates an opioidlike G protein-coupled receptor. Science (Wash DC) 270: 792-794.
Sakurada T, Sakurada S, Katsuyama S, Sakurada C, Tan-No K, and Terenius L (1999) Nociceptin (1-7) antagonizes nociceptin-induced hyperalgesia in mice. Br J Pharmacol 128: 941-944.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sakurada T, Sakurada S, Katsuyama S, Hayashi T, Sakurada C, Tan-No K, Johansson H, Sandin J, and Terenius L (2000) Evidence that N-terminal fragments of nociceptin modulate nociceptin-induced scratching, biting and licking in mice. Neurosci Lett 279: 61-64.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stanfa LC, Chapman V, Kerr N, and Dickenson AH (1996) Inhibitory action of nociceptin on spinal dorsal horn neurones of the rat, in vivo. Br J Pharmacol 118: 1875-1877.[Medline]
Suder P, Kotlinska J, Smoluch MT, Sallberg M, and Silberring J (1999) Metabolic fate of nociceptin/orphanin FQ in the rat spinal cord and biological activity of its released fragment. Peptides 20: 239-247.[CrossRef][Medline]
Terenius L, Sandin J, and Sakurada T (2000) Nociceptin/orphanin FQ metabolism and bioactive metabolites. Peptides 21: 919-922.[CrossRef][Medline]
Waxler B, Dadabhoy ZP, Stojiljkovic L, and Rabito SF (2005) Primer of postoperative pruritus for anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 103: 168-178.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wei H, Nolkrantz K, Powell DH, Woods JH, Ko MC, and Kennedy RT (2004) Electrospray sample deposition for matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) and atmospheric pressure MALDI mass spectrometry with attomole detection limits. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 18: 1193-1200.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yamamoto T, Sakashita Y, and Nozaki-Taguchi N (2001) Antagonism of ORL1 receptor produces an algesic effect in the rat formalin test. NeuroReport 12: 1323-1327.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yu J, Chait BT, Toll L, and Kreek MJ (1996) Nociceptin in vitro biotransformation in human blood. Peptides 17: 873-876.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zeilhofer HU and Calo G (2003) Nociceptin/orphanin FQ and its receptor: potential targets for pain therapy? J Pharmacol Exp Ther 306: 423-429.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
