Advertisement
Research ArticleNEUROPHARMACOLOGY

In Vivo Pain-Inhibitory Role of Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ in Spinal Cord

Makoto Inoue, Toshiko Kawashima, Hiroshi Takeshima, Girolamo Calo, Atsuko Inoue, Yoshihiro Nakata and Hiroshi Ueda
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics May 2003, 305 (2) 495-501; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.102.046326

Abstract

Because nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) has both pronociceptive (hyperalgesia) and antinociceptive actions in pharmacological experiments, and there is no significant difference in the nociceptive responses between NOP−/− mice and their wild-type (NOP+/+) littermates, the physiological role of N/OFQ in pain regulation remains to be determined. Under the hypothesis that the use of molecularly distinct nociception test may reveal the pain modality-specific role of N/OFQ, we attempted to examine the physiological role of N/OFQ in pain transmission by using newly developed algogenic-induced nociceptive flexion test in NOP−/− and NOP+/+ mice or NOP antagonist-treated mice. The nociceptive flexor responses upon intraplantar injection of bradykinin or substance P, which stimulates polymodal substance P-ergic fibers, were markedly potentiated in NOP−/− mice, compared with those in its NOP+/+ mice. However, there were no significant changes in NOP−/− mice with adenosine triphosphate or prostaglandin I2 agonist, which stimulates glutamatergic but not substance P-ergic fibers. The nocifensive responses induced by substance P (i.t.) were also potentiated in NOP−/− mice. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in NK1-like immunoreactivity, [3H]substance P binding, or NK1 gene expression in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord between NOP−/− and NOP+/+ mice. In addition, NOP antagonists decreased the threshold in nociception tests driving spinal substance P neurotransmission. All these findings suggest that the N/OFQ-ergic neuron may play an in vivo inhibitory role on the second-order neurons for primary polymodal substance P-ergic fibers in the spinal cord.

Since the discovery of nociceptin or orphanin FQ (N/OFQ), the endogenous ligand for opioid-like orphan receptor 1, there have been many reports that N/OFQ has both pronociceptive (or hyperalgesic) and antinociceptive properties (Inoue et al., 1999; for review, see Mogil and Pasternak, 2001). On the other hand, the supraspinal administration of antisense oligodeoxynucleotide or antagonist for N/OFQ receptor (NOP) caused an increase in nociceptive threshold (Meunier et al., 1995; Rossi et al., 1997; Zhu et al., 1997; Calo et al., 2000, 2002;Shinkai et al., 2000), whereas NOP−/− mice displayed normal baseline nociceptive responses in some analgesic paradigms (Nishi et al., 1997; Mamiya et al., 1998; Ozaki et al., 2000). These findings suggest that N/OFQ might play differential pain modulatory roles. In most popular analgesic paradigms we use, various nociceptive thermal, mechanical, and chemical stimulations might activate distinct types of fibers at the same time. These fibers might include both pain-stimulatory and -inhibitory ones, according to the gate control theory (Melzack and Wall, 1965). The late nociceptive responses in some paradigms might be modulated to some extent by descending pain-inhibitory mechanisms secondary to the initial nociceptive input (Fields, 1987). Thus, it is important to use nociception tests based on the molecularly distinct nociceptive stimulation, which causes rapid nociceptive behaviors, in the attempt to characterize the modality (or nociceptor)-specific role of specific neurotransmitters or neuropeptides. Algogenic-induced nociceptive flexion (ANF) test in mice would be the one we have recently developed to clarify the distinct roles of such neurotransmitters or neuropeptides in the nociceptor-specific pain regulation. Here, we report the in vivo inhibitory role of spinal N/OFQ-ergic neurons for the pain after polymodal substance P-ergic fiber stimulation, by use of NOP−/− mice and selective NOP antagonists in the ANF test and other known analgesiometric assays such as paw pressure, Hargreaves thermal nociception, and capsaicin tests.

Materials and Methods

Animals

Male ddY mice weighing 20 to 22 g were used. Mutant mice were homozygotes (NOP−/−) lacking the genomic NOP gene, heterozygotes (NOP+/−), and its wild-type (NOP+/+), which have been developed previously (Nishi et al., 1997), and housed in a group of 10 animals. They were kept in a room maintained at 21 ± 2°C with free access to a standard laboratory diet and tap water. Procedures were approved by Nagasaki University Animal Care Committee and complied with the recommendations of the International Association for the Study of Pain (Zimmermann, 1983).

Drugs

The following drugs were used: N/OFQ (Sawady Technology, Tokyo, Japan), substance P (Peptide Institute, Osaka, Japan), bradykinin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), adenosine triphosphate and capsaicin (Nacalai Tesque, Kyoto, Japan), and MK-801 (Sigma/RBI, Natick, MO). ONO-54918-07 (a stable prostaglandin I2agonist) was gift from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan). CP-99994 was generously provided by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (Sandwich, Kent, UK). 1-[(3R,4R)-1-Cyclooctylmethyl-3-hydroxymethyl-4-piperidyl]-3-ethyl-1,3-dihydro-2H-benzimidazole-2-one (J-113397) was generously provided by Banyu (Tsukuba, Japan) and [Nphe1]N/OFQ(1–13)NH2was a gift from Prof. S. Salvadori and Dr. R. Guerrini (Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy). All drugs except capsaicin were dissolved in physiological saline. Capsaicin was dissolved in 10% ethanol and 10% Tween 80 in physiological saline.

Intrathecal Injection

The i.t. injection was adopted according to the method of Hylden and Wilcox (1980). A 28-gauge stainless steel needle attached to a 50-μl Hamilton microsyringe was inserted between lumbar 5 and 6 in unanesthetized mice, and drugs were given slowly in a volume of 5 μl.

In Vivo Nociception Test

Tail-Flick Test.

Animals were gently restrained by hand, and a light beam adjusted for 10- to 12-s latency in naive mice was focused onto the blackened dorsal surface of the tail. Latency up to a cut-off time of 20 s was measured (Ueda et al., 2000a).

Paw-Pressure (Digital von Frey) Test.

Mice were placed in a Plexiglas chamber on a 6 × 6-mm wire mesh grid floor and were allowed to accommodate for a period of 1 h. A mechanical stimulus was then delivered onto the middle of the plantar surface of the right hind paw by using a 0.8- to 0.9-mm-diameter filament connected to an automatic transducer indicator (model 1601; IITC Inc., Woodland Hills, CA), as described by Doboly et al. (2002). The filament used produces 10 g of force at 5 s, when paw withdrawal is elicited in naive mice. A 20-s cut-off time was used to avoid tissue damage.

Hargreaves Thermal Nociception Test.

A thermal beam was focused on the hind limb foot pads of mice placed on a glass surface and the withdrawal response latency measured, with a 20-s cut-off time, as described by Hargreaves et al. (1988).

Capsaicin-Induced ABL Test.

The algogenic (intraplantarly, i.pl.)-induced biting and licking test was carried out by use of 0.4 or 0.8 μg of capsaicin, as reported previously (Tan-No et al., 1998). A 28-gauge stainless steel needle attached to a 50-μl Hamilton microsyringe was inserted into the foot pad in unanesthetized mice, and capsaicin was given slowly in a volume of 20 μl. Total duration time showing these behaviors during 5 min after i.pl. injection was summed and used as biting and licking responses (in seconds).

ANF Test.

Experiments were performed as described previously (Inoue et al., 1998; Ueda, 1999; Doboly et al., 2002). Briefly, mice were held in a cloth sling with their four limbs hanging free through holes. The sling was suspended on a metal bar. All limbs were tied with strings, and three were fixed to the floor, whereas the other one was connected to an isotonic transducer and recorder. A polyethylene cannula (0.61 mm in outer diameter) filled with drug solution was connected to microsyringe and then carefully inserted into the undersurface of the right hind paw. Because we used light and soft polyethylene cannula, it did not fall off the paw during the experiments. Because the intensity of flexor responses differs from mouse to mouse, we used the biggest response among spontaneous and nonspecific flexor responses occurring immediately after cannulation as the maximal reflex. Algogenic substance injection was i.pl. given every 5 min unless otherwise stated. Algogenic substance-induced nociceptive activity was expressed as the ratio of maximal reflex in each mouse, and in the dose-response experiments, increasing doses of compound were given at 5-min intervals. Average of responses by twice-repeated challenges per each dose was evaluated.

Central Algogenic-Induced SBL Test.

The nocifensive behaviors characterized by reciprocal hind limb scratching, caudally directed biting, and licking (SBL behavior) during 5 min after intrathecal injection of algogenic were evaluated (Hylden and Wilcox, 1981; Inoue et al., 1998). Before experiments, mice were adapted to an individual plastic cage for 1 h. Immediately after i.t. injection of algogenic (substance P), each mouse was placed into the transparent cage for behavioral tests. All mice were used for only one experiment by the observer who did not know what kind of pretreatments had been given.

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry for NK1 tachykinin receptor using free-floating 30-μm section of spinal cord from 4% paraformaldehyde-perfused NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice was performed as described previously (Mantyh et al., 1995).

Western Blot Analysis

SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis by using 12% polyacrylamide gel and immunoblot analysis were performed as described previously (Yoshida and Ueda, 1999). Thirty micrograms of protein extracted from the dorsal horn of the spinal cord was used. To get equal transfer efficiency, we have applied all samples to the same gel and carried out the immunoblot transfer using the same membrane. Visualization of immunoreactive bands was performed by using an enhanced chemiluminescence substrate for detection of horseradish peroxidase, Super Signaling Substrate (Pierce Chemical, Rockford, IL). The intensities of immunoreactive bands were analyzed by NIH Imaging for Macintosh after scanning exposed films.

Receptor Binding

The dorsal horn of spinal cord was isolated from the mouse and the synaptic membranes were prepared, and membrane binding study using [3H]substance P was carried out, according toInoue et al. (1988). In saturation binding experiments, the membranes were incubated with [3H]substance P at concentrations varying from 0.1 to 1.2 nM in a final volume of 500 μl for 1 h at 25°C. Binding reaction was terminated by rapid filtration of the incubation mixture through GF/B glass filter (Whatman, Maidstone, UK) presoaked with 0.1% polyethyleneimine. The radioactivity content of the filter was determined using a liquid scintillation counter (LSC-5100; Aloka, Tokyo, Japan) at the efficacy of 50%. Nonspecific binding was determined using 1 μM unlabeled substance P.

RT-PCR

Total RNA was isolated from mouse spinal cord with TRIzol (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and 1 μg was used for cDNA synthesis with Superscript II reverse transcriptase and random hexamer primers (Invitrogen). The cDNA was used as a template for PCR amplification with TaqDNA polymerase (Takara, Kyoto, Japan) and NK1 primers (5′-CAT CAA CCC AGA TCTC TACC-3′ and 5′-AGC TGG AGC TTT CTG TCA TGG-3′) or GAPDH primers (5′-GTG AAG GTC GGT GTG AAC GGA TTT-3′ and 5′-CAC AGT CTT CTG GGT GGC AGT GAT-3′). PCR amplification was carried out under the condition of 28 cycles (for NK1) at 94°C for 30 s, 51°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 1 min or 24 cycles (for GAPDH) at 94°C for 30 s, 60°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 1 min. Cycle number was optimized for each primer set to ensure that amplifications using template from spinal dorsal horn of NOP+/+ mice were in the linear amplification range (data not shown). The photograph of electrophoresis of PCR products was analyzed by NIH Image for Macintosh after scanning exposed films.

Statistical Analysis

In the experiment using three types of mice, statistical evaluations were performed using Dunnett's test for multiple comparisons, after one-way analysis of variance. In other experiments, statistical evaluations were performed using Student's ttest. The criterion of significance was set at p < 0.05. All results are expressed as the mean ± S.E.M.

Results

Altered Nociceptive Responses upon Various Nociceptive Stimuli in NOP+/+ Mice.

When tail-flick test, a very popular thermal nociception test was adopted, there was no significant change in nociception among NOP+/+, NOP+/−, and NOP−/− mice (Fig. 1A), being consistent with previous reports (Nishi et al., 1997). In this test, radiant heat stimulus was adjusted for NOP+/+ mice to show 10- to 11-s latency. Similar degrees of tail-flick latency and nociception were observed in standard mice (data not shown). In the paw pressure test, the average of threshold pressure (in grams) to induce withdrawal response in control NOP+/+ mice was 10.4 ± 0.7 g (n = 6). As shown in Fig. 1B, there was no significant change in the threshold between NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice. In the Hargreaves test, however, the latency for paw withdrawal in NOP−/− mice was significantly lowered (hyperalgesic) to that in NOP+/+ mice, which show the average latency of 9.2 ± 0.3 s (n = 6; Fig. 1C). Similarly, the capsaicin (0.4 or 0.8 μg)-induced ABL test also showed the hyperalgesia in NOP−/− mice, compared with NOP+/+ mice (Fig. 1D).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Altered responses to different modalities of nociceptive stimuli in NOP+/+, NOP+/−, or NOP−/− mice. Each point of data in all figures was the mean ± S.E.M. from the experiments using at least six mice. Comparison of nociceptive response in various tests among NOP+/+, NOP+/−, and NOP−/− mice (A and E) or between NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice (B and D, F and I). E and I, results represent the percentage of the maximal reflex, which is the biggest response among spontaneous and nonspecific flexor responses occurring immediately after cannulation. The increasing doses of compound were given every 5 min and the average of two responses by repeated challenges per each dose was evaluated. ∗, p < 0.05, versus corresponding control.n = 6. BK, bradykinin; SP, substance P; PGI2, prostaglandin I2.

In the ANF test in NOP+/+ mice, N/OFQ dose dependently induced nociceptive flexor responses from 0.1 to 100 fmol (i.pl.), as shown in Fig. 1E. As expected, the N/OFQ-induced nociceptive flexor responses were completely abolished in NOP−/− mice, whereas there was no significant change between heterozygous NOP+/− and NOP+/+ mice (Fig. 1E). In this test, the nociceptive dose showing 50% effective dose (ED50) of N/OFQ in NOP+/+mice was 0.52 ± 0.10 fmol i.pl. (n = 6), which is consistent with our previous report using ddY mice (Inoue et al., 1998). On the other hand, the dose-response curve of bradykinin (i.pl.)-induced flexor responses in NOP−/− mice was shifted to the left, compared with NOP+/+mice (Fig. 1F). The ED50 value in NOP−/− mice was 205.2 ± 31.2 atmol (i.pl.), 500 times lower than that (110.3 ± 24.2 fmol) in NOP+/+ mice. Quite similar hyperalgesia was also observed when used substance P for i.pl. injection (Fig. 1G). However, there was no significant difference between NOP−/− and NOP+/+ mice in the nociceptive flexor responses by intraplantar injection of adenosine triphosphate or ONO-54918-07, a stable prostaglandin I2 agonist (Terawaki et al., 1988; Iguchi et al., 1989), as shown in Fig. 1, H and I.

Selective Enhancement of Spinal Substance P Responses in NOP−/− Mice.

The substance P (i.t.)-induced nocifensive SBL responses, characterized by scratching, biting, and licking to hind paw, were mainly observed at the period of 0 to 5 min after injection. The time period showing the SBL responses during 5 min after the substance P injection was evaluated as the central nociception. In NOP+/+ mice, marked nocifensive responses were observed with 100 pmol (i.t.) of substance P, and similar results were also obtained in heterozygous NOP+/− mice (Fig.2A). In NOP−/−mice, however, markedly enhanced nocifensive responses were observed. The SBL responses by 10 pmol (i.t.) of substance P in NOP−/− mice were equivalent to those by 100 pmol (i.t.) in NOP+/+ mice.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Enhanced nociceptive responses in NOP−/− mice to intrathecally administered substance P, but not NMDA with CP-99994. Results represent SBL responses by the i.t. injection of NMDA or substance P. Each point of data in all figures was the mean ± S.E.M. from the experiments using at least six mice. A, enhanced substance P-induced SBL responses in NOP−/−mice. B, enhanced substance P-induced SBL responses in capsaicin-pretreated NOP−/− mice. C, NMDA-induced SBL responses in the absence or presence of CP-99994 in NOP+/+, NOP+/−, or NOP−/− mice. Intrathecal injection of saline was performed to assess a control response. CP-99994 (10 nmol i.t.) was injected 20 min before NMDA injection. Capsaicin (50 mg/kg) or vehicle was injected into the back of newborn (P4) ddY mice. n = 6 to 8. ∗,p < 0.05, compared with NMDA-treated NOP+/+ mice. #, p < 0.05, compared with saline-treated group in each mouse. §, p < 0.05, compared with NMDA-treated groups in each mouse.

Mice were neonatally pretreated with 50 mg/kg s.c. capsaicin to degenerate polymodal substance P-ergic C-fiber neurons (Hiura and Ishizuka, 1989; Inoue et al., 1999). As shown in Fig. 2B, the nocifensive responses by 30 pmol (i.t.) of substance P were slightly, but significantly increased to 28.0 ± 5.8 s by the neonatal capsaicin pretreatment, compared with 8.8 ± 1.0 s in mice without capsaicin pretreatment (Fig. 2A). This hyperalgesia has previously been well discussed as a denervation-induced supersensitivity due to up-regulation of NK1 receptor in the spinal cord (Mantyh and Hunt, 1985). These responses were markedly enhanced in NOP−/− mice (Fig. 2B).

On the other hand, NMDA-induced SBL responses were also significantly increased in NOP−/− mice, compared with NOP+/+ or NOP+/− mice (Fig. 2C). The NMDA-induced SBL responses in NOP+/+ mice were partially, but significantly blocked by pretreatment with CP-99994 (10 nmol i.t.), which completely abolished substance P (100 pmol)-induced nociception (Inoue et al., 1998, 1999), as shown in Fig. 2C. These results suggest that NMDA (i.t.)-induced nocifensive responses are mediated at least through substance P release from central terminal of primary afferent neurons, as reported previously (Liu et al., 1997). When the NMDA was intrathecally injected in the presence of CP-99994, however, there were no significant differences in the spinal NMDA receptor-mediated nocifensive responses without substance P-mediated mechanisms in the among NOP−/−, NOP+/−, and NOP+/+ mice. Thus, all these results suggest that the enhancement of NMDA-induced SBL responses in NOP−/− mice was mediated through substance P release.

Lack of NK1 Receptor Up-Regulation in NOP−/−Mice.

The NK1-like immunoreactivity was intensely found in the laminae I of the dorsal horn of spinal cord, but there was no significant change between NOP−/− and NOP+/+ mice (Fig.3, A and B). As shown in Fig. 3C, no significant change was also observed in the immunoblot analysis using the dorsal horn region of spinal cord (Fig. 3A). The [3H]substance P binding experiments using dorsal horn membranes revealed that theKd value of 0.69 ± 0.10 nM andBmax value of 27.79 ± 2.34 pmol/mg protein for NOP−/− mice were quite similar to those for NOP+/+ mice (Kd value of 0.66 ± 0.05 nM,Bmax value of 24.26 ± 1.57 pmol/mg protein), as shown in Fig. 3D. Furthermore, there was also no significant difference in the NK1 gene expression in the dorsal horn by RT-PCR between NOP−/− and NOP+/+ mice (Fig. 3E).

Figure 3
Figure 3

No change in NK1-receptor gene expression between NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice. A, schematic representation of the spinal dorsal horn. B, NK1 immunohistochemistry of a coronal section of the spinal cord of NOP+/+ and NOP−/minus] mice. Thirty-micrometer sections were used for immunostaining. C, Western blot analysis of NK1 protein levels in the spinal cord of NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice. D, [3H]substance P binding in the spinal cord of NOP+/+ and NOP−/− mice. There was no significant change between both preparations. E, quantitative RT-PCR for NK1-receptor gene expression. NK1 gene expressions were analyzed, using GAPDH transcript as a reference. The results represent the relative NK1 receptor expression to GAPDH 1. There was no significant increase in the expression in NOP−/− mice, compared with that in NOP+/+ mice. n = 6.

Enhanced Nociception in NOP Antagonist (i.t.)-Treated Mice.

The hyperalgesia was also observed in the ANF test with bradykinin and substance P, when 1 pmol of J-113397 (Ozaki et al., 2000; Ueda et al., 2000a) or 1 nmol of [Nphe1]N/OFQ(1–13)NH2(Calo et al., 2000) was i.t. pretreated 20 min before the test (Fig.4, A and B). The ED50 value for bradykinin and substance P in antagonist-treated mice was 100 to 10,000 times lower than that in vehicle-control mice. However, the i.t. injection of either antagonist alone did not show any gross behavioral changes nor nocifensive responses without stimuli. On the other hand, the SBL responses by i.t. injection of substance P were markedly enhanced by the treatment of these antagonists (Fig. 4C).

Figure 4
Figure 4

Enhancement of nociception driving spinal substance P neurotransmission or substance P-induced nociception by NOP antagonist treatments. A and B, enhanced bradykinin (i.pl.)- or substance P (i.pl.)-induced nociceptive responses in NOP antagonist-treated mice in ANF test. J-113397 (1 pmol) or Nphe1 (1 nmol) was given by i.t. 20 min before several peripheral nociceptive stimulation in the ANF tests. C, enhanced substance P (i.t.)-induced SBL responses in NOP antagonist-treated mice. J-113397 (1 pmol) or Nphe1 (1 nmol) was given by i.t. 20 min before substance P injection. Details are indicated in the legend of Fig. 1. n = 6 to 8.

Characterization of Spinal Transmission in Several Nociception Tests.

We tested the spinal antagonism using substance P and glutamate receptor antagonists in various nociception tests. As shown in Table 1, the i.t. injection (3 nmol each) of MK-801 (NMDA receptor antagonists) or α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (CNQX)/kainate receptor antagonist markedly inhibited the tail-flick responses, whereas there was only a little change with CP-99994 (3 nmol). Similar results were obtained with C57/Black mice (data not shown). The paw pressure response in standard mice was blocked by MK-801, but not by CNQX or CP-99994. On the other hand, the Hargreaves thermal nociception was equally and significantly inhibited by i.t. injection with CP-99994 or MK-801, but not by CNQX. Similar results were obtained in capsaicin test. Capsaicin-induced nociception was also equally blocked by CP-99994 or MK-801, but not by CNQX. In the ANF test, lower doses of antagonists (100 pmol i.t.) were used, because the pain intensity used in this test is much weaker than other tests (tail-flick, Hargreaves, paw pressure, and capsaicin tests). Bradykinin- and substance P-induced nociception was blocked by CP-99994, but not by MK-801 and CNQX. On the other hand, adenosine triphosphate- or prostaglandin I2 agonist-induced nociception was blocked by MK-801, but not by CNQX or CP-99994. All the cases with lack of antagonism (100 pmol i.t.) in ANF tests were reproduced when the antagonist doses were increased to 3 nmol (data not shown).

View this table:
Table 1

Characterization of spinal transmission in several nociception tests

Discussion

It remains to be determined how N/OFQ-ergic neurons play roles in the pain regulation. Several pharmacological analyses revealed that N/OFQ showed both anti- and pronociceptive actions in in vivo studies, whereas it mostly had inhibitory actions in in vitro studies (Meunier, 1997; Borgland et al., 2001; Vaughan et al., 2001). Very small amounts of N/OFQ mRNA are observed in the dorsal root ganglion neurons (Pettersson et al., 2002), and this activity in the spinal cord is reported to originate from intrinsic spinal neurons, rather than primary afferent neurons (Riedl et al., 1996). These findings suggest that the in vivo role of N/OFQ in the spinal cord seems to play a role as an interneuronal transmitter to regulate some modalities of pain.

In the ANF test, we used several algogenics to stimulate distinct nociceptive fibers. This ANF test is more sensitive to produce algogenic-induced nociception, because we observed nociceptive responses in much lower doses compared with that in another test (Kato et al., 2002). From a series of experiments using ANF test (Inoue et al., 1999; Ueda et al., 2000b; Rashid et al., 2003), we have proposed three different types of nociceptive fibers based on the sensitivity to neonatal capsaicin and spinal antagonism. In this diagram, bradykinin and substance P stimulate neonatal capsaicin-sensitive polymodal C (we call it type I)-fibers, which use substance P and NK1 receptor for primary afferent pain transmission in the spinal cord, whereas adenosine triphosphate stimulates the capsaicin-sensitive (we call it type II) fibers, which use glutamate and NMDA receptor for the pain transmission. On the other hand, prostaglandin I2 agonist stimulates the capsaicin-insensitive (we call it type III) fibers, which use glutamate and NMDA receptor for the pain transmission. These type I and II fibers may be suitable for the substance P-containing, nerve growth factor-sensitive neurons and P2X3receptor-expressing, glial-derived neurotrophic factor-sensitive fiber, which are proposed by Snider and McMahon (1998), respectively. As expected, N/OFQ (i.pl.)-induced flexor responses were abolished in NOP−/− mice (Fig. 1E). The nociceptive responses by both bradykinin and substance P, on the other hand, were markedly potentiated in NOP−/− mice (Fig. 1, F and G). On the other hand, there was no significant change in the responses by adenosine triphosphate or prostaglandin I2 agonist, which do not use the substance P transmission, but glutamate-1 (Fig. 1, F and G; Table 1). These results might suggest the view that substance P-mediated nociception is negatively regulated by spinal N/OFQ-ergic system, rather than glutamate nociception is, as shown in the working hypothesis (Fig.5). To prove this hypothesis, the peripheral stimulation-selective release of N/OFQ from the spinal cord should be detected as a future subject.

Figure 5
Figure 5

Working hypothesis of in vivo pain-inhibitory role of N/OFQ neuron in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. The hypothetical diagram is based on the sensitivity to neonatal capsaicin and spinal antagonism. In this diagram, bradykinin and substance P stimulate neonatal capsaicin-sensitive polymodal C (type I)-fibers, which use substance P and NK1 receptor for primary afferent pain transmission in the spinal cord, whereas adenosine triphosphate stimulates the capsaicin-sensitive (type II) fibers, which use glutamate and NMDA receptor for the pain transmission. On the other hand, prostaglandin I2 agonist stimulates the capsaicin-insensitive (type III) fibers, which use glutamate and NMDA receptor for the pain transmission. The pain inhibitory role through NOP or N/OFQ-ergic neuron in the dorsal horn of spinal cord could be attributed to the action on the second-order neuron for type I substance P fibers. Cells indicated with open or closed circle represent stimulatory or inhibitory neurons, respectively. Details are indicated in the text.

In addition, our hypothesis was also supported by the results (Fig. 1, A–D) that the hyperalgesia in NOP−/− mice was observed in the Hargreaves thermal nociception test and capsaicin tests, which drive spinal substance P system in part for pain transmission, but not in the tail-flick and paw pressure test without substance P system (Table 1). The lack of hyperalgesia in the tail-flick test in NOP−/− mice is consistent with the previous report (Nishi et al., 1997). In the previous study (Nishi et al., 1997), NOP−/− mice did not show the hyperalgesia in acid-induced writhing responses, which are sensitive to neonatal capsaicin treatment (Ikeda et al., 2001). However, because the acid-induced writhing responses were not affected in mice lacking the gene encoding tachykinin 1 (Zimmer et al., 1998), spinal substance P transmission is unlikely involved in this test. All these results strongly suggest that the involvement of spinal substance P transmission in the nociception test is closely related to the hyperalgesia in NOP−/− mice.

It should be important how spinal N/OFQ-ergic system acts on the substance P-mediated pain transmission. One of these questions is which presynaptic (primary afferent) nerve terminal or/and postsynaptic (second-order) spinal neuron is the site for N/OFQ, because we have previously reported that N/OFQ given i.t. exerts nocifensive actions in the femtomolar dose range through an substance P release from primary substance P fibers, whereas analgesic actions in the nanomolar dose range through an inhibition of substance P actions on the second-order neuron (Inoue et al., 1998, 1999). These findings raise the question which pain inhibitory or stimulatory responses are observed in NOP−/− mice. However, as far as we have observed in the present study, there is no evidence for the pain inhibitory responses obtained. All the data we obtained using various nociception tests show the hyperalgesia in Hargreaves, capsaicin, and ANF tests using bradykinin and substance P, all of which use spinal substance P transmission, whereas no significant changes were indicated in tail-flick, paw pressure, and ANF tests using adenosine triphosphate and prostaglandin I2 agonist, which do not use substance P transmission. On the other hand, the nocifensive responses by substance P (i.t.) were also potentiated in NOP−/− mice with or without neonatal capsaicin pretreatment to degenerate C-fibers. All results strongly suggest that there is a discrepancy between pharmacological actions and physiological roles of spinal N/OFQ in the pain regulation.

Another question is whether the genetic deletion of NOP causes some changes in the sensitivity to substance P. As shown in Fig. 3, B to E, the immunoreactivity for NK1 receptor, substance P binding activity, and gene expression at the dorsal horn of spinal cord showed no significant difference between NOP−/− and NOP+/+mice. Taking into consideration the fact that N/OFQ exerts inhibitory actions through Gi/omechanisms on various cells in vitro (Meis and Pape, 1998; Zeilhofer et al., 2000), all these findings strongly suggest that the N/OFQ-ergic interneuron plays a role as a recurrent inhibitory interneuron in vivo (Fig. 5).

Here, we demonstrated that intrathecally administrated NMDA caused nocifensive responses through a spinal substance P release (Fig. 2C). This finding raises a question why NMDA (i.t.)-induced nocifensive responses are enhanced in NOP−/− mice, although there is no change in adenosine triphosphate (i.pl.)-induced responses, which are mediated by spinal NMDA receptors. In the previous and present studies, we reported adenosine triphosphate- or its analog (i.pl.)-induced responses were blocked by the intrathecal injection of NMDA receptor antagonist MK-801, but not by substance P receptor antagonist CP-99994 (Ueda et al., 2000b; Table 1). This finding suggests that glutamate released from nociceptive fibers stimulated by adenosine triphosphate (i.pl.) unlikely presynaptically activates the fibers to be stimulated by substance P (i.pl.). Snider and McMahon (1998) supports this view in the review, in which the nociceptive fibers containing substance P (type I) innervate lamina I and II (outer) regions in the dorsal horn, whereas P2X3(adenosine triphosphate receptor)-expressing fibers (type II) innervate lamina II (inner) region. Although the in vivo role of presynaptic NMDA receptor on type I nociceptive fibers remains unclear, the algogenic (i.pl.)-induced nociceptive responses through type I fibers unlikely involve this NMDA mechanisms, because they are blocked by substance P antagonist, but not by NMDA antagonist (Ueda et al., 2000b; Table 1).

In the present study, we demonstrated that the postsynaptic supersensitization of substance P (i.t.)-induced nociceptive responses in NOP−/− mice is attributed to the lack of inhibitory N/OFQ-ergic interneurons downstream to substance P-responsive neurons. Here, we used two chemically different NOP antagonists, the nonpeptide J-113397 and the N/OFQ-related peptide [Nphe1]N/OFQ(1–13)NH2. Although the potency of the peptide antagonist was about 1000-fold lower than that of J-113397, the two agents produced superimposable results, strongly suggesting that their action is exclusively due to NOP blockade.

In summary, the present study demonstrates that N/OFQ plays an inhibitory role in the pain transmission through polymodal substance P fibers. However, this does not necessarily mean that NOP agonists could behave as potent spinal analgesics, because several potent NK1 receptor antagonists have no significant analgesic actions in clinic (for reviews, see Hill, 2000; Villanueva, 2000). Clinical availability of NOP-selective and -potent ligands should be rather discussed in terms of the potency of chronic pain suppression.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ichiro Shimohira and Fumiko Fujiwara for technical help.

Footnotes

  • Parts of this study were supported by Special Coordination Funds of the Science and Technology Agency of the Japanese Government, Research Grant from Environmental Agency, Government of Japan, grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Japan, and a grant for Human Frontier Science Program.

  • DOI: 10.1124/jpet.102.046326

  • Abbreviations:
    N/OFQ
    nociceptin/orphanin FQ
    NOP
    nociceptin/orphanin FQ peptide receptor
    MK-801
    (−)-5-methyl-10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenzo[a,d]cyclohepten-5,10-imine maleate
    ANF
    algogenic-induced nociceptive flexion
    i.pl.
    intraplantar injection
    SBL
    scratching, biting, and licking
    RT-PCR
    reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction
    ABL
    algogenic-induced biting and licking
    NMDA
    N-methyl-d-aspartate
    CNQX
    6-cyano-2,3-dihydroxy-7-nitroquinoxaline
    ONO-54918-07
    15-cis-(4-n-propylclohexyl)-16,17.18,19.20-pentanor-9-deoxy-6,9-α-nitriloprostaglandin F1
    CP-99994
    (+)-(2S,3S)-3-(2-methoxybenzylamino)-2-phenylpiperidine
    • Received October 30, 2002.
    • Accepted January 15, 2003.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Borgland SL,
    2. Connor M,
    3. Christie MJ
    (2001) Nociceptin inhibits calcium channel currents in a subpopulation of small nociceptive trigeminal ganglion neurons in mouse. J Physiol (Lond) 536:35–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Calo G,
    2. Guerrini R,
    3. Bigoni R,
    4. Rizzi A,
    5. Marzola G,
    6. Okawa H,
    7. Bianchi C,
    8. Lambert DG,
    9. Salvadori S,
    10. Regoli D
    (2000) Characterization of [Nphe1]nociceptin(1–13)NH2, a new selective nociceptin receptor antagonist. Br J Pharmacol 129:1183–1193.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Calo G,
    2. Rizzi A,
    3. Rizzi D,
    4. Bigoni R,
    5. Guerrini R,
    6. Marzola G,
    7. Marzola G,
    8. Marti M,
    9. McDonald J,
    10. Morari M,
    11. et al.
    (2002) [Nphe(1), Arg(14), Lys(15)]nociceptin-NH2, a novel potent and selective antagonist of the nociceptin/orphanin FQ receptor. Br J Pharmacol 136:303–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Doboly A,
    2. Ueda H,
    3. Uchida H,
    4. Palkovits M,
    5. Usdin TB
    (2002) Anatomical and physiological evidence for involvement of tuberoinfundibular peptide of 39 residues in nociception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1651–1656.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Fields HL
    (1987) Pain. (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York).
  6. ↵
    1. Hargreaves K,
    2. Dubner R,
    3. Brown F,
    4. Flores C,
    5. Joris J
    (1988) A new and sensitive method for measuring thermal nociception in cutaneous hyperalgesia. Pain 32:77–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Hill R
    (2000) NK1 (substance P) receptor antagonists–why are they not analgesic in humans? Trends Pharmacol Sci 21:244–246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hiura A,
    2. Ishizuka H
    (1989) Changes in features of degenerating primary sensory neurons with time after capsaicin treatment. Acta Neuropathol 78:35–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hylden JL,
    2. Wilcox GL
    (1980) Intrathecal morphine in mice: a new technique. Eur J Pharmacol 67:313–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hylden JL,
    2. Wilcox GL
    (1981) Intrathecal substance P elicits a caudally-directed biting and scratching behavior in mice. Brain Res 217:212–215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Iguchi S,
    2. Miyata Y,
    3. Miyake H,
    4. Arai Y,
    5. Okegawa T,
    6. Kawasaki A
    (1989) Synthesis of 15-cis-(4-n-propylcyclohexyl)-16,17,18,19,20-pentanor-9-deoxy-6,9alphanitriloprostaglandin F1 methyl ester (OP-2507), a novel anti-cerebral ischemic agent. Adv Prostaglandin Thromboxane Leukot Res 19:670–673.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ikeda Y,
    2. Ueno A,
    3. Naraba H,
    4. Oh-ishi S
    (2001) Involvement of vanilloid receptor VR1 and prostanoids in the acid-induced writhing responses of mice. Life Sci 69:2911–2919.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Inoue M,
    2. Kobayashi M,
    3. Kozaki S,
    4. Zimmer A,
    5. Ueda H
    (1998) Nociceptin/orphanin FQ-induced nociceptive responses through substance P release from peripheral nerve endings in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10949–10953.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Inoue M,
    2. Shimohira I,
    3. Yoshida A,
    4. Zimmer A,
    5. Takeshima H,
    6. Sakurada T,
    7. Ueda H
    (1999) Dose-related opposite modulation by nociceptin/orphanin FQ of substance P-nociception in the nociceptors and spinal cord. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 291:308–313.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Inoue A,
    2. Takeda R,
    3. Fukuyasu T,
    4. Nakata Y,
    5. Segawa T
    (1988) Agonist-induced substance P receptor down-regulation in rat central nervous system. Pharm Res 5:795–799.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kato A,
    2. Ohkubo T,
    3. Kitamura K
    (2002) Algogen-specific pain processing in mouse spinal cord: differential involvement of voltage-dependent Ca(2+) channels in synaptic transmission. Br J Pharmacol 135:1336–1342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Mantyh PW,
    3. Basbaum AI
    (1997) NMDA-receptor regulation of substance P release from primary afferent nociceptors. Nature (Lond) 386:721–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Mamiya T,
    2. Noda Y,
    3. Nishi M,
    4. Takeshima H,
    5. Nabeshima T
    (1998) Enhancement of spatial attention in nociceptin/orphanin FQ receptor-knockout mice. Brain Res 783:236–240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Mantyh PW,
    2. DeMaster E,
    3. Malhotra A,
    4. Ghilardi JR,
    5. Rogers SD,
    6. Mantyh CR,
    7. Liu H,
    8. Basbaum AI,
    9. Vigna SR,
    10. Maggio JE,
    11. et al.
    (1995) Receptor endocytosis and dendrite reshaping in spinal neurons after somatosensory stimulation. Science (Wash DC) 268:1629–1632.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Mantyh PW,
    2. Hunt SP
    (1985) The autoradiographic localization of substance P receptors in the rat and bovine spinal cord and the rat and cat spinal trigeminal nucleus pars caudalis and the effects of neonatal capsaicin. Brain Res 332:315–324.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Meis S,
    2. Pape HC
    (1998) Postsynaptic mechanisms underlying responsiveness of amygdaloid neurons to nociceptin/orphanin FQ. J Neurosci 18:8133–8144.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Melzack R,
    2. Wall PD
    (1965) Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science (Wash DC) 150:971–979.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Meunier JC
    (1997) Nociceptin/orphanin FQ and the opioid receptor-like ORL1 receptor. Eur J Pharmacol 340:1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Meunier JC,
    2. Mollereau C,
    3. Toll L,
    4. Suaudeau C,
    5. Moisand C,
    6. Alvinerie P,
    7. Butour JL,
    8. Guillemot JC,
    9. Ferrara P,
    10. Monsarrat B,
    11. et al.
    (1995) Isolation and structure of the endogenous agonist of opioid receptor-like ORL1 receptor. Nature (Lond) 377:532–535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Mogil JS,
    2. Pasternak GW
    (2001) The molecular and behavioral pharmacology of the orphanin FQ/nociceptin peptide and receptor family. Pharmacol Rev 53:381–415.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Nishi M,
    2. Houtani T,
    3. Noda Y,
    4. Mamiya T,
    5. Sato K,
    6. Doi T,
    7. Kuno J,
    8. Takeshima H,
    9. Nukada T,
    10. Nabeshima T,
    11. et al.
    (1997) Unrestrained nociceptive response and disregulation of hearing ability in mice lacking the nociceptin/orphaninFQ receptor. EMBO J 16:1858–1864.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  27. ↵
    1. Ozaki S,
    2. Kawamoto H,
    3. Itoh Y,
    4. Miyaji M,
    5. Azuma T,
    6. Ichikawa D,
    7. Nambu H,
    8. Iguchi T,
    9. Iwasawa Y,
    10. 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Pettersson LM,
    2. Sundler F,
    3. Danielsen N
    (2002) Expression of orphanin FQ/nociceptin and its receptor in rat peripheral ganglia and spinal cord. Brain Res 945:266–275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Rashid MH,
    2. Inoue M,
    3. Kondo S,
    4. Kawashima T,
    5. Bakoshi S,
    6. Ueda H
    (2003) Novel expression of vanilloid receptor 1 (VR1) on capsaicin-insensitive fibers accounts for the analgesic effect of capsaicin cream in neuropathic pain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 304:940–948.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Riedl M,
    2. Shuster S,
    3. Vulchanova L,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Loh HH,
    6. Elde R
    (1996) Orphanin FQ/nociceptin-immunoreactive nerve fibers parallel those containing endogenous opioids in rat spinal cord. Neuroreport 7:13691372.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Rossi GC,
    2. Leventhal L,
    3. Bolan E,
    4. Pasternak GW
    (1997) Pharmacological characterization of orphanin FQ/nociceptin and its fragments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 282:858–865.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Shinkai H,
    2. Ito T,
    3. Iida T,
    4. Kitao Y,
    5. Yamada H,
    6. Uchida I
    (2000) 4-Aminoquinolines: novel nociceptin antagonists with analgesic activity. J Med Chem 43:4667–4677.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Snider WD,
    2. McMahon SB
    (1998) Tackling pain at the source: new ideas about nociceptors. Neuron 20:629–632.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Tan-No K,
    2. Taira A,
    3. Inoue M,
    4. Ohsima K,
    5. Sakurada T,
    6. Sakurada C,
    7. Silberring,
    8. Nylander I,
    9. Demuth H-U,
    10. Terenius L,
    11. et al.
    (1998) Intrathecal administration of p-hydroxymercuribenzoate or phosphoramidon/bestatin-combined induces antinociceptive effects through different opioid mechanisms. Neuropeptides 32:411–415.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Terawaki T,
    2. Takakuwa T,
    3. Iguchi S,
    4. Wakitani K,
    5. Kira H,
    6. Okegawa T,
    7. Kawasaki A,
    8. Masuda Y
    (1988) Effect of a prostacyclin analog OP-2507 on acute ischemic cerebral edema in cats. Eur J Pharmacol 152:63–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Ueda H
    (1999) In vivo molecular signal transduction of peripheral mechanisms of pain. Jpn J Pharmacol 79:263–268.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ueda H,
    2. Inoue M,
    3. Takeshima H,
    4. Iwasawa Y
    (2000a) Enhanced spinal nociceptin receptor expression develops morphine tolerance and dependence. J Neurosci 20:7640–7647.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Ueda H,
    2. Matsunaga S,
    3. Inoue M,
    4. Yamamoto Y,
    5. Hazato T
    (2000b) Complete inhibition of purinoceptor agonist-induced nociception by spinorphin, but not by morphine. Peptides 21:1215–1221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Vaughan CW,
    2. Connor M,
    3. Jennings EA,
    4. Marinelli S,
    5. Allen RG,
    6. Christie MJ
    (2001) Actions of nociceptin/orphanin FQ and other prepronociceptin products on rat rostral ventromedial medulla neurons in vitro. J Physiol (Lond) 534:849–859.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Villanueva L
    (2000) Is there a gap between preclinical and clinical studies of analgesia? Trends Pharmacol Sci 21:461–462.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Yoshida A,
    2. Ueda H
    (1999) Activation of Gi1 by lysophosphatidic acid receptor without ligand in the baculovirus expression system. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 259:78–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Zeilhofer HU,
    2. Selbach UM,
    3. Guhring H,
    4. Erb K,
    5. Ahmadi S
    (2000) Selective suppression of inhibitory synaptic transmission by nocistatin in the rat spinal cord dorsal horn. J Neurosci 20:4922–4929.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Zhu CB,
    2. Cao XD,
    3. Xu SF,
    4. Wu GC
    (1997) Orphanin FQ potentiates formalin-induced pain behavior and antagonizes morphine analgesia in rats. Neurosci Lett 235:37–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Zimmer A,
    2. Zimmer AM,
    3. Baffi J,
    4. Usdin T,
    5. Reynolds K,
    6. Konig M,
    7. Palkovits M,
    8. Mezey E
    (1998) Hypoalgesia in mice with a targeted deletion of the tachykinin 1 gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:2630–2635.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Zimmermann M
    (1983) Ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals. Pain 16:109–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Research ArticleNEUROPHARMACOLOGY

In Vivo Pain-Inhibitory Role of Nociceptin/Orphanin FQ in Spinal Cord

Makoto Inoue, Toshiko Kawashima, Hiroshi Takeshima, Girolamo Calo, Atsuko Inoue, Yoshihiro Nakata and Hiroshi Ueda
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics May 1, 2003, 305 (2) 495-501; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.102.046326
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section