Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Visit jpet on Facebook
  • Follow jpet on Twitter
  • Follow jpet on LinkedIn
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Repeated Intraperitoneal Administration of Low-Concentration Methylcellulose Leads to Systemic Histologic Lesions Without Loss of Preclinical Phenotype

Stacey Meeker, Megan Beckman, Kevin M. Knox, Piper M. Treuting and Melissa Barker-Haliski
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 2019, 371 (1) 25-35; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.119.257261
Stacey Meeker
Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine (S.M., P.M.T.), Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences (M.B.), and Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (M.B., K.M.K., M.B.-H.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan Beckman
Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine (S.M., P.M.T.), Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences (M.B.), and Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (M.B., K.M.K., M.B.-H.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin M. Knox
Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine (S.M., P.M.T.), Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences (M.B.), and Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (M.B., K.M.K., M.B.-H.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Piper M. Treuting
Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine (S.M., P.M.T.), Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences (M.B.), and Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (M.B., K.M.K., M.B.-H.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melissa Barker-Haliski
Department of Comparative Medicine, School of Medicine (S.M., P.M.T.), Department of Biology, College of Arts and Sciences (M.B.), and Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (M.B., K.M.K., M.B.-H.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Melissa Barker-Haliski
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Repeated administration of MC by the PO and intraperitoneal routes does not overtly impact body weight gain or long-term stability of the fully kindled seizure after acquisition of the fully kindled state. (A) Over 72% of mice that enrolled in the corneal-kindling protocol achieved the fully kindled state within 3 to 4 weeks. Sham-kindled mice did not present with a behavioral seizure during any of the stimulation sessions. N = 47 CKM and N = 35 sham. (B) The long-term stability of the fully kindled seizure was not adversely impacted by repeated intraperitoneal MC or SAL administration during the 6-week testing period. (C) Animals were randomized to treatment group after acquisition of the fully kindled state, as defined by five consecutive Racine stage 5 seizures. Repeated administration of MC or SAL by the intraperitoneal or PO route to sham- or corneal-kindled mice was not associated with any overt impacts on percentage change (C) or raw change (D) in body weight gain during the 6-week treatment period. CKM: i.p. MC, n = 14; i.p. SAL, n = 12; PO MC, n = 5; PO SAL, n = 3; sham-kindled mice: i.p. MC, n = 13; i.p. SAL, n = 12; PO MC, n = 5; PO SAL, n = 5.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    (A) Clinical assessments were performed by a board-certified laboratory animal veterinarian at four time points during the MC/SAL treatment period. Examination 1 occurred 1 week after kindling acquisition, prior to MC/SAL administration. Examination 2 occurred after 1 week of MC/SAL administration. Examination 3 occurred after 2.5 weeks of MC/SAL administration. Examination 4 occurred after 6 weeks of MC/SAL administration. Clinical scores range from 0 to 11 and were based on assessment of mouse appearance, posture, behavior, and body condition by a veterinarian blinded to treatment group and kindling status (mean ± S.E.M.). (B) A cohort of female C57Bl/6J mice (n = 10) were infected with influenza virus and assessed for clinical score on the same day as examination 2 of the sham PO SAL-treated mice. Acute infection of mice with influenza virus results in a significantly greater clinical score than sham-kindled CF-1 mice administered saline by the oral route (t = 25.0, P < 0.0001). ****Significantly greater than Sham PO SAL (P < 0.0001).

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Repeated administration of MC or SAL by the intraperitoneal route to sham- and corneal-kindled mice does not adversely affect exploratory behavior in an OF (mean ± S.E.M.). OF behavior was assessed by an automated program to quantify total distance traveled (A), percentage of distance traveled in the center of an OF (B), percentage of vertical rearing activity in the OF center (C), and percentage of total rest time in the center of the OF (D).

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Representative sections from kidney (A and B), liver (C and D), and carotid artery (E and F). (A, C, and E) Normal tissues from an intraperitoneal SAL-treated mouse. (A) Note that male mice have cuboidal parietal epithelium lining the glomerular capsule (asterisk). (B, D, and F) Tissues from an intraperitoneal MC-treated mouse; insets show high-magnification examples of FCs. (B) Glomerulus containing large foamy cells (arrow), enlarged with proliferative glomerulonephropathy. (D) Liver foci of FCs with surrounding mononuclear inflammatory cells. (Inset) High magnification of FCs without attending inflammation. (F) Carotid artery with abundant subintimal accumulations of FCs (arrow); lumen indicated (asterisk). (A–D) Original magnification, 200×. (E and F) Original magnification, 100×. (Insets) Original magnification, 400×.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    FCs are present in multiple organs and may be associated with inflammation and tissue damage. (A) Carotid artery. Note abundant intimal and subintimal accumulation of FCs, with FCs present within the lumen (asterisk). Original magnification, 400×. (B) Choroid plexus contains moderate perivascular accumulations of FCs (arrow). Original magnification, 100×. (C) Liver with coalescing microgranulomas. Original magnification, 200×. (D) Liver Mason’s trichrome stain for fibrosis (blue stain); there is a small amount of increased connective tissue (blue) adjacent to foci of FCs. Original magnification, 400×. (E) Mesentery. Mixed inflammatory foci adjacent to accumulations of FCs (arrow). Original magnification, 400×. (F) Glomerulonephritis (asterisk) and FCs within affected glomeruli (arrow). Original magnification, 400×. (Inset) PAS-stained glomerulus with intracapillary FCs. The cells are PAS negative. Original magnification, 400×.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Administration of MC results in FC accumulation when administered by the intraperitoneal route, but not the PO route, regardless of kindling status. Liver, lung, kidney, spleen, mesentery, arteries, and choroid were assessed histologically by a veterinary pathologist masked to experimental treatment. A total disease score, ranging from 0 to 56, was developed to capture the presence and extent of FCs in the tissues as well as the presence or absence of degeneration and/or necrosis associated with the FC aggregates (mean ± S.E.M.).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Clinical assessment parameters and scoring

    Score
    0123
    AppearanceNormalLack of grooming, sunken eyes, mild blepharitis/blepharospasm, mild hunched postureOcular discharge, corneal ulceration, marked blepharitis/blepharospasm, prolonged hunched posture, abdominal distention, head tiltHunched unmoving posture, labored breathing
    Clinical signsNoneElevated or decreased respiratory and/or effortClinical dehydration, marked pallor
    BehaviorNormalDecreased interaction with cagemates, slow to move about cage, decreased interest in environmentIsolated from cagemates, slow to move when stimulated, impaired mobility, ataxia, hypo- or hyperesthetic when handledImmobile, weakly or not responsive to handling, convulsing
    Body conditionBCS ≥3BCS 2 to 3BCS 1 to 2BCS ≤1
    • BCS, Body Condition Score.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    FC scoring system

    FC ScoreDescription
    0No FCs present
    1Scattered individual FCs present within the tissue (1–5 cells)
    2Clusters of FCs present, no inflammation
    3Clusters of FCs present with inflammation, or coalescing clusters of FCs without inflammation
    4Coalescing clusters of FCs with inflammation
    Tissue damage multiplier
     1No tissue damage present
     2Presence of degeneration or necrosis
    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Complete blood count and white blood cell differential

    Analytes were assessed across treatment groups by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc analysis. Significant differences in pairwise comparisons among groups for individual analytes are demonstrated using superscript letters. Values are the mean ± S.D.

    TestCKM i.p. MC (n = 6)CKM i.p. SAL (n = 5)Sham i.p. MC (n = 5)Sham i.p. SAL (n = 4)CKM PO MC (n = 3)Sham PO MC (n = 5)Sham PO SAL (n = 5)
    White blood cells (K/μl)7.7 ± 1.47.6 ± 2.97.8 ± 1.46.8 ± 2.64.7 ± 1.74.7 ± 0.95.0 ± 1.4
    Red blood cells (M/μl)9.1 ± 0.69.0 ± 0.48.6 ± 0.48.9 ± 1.29.4 ± 0.58.7 ± 1.58.6 ± 1.6
    Hemoglobin (g/dl)13.8 ± 0.812.7 ± 3.413.1 ± 0.713.7 ± 2.015.5 ± 0.714.6 ± 2.814.3 ± 2.5
    Hematocrit (%)56.0 ± 4.555.0 ± 3.152.0 ± 2.854.3 ± 7.160.1 ± 4.152.6 ± 8.853.7 ± 10.1
    Mean corpuscular volume (fl)61.6 ± 2.060.8 ± 2.460.4 ± 2.360.8 ± 1.064.1 ± 2.660.6 ± 1.962.7 ± 2.1
    Mean corpuscular hemoglobin (pg)15.2 ± 0.4a,b,c15.5 ± 0.5d,e,f15.3 ± 0.5g,h,i15.3 ± 0.4j,k,l16.5 ± 0.3c,f,i,l16.5 ± 0.4a,d,g,j16.7 ± 0.3b,e,h,k
    Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (%)24.8 ± 1.1a,b25.5 ± 0.7d25.2 ± 0.8g25.2 ± 0.5k25.8 ± 0.827.3 ± 0.4a,d,g,k26.7 ± 0.7b
    Neutrophils
     %33.3 ± 7.1a,b,c40.8 ± 6.7d,e,f29.2 ± 3.8g,h,i27.8 ± 14.4j,k12.3 ± 4.0c,f,i10.0 ± 1.6a,d,g,j10.8 ± 1.3b,e,h,k
     #/μl2597.5 ± 801.3a,b,c3095.6 ± 1281.3d,e,f2270.2 ± 521.9g,h1858.5 ± 1056.3540.3 ± 174.0c,f462.4 ± 96.5a,d,g533.8 ± 145.6b,e,h
    Lymphocytes
     %59.7 ± 9.2a,b,c55.0 ± 9.1d,e,f62.0 ± 8.5g,h,i67.5 ± 18.6j,k85.3 ± 4.0c,f,i87.2 ± 0.8a,d,g,j87.2 ± 2.4b,e,h,k
     #/μl4595.8 ± 974.34164.8 ± 1708.84816.2 ± 1038.94556.3 ± 2305.34004.0 ± 1534.64065.0 ± 807.14312.2 ± 1182.3
    Monocytes
     %6.8 ± 3.13.6 ± 2.78.8 ± 5.0g,h4.0 ± 4.22.0 ± 1.71.2 ± 0.8g1.6 ± 1.9h
     #/μl526.3 ± 224.7a248.4 ± 155.4693.6 ± 452.6g,h,i294.8 ± 299.7103.7 ± 108.6i55.0 ± 43.5a,g91.2 ± 116.5h
    Eosinophils
     %0.2 ± 0.4a0.4 ± 0.50.0 ± 0.0g0.8 ± 1.00.3 ± 0.61.6 ± 0.9a,g0.4 ± 0.5
     #/μl13.7 ± 33.531.2 ± 45.50.0 ± 0.040.5 ± 48.318.7 ± 32.377.6 ± 54.122.8 ± 31.6
    Basophils
     %0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
     #/μl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
    Platelets (K/μl)921.3 ± 411.0652.4 ± 430.21067.6 ± 389.0813.5 ± 398.91063.7 ± 382.8534.2 ± 407.6485.6 ± 374.3
    • ↵a CKM MC i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵b CKM MC i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵c CKM MC i.p. vs. CKM MC PO.

    • ↵d CKM SAL i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵e CKM SAL i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵f CKM SAL i.p. vs. CKM MC PO.

    • ↵g Sham MC i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵h Sham MC i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵i Sham MC i.p. vs. CKM MC PO.

    • ↵j Sham SAL i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵k Sham SAL i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵l Sham SAL i.p. vs. CKM MC PO.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Serum biochemistry analytes

    Analytes were assessed across treatment groups by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc analysis. Significant differences in pairwise comparisons among groups for individual analytes are demonstrated using superscript letters. Values are the mean ± S.D.

    TestCKM i.p. MC (n = 6)CKM i.p. SAL (n = 5)Sham i.p. MC (n = 5)Sham i.p. SAL (n = 4)CKM PO MC (n = 3)Sham PO MC (n = 5)Sham PO SAL (n = 5)
    Glucose (mg/dl)274.5 ± 44.5282.0 ± 49.6319.2 ± 108.2268.0 ± 53.5281.0 ± 48.7357.0 ± 77.7269.6 ± 55.5
    Blood urea nitrogen (mg/dl)25.2 ± 1.8a21.6 ± 3.326.0 ± 3.5b22.5 ± 3.322.7 ± 3.819.4 ± 2.1a,b22.2 ± 2.6
    Calcium (mg/dl)10.8 ± 0.910.9 ± 0.611.4 ± 0.510.7 ± 0.310.3 ± 0.411.3 ± 0.710.4 ± 0.4
    Phosphate (mg/dl)14.7 ± 1.914.3 ± 1.413.9 ± 1.114.2 ± 0.312.8 ± 2.214.6 ± 1.813.3 ± 0.7
    Total protein (g/dl)6.1 ± 0.56.1 ± 0.55.8 ± 0.45.9 ± 0.35.7 ± 0.25.8 ± 0.25.5 ± 0.3
    Albumin (g/dl)3.5 ± 0.23.5 ± 0.23.2 ± 0.23.3 ± 0.13.5 ± 0.33.5 ± 0.23.5 ± 0.2
    Globulin (g/dl)2.6 ± 0.3c2.6 ± 0.32.6 ± 0.2d2.6 ± 0.3e2.2 ± 0.12.3 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.2c,d,e
    Total bilirubin (mg/dl)0.2 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.1
    Alkaline phosphatase (U/l)125.5 ± 43.3178.4 ± 57.9f83.6 ± 26.4f,b157.0 ± 41.0132.0 ± 25.2189.8 ± 65.4b152.6 ± 24.5
    Alanine aminotransferase (U/l)54.7 ± 25.855.6 ± 24.443.8 ± 10.140.8 ± 11.846.0 ± 12.837.6 ± 13.137.0 ± 7.3
    Aspartate aminotransferase (U/l)251.2 ± 335.9100.4 ± 36.762.6 ± 19.885.0 ± 31.870.0 ± 14.070.2 ± 40.489.4 ± 66.2
    Cholesterol (mg/dl)142.2 ± 40.8148.0 ± 26.1142.0 ± 18.5149.0 ± 17.4133.3 ± 16.0165.8 ± 18.5138.2 ± 27.3
    • ↵a CKM MC i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵b Sham MC i.p. vs. sham MC PO.

    • ↵c CKM MC i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵d Sham MC i.p. vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵e CKM MC PO vs. sham SAL PO.

    • ↵f CKM SAL i.p. vs. sham MC i.p.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics: 371 (1)
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Vol. 371, Issue 1
1 Oct 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Repeated Intraperitoneal Administration of Low-Concentration Methylcellulose Leads to Systemic Histologic Lesions Without Loss of Preclinical Phenotype
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Impact of Repeated Intraperitoneal Methylcellulose

Stacey Meeker, Megan Beckman, Kevin M. Knox, Piper M. Treuting and Melissa Barker-Haliski
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 1, 2019, 371 (1) 25-35; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.119.257261

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Impact of Repeated Intraperitoneal Methylcellulose

Stacey Meeker, Megan Beckman, Kevin M. Knox, Piper M. Treuting and Melissa Barker-Haliski
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 1, 2019, 371 (1) 25-35; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.119.257261
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Authorship Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Varenicline and epibatidine as opioid adjuvants
  • MCAM reverses and prevents fentanyl ventilatory depression
  • Kv7 opener SCR2682 alleviates pain
Show more Behavioral Pharmacology

Similar Articles

  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About JPET
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0103 (Online)

Copyright © 2021 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics