4.4 Article

Negative Reinforcement Reveals Non-Evoked Ongoing Pain in Mice With Tissue or Nerve Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 598-607

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.011

关键词

Spontaneous pain; conditioned place preference; neuropathic pain; inflammatory pain; negative reinforcement

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL098141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with chronic pain experience spontaneous or ongoing pain as well as enhanced sensitivity to evoked stimuli. Spontaneous or ongoing pain is rarely evaluated in preclinical studies. In fact, it remains controversial whether ongoing or spontaneous pain even develops in mice after tissue or nerve injury. This study tested a hypothesis that negative reinforcement can be used to unmask the presence of pain in mice with tissue or nerve injury. We found that spinal administration of clonidine or lidocaine did not elicit conditioned place preference (CPP) in uninjured or sham-operated mice. However, these agents produced CPP in mice with chronic inflammation induced by complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) or following L5/L6 spinal nerve ligation (SNL). These data indicate the presence of non-evoked (ie, stimulus-independent) ongoing pain in mice with chronic inflammation (CFA) or following nerve injury (SNL). In addition, this study validates the use of negative reinforcement to unmask non-evoked ongoing pain in mice. Given the existence of a large collection of transgenic and knockout mice, our data show the application of this approach to elucidate molecular mechanisms underlying non-evoked pain and to contribute to drug discovery for pain. Perspective: We demonstrated the presence of non-evoked ongoing pain in mice with chronic inflammation or following nerve injury. The study also validates the use of negative reinforcement to unmask non-evoked pain in mice. We propose to apply this approach to identify molecular mechanisms and effective drugs for chronic pain. (C) 2012 by the American Pain Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据