The aim of this research was to assess the antinociceptive activity of the transient receptor potential （TRP） channel TRPV1, TRPM8, and TRPA1 antagonists in neurogenic, tonic, and neuropathic pain models in mice. Fo...The aim of this research was to assess the antinociceptive activity of the transient receptor potential （TRP） channel TRPV1, TRPM8, and TRPA1 antagonists in neurogenic, tonic, and neuropathic pain models in mice. For this purpose, TRP channel antagonists were administered into the dorsal surface of a hind paw 15 min before capsaicin, allyl isothiocyanate （AITC）, or formalin. Their antiallodynic and antihyperalgesic efficacies after intraperitoneal ad- ministration were also assessed in a paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain model. Motor coordination of paclitaxel- treated mice that received these TRP channel antagonists was investigated using the rotarod test. TRPV1 antagonists, capsazepine and SB-366791, attenuated capsaicin-induced nociceptive reaction in a concentration-dependent manner. At 8 pg/20 pl, this effect was 51% （P〈0.001） for capsazepine and 37% （P〈0.05） for SB-366791. A TRPA1 antagonist, A-967079, reduced pain reaction by 48% （P〈0.05） in the AITC test and by 54% （P〈0.001） in the early phase of the formalin test. The test compounds had no influence on the late phase of the formalin test. In paclitaxel-treated mice, they did not attenuate heat hyperalgesia but N-（3-aminopropyl）-2-{[（3-methylphenyl）methyl]oxy}-N-（2-thienylmethyl） benzamide hydrochloride salt （AMTB）, a TRPM8 antagonist, reduced cold hyperalgesia and tactile allodynia by 31% （P〈0.05） and 51% （P〈0.01）, respectively. HC-030031, a TRPA1 channel antagonist, attenuated tactile allodynia in the von Frey test （62%; P〈0.001）. In conclusion, distinct members of TRP channel family are involved in different pain models in mice. Antagonists of TRP channels attenuate nocifensive responses of neurogenic, tonic, and neuropathic pain, but their efficacies strongly depend on the pain model used.展开更多
Introduction: Propolis is used in Poland as an active ingredient of some drugs administered externally, dietary supplements and cosmetics. According to the literature, propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance, altho...Introduction: Propolis is used in Poland as an active ingredient of some drugs administered externally, dietary supplements and cosmetics. According to the literature, propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance, although it may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the allergenic properties of propolis and Balsam of Peru. Material and methods: The study was conducted according to the OECD Guideline for testing of chemicals-Skin sensitization with use of Guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Guinea pigs have similar sensitivity to allergens as human body. Sensitization properties of propolis were tested in comparison with sensitization properties of Balsam of Peru because of the possibility of cross-reaction between those two substances. Results: The skin of guinea pigs in the propolis group showed no visible change compared to the control group during the first (48 h) and second observation (72 h). The skin of guinea pigs from Balsam of Peru group showed discrete erythema in only one case at the first observation (8.33% of the animals). During the second observation, no visible changes were observed compared to the control group. Conclusions: Guinea pig maximization test showed no sensitizing properties of propolis and weak sensitizing properties of Balsam of Peru in concentration of 5%.展开更多
基金supported by the National Science Centre Grant(No.DEC-2012/05/B/NZ7/02705),Poland
文摘The aim of this research was to assess the antinociceptive activity of the transient receptor potential （TRP） channel TRPV1, TRPM8, and TRPA1 antagonists in neurogenic, tonic, and neuropathic pain models in mice. For this purpose, TRP channel antagonists were administered into the dorsal surface of a hind paw 15 min before capsaicin, allyl isothiocyanate （AITC）, or formalin. Their antiallodynic and antihyperalgesic efficacies after intraperitoneal ad- ministration were also assessed in a paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain model. Motor coordination of paclitaxel- treated mice that received these TRP channel antagonists was investigated using the rotarod test. TRPV1 antagonists, capsazepine and SB-366791, attenuated capsaicin-induced nociceptive reaction in a concentration-dependent manner. At 8 pg/20 pl, this effect was 51% （P〈0.001） for capsazepine and 37% （P〈0.05） for SB-366791. A TRPA1 antagonist, A-967079, reduced pain reaction by 48% （P〈0.05） in the AITC test and by 54% （P〈0.001） in the early phase of the formalin test. The test compounds had no influence on the late phase of the formalin test. In paclitaxel-treated mice, they did not attenuate heat hyperalgesia but N-（3-aminopropyl）-2-{[（3-methylphenyl）methyl]oxy}-N-（2-thienylmethyl） benzamide hydrochloride salt （AMTB）, a TRPM8 antagonist, reduced cold hyperalgesia and tactile allodynia by 31% （P〈0.05） and 51% （P〈0.01）, respectively. HC-030031, a TRPA1 channel antagonist, attenuated tactile allodynia in the von Frey test （62%; P〈0.001）. In conclusion, distinct members of TRP channel family are involved in different pain models in mice. Antagonists of TRP channels attenuate nocifensive responses of neurogenic, tonic, and neuropathic pain, but their efficacies strongly depend on the pain model used.
文摘Introduction: Propolis is used in Poland as an active ingredient of some drugs administered externally, dietary supplements and cosmetics. According to the literature, propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance, although it may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the allergenic properties of propolis and Balsam of Peru. Material and methods: The study was conducted according to the OECD Guideline for testing of chemicals-Skin sensitization with use of Guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Guinea pigs have similar sensitivity to allergens as human body. Sensitization properties of propolis were tested in comparison with sensitization properties of Balsam of Peru because of the possibility of cross-reaction between those two substances. Results: The skin of guinea pigs in the propolis group showed no visible change compared to the control group during the first (48 h) and second observation (72 h). The skin of guinea pigs from Balsam of Peru group showed discrete erythema in only one case at the first observation (8.33% of the animals). During the second observation, no visible changes were observed compared to the control group. Conclusions: Guinea pig maximization test showed no sensitizing properties of propolis and weak sensitizing properties of Balsam of Peru in concentration of 5%.
