Effects of substance P on excitability and ionic currents of normal and axotomized rat dorsal root ganglion neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance P (SP) may act within dorsal root ganglia (DRG) to modulate the transmission of nociceptive information. Because peripheral nerve injury (axotomy) alters the peptide content of sensory neurons, we used whole-cell recording to examine the effects of sciatic nerve section on the sensitivity of rat lumbar DRG neurons to SP (0.3--1 microM). At 1 microM, SP increased the excitability of 'small', putative nociceptive neurons but had little effect on the excitability of 'large' neurons. Two-four weeks after sciatic nerve section, however, the effect of SP on 'large' axotomized neurons was increased and its effect on 'small' neurons was decreased. SP did not affect Ca(2+) channel currents in control or axotomized neurons. The effects of SP on the current-voltage (I--V) relationship of 77% of neurons involved increased inward current at potentials below -30 mV and suppressed outward current at potentials above -20 mV. The effects of SP on the I--V relationship were similar in control and in axotomized neurons and the altered sensitivity of 'small' and 'large' cells could not be attributed to axotomy-induced changes in input resistance or membrane potential. The possible relevance of alterations in sensitivity, of 'large' DRG neurons to SP, to the generation of neuropathic pain is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".