Clonidine and Dexmedetomidine Produce Antinociceptive Synergy in Mouse Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Synergy between drugs manifests with increased potency and/or efficacy of the combination relative to either agonist given alone. Synergy is typically observed between drugs of different classes, as is the case with the alpha-adrenergic-opioid receptor synergy often observed in preclinical studies. However, rare studies report synergy between agonists of the same class. The current study examined the analgesic interaction between two intrathecally injected alpha2-adrenergic receptor (AR) agonists previously thought to act at the same receptor subtype when given spinally. METHODS: Mice were given clonidine, dexmedetomidine, or the combination spinally to evaluate the interaction between these two agonists. The ED50 values were calculated, and the interactions were tested by isobolographic analysis. The rotarod test was performed in the same mice after the completion of analgesic assessment to assess motor or sedative effects. These experiments were performed in outbred mice as well as in mice with mutant alpha2A ARs, alpha2C AR knockout mice, or wild-type controls. Finally, analgesic cross-tolerance between clonidine and dexmedetomidine was evaluated. RESULTS: Clonidine and dexmedetomidine interacted synergistically in all lines except the alpha2C AR knockout line, implicating alpha2C ARs in the interaction. In addition, clonidine and dexmedetomidine did not show analgesic cross-tolerance in the outbred strain, suggesting that the two drugs have distinct mechanisms of action. CONCLUSIONS: The current study introduces a new synergistic agonist pair, clonidine-dexmedetomidine. These two drugs seem to require the alpha2A AR for spinal analgesia when given separately; when delivered as a combination, the resultant synergistic interaction requires the alpha2C AR as well.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".