Spinal NTS1 receptors regulate nociceptive signaling in a rat formalin tonic pain model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central administration of the neuropeptide neurotensin (NT) was shown to induce antinociceptive responses both spinally and supraspinally. Although NTS2 receptors play an important role in modulating the activity of spinal neurons, we have recently implicated NTS1 receptors in NT's analgesic effects in acute spinal pain paradigms. The current experiments were thus designed to examine the antinociceptive effects of intrathecal administration of NTS1 agonists in formalin-induced tonic pain in rats. We first established, using immunoblotting and immunohistochemical approaches, that NTS1 receptors were present in small- and medium-sized dorsal root ganglion cells and localized in the superficial layers of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. We then examined the effects of intrathecal injection of NT (1-15 microg/kg) or NTS1 preferring agonists on the nocifensive response to intraplantar formalin. Both NTS1-agonists, PD149163 (10-120 microg/kg) and NT69L (1-100 microg/kg), dose-dependently attenuated the formalin-induced behaviors. Accordingly, NTS1 agonists markedly suppressed pain-evoked c-fos expression in the superficial, nucleus proprius and neck regions of the spinal dorsal horn. The concomitant administration of PD149163 with the NTS1 antagonist SR48692 (3 microg/kg) significantly reversed PD149163-induced antinociception, confirming the implication of NTS1 in tonic pain. In contrast, NT69L's analgesic effects were partly abolished by co-administration of SR48692, indicating that NT69L-induced effects may also be exerted through interaction with NTS2. These results demonstrate that NTS1 receptors play a key role in the mediation of the analgesic effects of NT in persistent pain and suggest that NTS1-selective agonists may represent a new line of analgesic compounds.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".