Blockade and reversal of spinal morphine tolerance by peptide and non‐peptide calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of the peptide CGRP receptor antagonist CGRP(8-37) and the newly-developed non-peptide CGRP receptor antagonist BIBN4096BS for their potential to both inhibit the development and reverse tolerance to the antinociceptive action of morphine. Repeated administration of intrathecal morphine (15 microg), once daily, produced a progressive decline of antinociceptive effect and an increase in the ED(50) value in the tailflick and paw pressure tests. Co-administration of CGRP(8-37) (4 microg) or BIBN4096BS (0.05, 0.1 microg) with morphine (15 microg) prevented the decline of antinociceptive effect and increase in ED(50) value in the tailflick test. Intrathecal administration of the CGRP receptor antagonists did not alter the baseline responses in either tests. Acute CGRP(8-37) also did not potentiate the acute actions of spinal morphine. In animals rendered tolerant to intrathecal morphine, subsequent administration of CGRP(8-37) (4 microg) with morphine (15 microg) partially restored the antinociceptive effect and ED(50) value of acute morphine, reflecting the reversal of tolerance. Animals tolerant to intrathecal morphine expressed increased CGRP and substance P-like immunostaining in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. The increase in CGRP, but not substance P-like immunostaining, was blocked by a co-treatment with CGRP(8-37) (4 microg). In animals already tolerant to morphine, the increase in CGRP but not substance P-like immunostaining was partially reversed by CGRP(8-37) (4 microg). These data suggest that activation of spinal CGRP receptors contributes to both the development and expression of spinal opioid tolerance. CGRP receptor antagonists may represent a useful therapeutic approach for preventing as well as reversing opioid tolerance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".