The Antinociceptive Effects of Local Injections of Propofol in Rats Are Mediated in Part by Cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propofol can inhibit fatty acid amidohydrolase, the enzyme responsible for the metabolism of anandamide (an endocannabinoid). To study the potential antinociceptive effect of propofol, we administered different doses (0.005, 0.05, 0.5, 5, and 500 microg) of the anesthetic in the hind paw of animals to determine an ED50. To further investigate the mechanisms by which propofol produced its antinociceptive effect, we used specific antagonists for the cannabinoid CB1 (AM251) and CB2 (AM630) receptors and measured fatty-acid amide/endocannabinoid (anandamide, 2-arachidonylglycerol, and palmitoylethanolamide) concentrations in skin paw tissues. METHODS: Formalin tests were performed on 65 Wistar rats allocated to six different groups: 1) control (Intralipidtrade mark 10%); 2) propofol (ED50 dose); 3) AM251; 4) AM251 + propofol; 5) AM630; 6) AM630 + propofol. Drugs were injected subcutaneously in the dorsal surface of the hind paw (50 microL) 15 min before 2.5% formalin injection into the same paw. Fatty-acid amide/endocannabinoid levels were measured by high performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis. RESULTS: Propofol produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect for the early and late phases of the formalin test with an ED50 of 0.08 +/- 0.061 microg for the latter phase. This effect was antagonized by AM251 and AM630. It was locally mediated, since a higher dose of propofol given in the contralateral paw was not antinociceptive. Finally, only paw concentrations of palmitoylethanolamide were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: In a test of inflammatory pain, locally injected propofol decreased pain behavior in a dose-dependent manner. This antinociceptive effect was mediated, in part, by CB1 and CB2 receptors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".