Cellular Prion Protein Protects from Inflammatory and Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellular prion protein (PrPC) inhibits N-Methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Since NMDA receptors play an important role in the transmission of pain signals in the dorsal horn of spinal cord, we thus wanted to determine if PrPC null mice show a reduced threshold for various pain behaviours.We compared nociceptive thresholds between wild type and PrPC null mice in models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain, in the presence and the absence of a NMDA receptor antagonist. 2-3 months old male PrPC null mice exhibited an MK-801 sensitive decrease in the paw withdrawal threshold in response both mechanical and thermal stimuli. PrPC null mice also exhibited significantly longer licking/biting time during both the first and second phases of formalin-induced inflammation of the paw, which was again prevented by treatment of the mice with MK-801, and responded more strongly to glutamate injection into the paw. Compared to wild type animals, PrPC null mice also exhibited a significantly greater nociceptive response (licking/biting) after intrathecal injection of NMDA. Sciatic nerve ligation resulted in MK-801 sensitive neuropathic pain in wild-type mice, but did not further augment the basal increase in pain behaviour observed in the null mice, suggesting that mice lacking PrPC may already be in a state of tonic central sensitization. Altogether, our data indicate that PrPC exerts a critical role in modulating nociceptive transmission at the spinal cord level, and fit with the concept of NMDA receptor hyperfunction in the absence of PrPC.
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".