Involvement of imidazoline and opioid receptors in the enhancement of clonidine-induced analgesia by sulfisoxazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonidine, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, has been demonstrated to produce significant analgesia and potentiate morphine analgesia. Endothelin (ETA) receptor antagonists have also been found to potentiate the antinociceptive response to morphine. Clonidine and ET have been reported to have cardiovascular interactions involving the sympathetic nervous system, but it is not known whether ETA receptor antagonist affects clonidine analgesia. This study examined the influence of sulfisoxazole (ETA receptor antagonist) on clonidine analgesia. Male Swiss Webster mice were used to determine antinociceptive response of drugs by measuring tail-flick latency. The effect of clonidine (0.3, 1.0, and 3.0 mg/kg, i.p.) alone or in combination with sulfisoxazole (25, 75, and 225 mg/kg, p.o.) on analgesia and body temperature was determined. Clonidine produced a dose-dependent analgesia and hypothermia. Sulfisoxazole (25, 75, and 225 mg/kg), when administered with clonidine (0.3 mg/kg), significantly potentiated (31% increase in area under the curve (AUC)) the analgesic effect of clonidine. Yohimbine (alpha2-adrenergic receptor antagonist) did not affect analgesic effect of clonidine plus sulfisoxazole. Idazoxan (I1-imidazoline and alpha2-adrenergic receptor antagonist) reduced (47% decrease in AUC) the analgesic effect of clonidine plus sulfisoxazole. Treatment with naloxone reduced (46% decrease in AUC) the analgesic effect of clonidine plus sulfisoxazole. The effect of another ETA receptor antagonist, BMS-182874 (2, 10, and 50 microg, i.c.v.) was studied, and it was found that the dose of 10 microg significantly potentiated (26% increase in AUC) the analgesic effect of clonidine. These results indicate that sulfisoxazole, an ETA receptor antagonist, potentiates the analgesic effect of clonidine, which could be mediated through I1-imidazoline receptors and opioid 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".