Antinociception by intrathecal delivery of the novel non‐opioid 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Neuraxial opioids are widely used for intraoperative and post‐operative analgesia. The risk of severe adverse effects including respiratory depression accompanies this analgesia, prompting the need for effective non‐opioid alternatives. Systemic 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid showed promise in preliminary studies to produce antinociception without observable toxicity. However, the effects of 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid after intrathecal administration are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether intrathecal administration of 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid produces antinociceptive effects in murine models and to elucidate its site and receptor mechanism of action. Methods Female CD ‐1 mice were randomized to receive intrathecal, intraperitoneal and intraplantar injections of 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid. Animals receiving intrathecal injections were anaesthetized and injected between L5 and L6. Animals then received an intraplantar injection of 10% hypertonic saline into the right hindpaw and were video‐recorded for 30 min. Videos were analyzed by a blinded observer who determined the duration that animals exhibited nocifensive responses. Results Intrathecal or intraperitoneal administration of 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid reduced the time that animals exhibited nocifensive behaviour, whereas intraplantar administration produced no effect. The effects of intrathecal 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid were restricted in dermatomal distribution, reversible and produced little or no depression of respiratory rate. An NMDA antagonist blocked antinociception, while mu‐opioid or GABA B antagonists did not prevent ACBC antinociception. Conclusions Intrathecal 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid in mice produces robust, brief antinociceptive effects with a dermatomal distribution corresponding to the lumbar site of administration. This amino acid merits further exploration as a non‐opioid neuraxial analgesic with little or no respiratory side effects. Significance The novel, non‐opioid analgesic, 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid, produced robust, reversible and localized antinociception in murine models of pain. This study provides evidence supporting further investigation and development of 1‐amino‐1‐cyclobutanecarboxylic acid as a non‐opioid spinal analgesic.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".