Ligand‐specific recycling profiles determine distinct potential for chronic analgesic tolerance of delta‐opioid receptor (DOPr) agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
δ-opioid receptor (DOPr) agonists have analgesic efficacy in chronic pain models but development of tolerance limits their use for long-term pain management. Although agonist potential for inducing acute analgesic tolerance has been associated with distinct patterns of DOPr internalization, the association between trafficking and chronic tolerance remains ill-defined. In a rat model of streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic neuropathy, deltorphin II and TIPP produced sustained analgesia following daily (intrathecal) i.t. injections over six days, whereas similar treatment with SNC-80 or SB235863 led to progressive tolerance and loss of the analgesic response. Trafficking assays in murine neuron cultures showed no association between the magnitude of ligand-induced sequestration and development of chronic tolerance. Instead, ligands that supported DOPr recycling were also the ones producing sustained analgesia over 6-day treatment. Moreover, endosomal endothelin-converting enzyme 2 (ECE2) blocker 663444 prevented DOPr recycling by deltorphin II and TIPP and precipitated tolerance by these ligands. In conclusion, agonists, which support DOPr recycling, avoid development of analgesic tolerance over repeated administration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".