Delta opioid receptor activation modulates affective pain and modality‐specific pain hypersensitivity associated with chronic neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delta opioid receptor (DOR) agonists alleviate nociceptive behaviors in various chronic pain models, including neuropathic pain, while having minimal effect on sensory thresholds in the absence of injury. The mechanisms underlying nerve injury-induced enhancement of DOR function are unclear. We used a peripheral nerve injury (PNI) model of neuropathic pain to assess changes in the function and localization of DORs in mice and rats. Intrathecal administration of DOR agonists reversed mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia. The dose-dependent thermal antinociceptive effects of DOR agonists were shifted to the left in PNI rats. Administration of DOR agonists produced a conditioned place preference in PNI, but not in sham, animals, whereas the DOR antagonist naltrindole produced a place aversion in PNI, but not in sham, mice, suggesting the engagement of endogenous DOR activity in suppressing pain associated with the injury. GTPγS autoradiography revealed an increase in DOR function in the dorsal spinal cord, ipsilateral to PNI. Immunogold electron microscopy and in vivo fluorescent agonist assays were used to assess changes in the ultrastructural localization of DORs in the spinal dorsal horn. In shams, DORs were primarily localized within intracellular compartments. PNI significantly increased the cell surface expression of DORs within lamina IV-V dendritic profiles. Using neonatal capsaicin treatment, we identified that DOR agonist-induced thermal antinociception was mediated via receptors expressed on primary afferent sensory neurons but did not alter mechanical thresholds. These data reveal that the regulation of DORs following PNI and suggest the importance of endogenous activation of DORs in regulating chronic pain states.
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".