Computational modeling to study the impact of changes in Nav1.8 sodium channel on neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Nav1.8 expression is restricted to sensory neurons; it was hypothesized that aberrant expression and function of this channel at the site of injury contributed to pathological pain. However, the specific contributions of Nav1.8 to neuropathic pain are not as clear as its role in inflammatory pain. The aim of this study is to understand how Nav1.8 present in peripheral sensory neurons regulate neuronal excitability and induce various electrophysiological features on neuropathic pain. Methods To study the effect of changes in sodium channel Nav1.8 kinetics, Hodgkin–Huxley type conductance-based models of spiking neurons were constructed using the NEURON v8.2 simulation software. We constructed a single-compartment model of neuronal soma that contained Nav1.8 channels with the ionic mechanisms adapted from some existing small DRG neuron models. We then validated and compared the model with our experimental data from in vivo recordings on soma of small dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory neurons in animal models of neuropathic pain (NEP). Results We show that Nav1.8 is an important parameter for the generation and maintenance of abnormal neuronal electrogenesis and hyperexcitability. The typical increased excitability seen is dominated by a left shift in the steady state of activation of this channel and is further modulated by this channel’s maximum conductance and steady state of inactivation. Therefore, modified action potential shape, decreased threshold, and increased repetitive firing of sensory neurons in our neuropathic animal models may be orchestrated by these modulations on Nav1.8. Conclusion Computational modeling is a novel strategy to understand the generation of chronic pain. In this study, we highlight that changes to the channel functions of Nav1.8 within the small DRG neuron may contribute to neuropathic pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".