MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416193136 · doi:10.1186/s13041-025-01253-3

Pharmacological inhibition of NaV1.8 by suzetrigine reveals potent analgesic potential without tolerance development in mice

2025· article· en· W4416193136 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Yousof Ali, Flavia Tasmin Techera Antunes, Sun Huang, Lina Chen, Gerald W. Zamponi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesMitacs
KeywordsAnalgesicNeuropathic painHyperalgesiaNociceptionDorsal root ganglionSodium channel blockerSciatic nerveSodium channel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Voltage-gated sodium channel NaV1.8 is a critical determinant of nociceptive signaling in primary sensory neurons. Here, we evaluated the analgesic potential of suzetrigine, a potent clinically approved NaV1.8 blocker, using electrophysiological, behavioral, and tolerance paradigms in mice. Whole-cell recordings from dorsal root ganglion neurons revealed that suzetrigine inhibited tetrodotoxin (TTX)-resistant sodium currents in a concentration-dependent manner (IC 50 = 0.35 ± 0.17 μM), consistent with high-affinity NaV1.8 inhibition. In vivo, intraperitoneal administration of suzetrigine significantly reduced nocifensive behaviors in the formalin test, attenuated CFA-induced thermal hypersensitivity, and reversed mechanical hyperalgesia in the partial sciatic nerve injury-induced neuropathy model. Importantly, repeated dosing did not produce tolerance in a chronic administration paradigm. Although suzetrigine showed limited efficacy in clinical trials for neuropathic pain, its robust analgesic effects in mouse models underscore the challenges of translating preclinical findings to human neuropathic pain, while still supporting the potential of NaV1.8-targeted therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207