Low doses of alpha 2-adrenoceptor antagonists augment spinal morphine analgesia and inhibit development of acute and chronic tolerance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purposeUltra-low doses of opioid receptor antagonists augment spinal morphine antinociception and block the induction of tolerance. Considering the evidence demonstrating functional and physical interactions between the opioid and alpha(2)-adrenoceptors, this study investigated whether ultra-low doses of alpha(2)-adrenoceptor antagonists also influence spinal morphine analgesia and tolerance.Experimental approachEffects of low doses of the competitive alpha(2)-adrenoceptor antagonists-atipamezole (0.08, 0.8 ng), yohimbine (0.02, 2 ng), mirtazapine (0.02 ng) and idazoxan (0.08 ng) were investigated on intrathecal morphine analgesia, as well as acute and chronic morphine antinociceptive tolerance using the rat tail flick and paw pressure tests.Key resultsAt doses markedly lower than those producing alpha(2)-adrenoceptor blockade, atipamezole, yohimbine, mirtazapine and idazoxan, prolonged the antinociceptive effects of morphine. When co-administered with repeated acute spinal injections of morphine, all four agents blocked the induction of acute tolerance. Co-injection of atipamezole with morphine for 5 days inhibited the development of tolerance in a chronic treatment paradigm. Spinal administration of atipamezole also reversed established antinociceptive tolerance to morphine as indicated by the restoration of morphine antinociceptive potency. The effects of atipamezole on spinal morphine tolerance were not influenced by treatment with 6-hydroxydopamine.Conclusions and implicationsLow doses of competitive alpha(2)-adrenoceptor antagonists can augment acute morphine analgesia and block or reverse tolerance to spinal administration of morphine. These actions are interpreted in terms of their interaction with an opioid-alpha(2)-adrenoceptor complex, whose activity may have a function in the genesis of analgesic tolerance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".