Volume 17, Number 2,
Issue of January 15, 1997
pp. 735-744
Copyright ©1997 Society for Neuroscience
Multiple Receptors Involved in Peripheral
2, µ,
and A1 Antinociception, Tolerance, and Withdrawal
Received Sept. 3, 1996; revised Oct. 22, 1996; accepted Oct. 25, 1996.
K. O. Aley and
Jon D. Levine
Departments of Anatomy, Medicine, and Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery, Division of Neuroscience and Biomedical Sciences Program,
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California
94143-0452
We examined the interactions among three classes of
peripherally-acting antinociceptive agents (µ-opioid,
2-adrenergic, and A1-adenosine) in the
development of tolerance and dependence to their antinociceptive
effects. Antinociception was determined by assessing the degree of
inhibition of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)-induced mechanical hyperalgesia, using the Randall-Selitto paw-withdrawal test.
Tolerance developed within 4 hr to the antinociceptive effect of the
2-adrenergic agonist clonidine; dependence also occurred at that time, demonstrated as a withdrawal hyperalgesia that was precipitated by the
2-receptor antagonist yohimbine.
These findings are similar to those reported previously for tolerance
and dependence to µ and A1 peripheral antinociception
().
Furthermore, cross-tolerance and cross-withdrawal between µ,
A1, and
2 agonists occurred. The
observations of cross-tolerance and cross-withdrawal suggest that all
three receptors are located on the same primary afferent nociceptors.
In addition, the observations suggest that the mechanisms of tolerance
and dependence to the antinociceptive effects of µ, A1,
and
2 are mediated by a common mechanism.
Although any of the agonists administered alone produce
antinociception, we found that µ, A1, and
2 receptors may not act independently to produce
antinociception, but rather may require the physical presence of the
other receptors to produce antinociception by any one agonist. This was
suggested by the finding that clonidine (
2-agonist)
antinociception was blocked not only by yohimbine (
2-antagonist) but also by PACPX
(A1-antagonist) and by naloxone (µ-antagonist), and that
DAMGO (µ-agonist) antinociception and CPA (A1-agonist)
antinociception were blocked not only by naloxone (µ-antagonist) and
PACPX (A1-antagonist), respectively, but also by yohimbine
(
2-antagonist). This cross-antagonism of antinociception occurred at the ID80 dose for each antagonist at its
homologous receptor. To test the hypothesis that the physical presence
of µ-opioid receptor is required not only for µ antinociception but also for
2 antinociception, antisense
oligodeoxynucleotides (ODNs) for the µ-opioid and
2C-adrenergic receptors were administered intrathecally
to reduce the expression of these receptors on primary afferent
neurons. These studies demonstrated that µ-opioid ODN administration
decreased not only µ-opioid but also
2-adrenergic antinociception; A1 antinociception was unaffected. In
contrast,
2C-adrenergic ODN decreased antinociception
induced by all three classes of antinociceptive agents.
In conclusion, these data suggest that peripheral antinociception
induced by µ,
2, and A1 agonists requires
the physical presence of multiple receptors. We propose that there is a
µ, A1,
2 receptor complex mediating
antinociception in the periphery. In addition, there is cross-tolerance
and cross-dependence between µ, A1, and
2
antinociception, suggesting that their underlying mechanisms are
related.
Key words:
pain;
analgesia;
dorsal root ganglion;
opioid;
antisense
oligodeoxynucleotide;
receptor cross-talk