Antinociceptive Actions Of Opioids Research Articles

β‐Arrestin‐2 knockout prevents development of cellular μ‐opioid receptor tolerance but does not affect opioid‐withdrawal‐related adaptations in single PAG neurons

Tolerance to the behavioural effects of morphine is blunted in β-arrestin-2 knockout mice, but opioid withdrawal is largely unaffected. The cellular mechanisms of tolerance have been studied in some neurons from β-arrestin-2 knockouts, but tolerance and withdrawal mechanisms have not been examined at the cellular level in periaqueductal grey (PAG) neurons, which are crucial for central tolerance and withdrawal phenomena. μ-Opioid receptor (MOPr) inhibition of voltage-gated calcium channel currents (ICa ) was examined by patch-clamp recordings from acutely dissociated PAG neurons from wild-type and β-arrestin-2 knockout mice treated chronically with morphine (CMT) or vehicle. Opioid withdrawal-induced activation of GABA transporter type 1 (GAT-1) currents was determined using perforated patch recordings from PAG neurons in brain slices. MOPr inhibition of ICa in PAG neurons was unaffected by β-arrestin-2 deletion. CMT impaired coupling of MOPrs to ICa in PAG neurons from wild-type mice, but this cellular tolerance was not observed in neurons from CMT β-arrestin-2 knockouts. However, β-arrestin-2 knockouts displayed similar opioid-withdrawal-induced activation of GAT-1 currents as wild-type PAG neurons. In β-arrestin-2 knockout mice, the central neurons involved in the anti-nociceptive actions of opioids also fail to develop cellular tolerance to opioids following chronic morphine. The results also provide the first cellular physiological evidence that opioid withdrawal is not disrupted by β-arrestin-2 deletion. However, the unaffected basal sensitivity to opioids in PAG neurons provides further evidence that changes in basal MOPr sensitivity cannot account for the enhanced acute nociceptive response to morphine reported in β-arrestin-2 knockouts. This article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.

Blocking μ opioid receptors in the spinal cord prevents the analgesic action by subsequent systemic opioids

Systemically administered μ opioids may produce analgesia through inhibition of the ascending nociceptive transmission and activation of descending pathways. However, the relative importance of the spinal and supraspinal sites in the analgesic action of systemic opioids remains uncertain. It has been shown that systemic morphine can inhibit dorsal horn neurons independent of the descending system. In this study, we determined the extent to which spinal μ opioid receptors mediate the analgesic effect of systemic μ opioids. Rats were instrumented with an intrathecal catheter with the tip placed in the lumbar spinal cord. Nociception was measured by testing the paw withdrawal threshold in response to a noxious radiant heat or pressure stimulus. Surprisingly, intrathecal pretreatment with naloxone or H-D-Phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH 2 (CTAP, a specific μ opioid receptor antagonist) completely blocked the inhibitory effect of intravenous morphine on mechanical nociception. Intrathecal naloxone or CTAP also abolished the effect of intravenous morphine on the withdrawal latency of the hindpaw, but not the forepaw, measured with a radiant heat stimulus. Furthermore, the inhibitory effect of subcutaneous fentanyl on mechanical nociception was eliminated by CTAP injected intrathecally. Intrathecal CTAP similarly abolished the effect of subcutaneous fentanyl on thermal nociception of the hindpaw but not the forepaw. Therefore, this study provides new information that when spinal μ opioid receptors are blocked, subsequent systemic administration of μ opioids fails to produce an analgesic effect. This finding highlights the important role of μ opioid receptors in the spinal cord in the antinociceptive action of opioids.

Peripheral and spinal actions of opioids in the blockade of the autonomic response evoked by compression of the inflamed knee joint.

Three types of opioid receptors, mu, delta, and kappa, are present in the periphery and in the central nervous system. In contrast to the effects in the central nervous system, the antinociceptive action of opioids in the periphery is not as well characterized. The effects of intraarticular, spinal, and intramuscular injections of mu, delta, and kappa opioid agonists on the autonomic response evoked by compression of an inflamed knee joint were evaluated. In halothane-anesthetized rats, arthritis was induced by injecting kaolin and carrageenan into the right knee joint. Standardized compression of the knee joint by inflation of a pediatric blood pressure cuff to 200 mmHg for 2 min produced a reliable stimulus-dependent hypertension (delta = 13 mmHg). Drugs were delivered intramuscularly, intrathecally through a chronic catheter, or intraarticularly into the right knee joint. The drug injection was performed 4 hr after induction of the inflammation. The intrathecal administration of mu, delta, and kappa agonists resulted in a dose-dependent blockade of the cuff-evoked increase in blood pressure. The order of intrathecal drug activity on the compression-evoked blood pressure responses with median effective dose (ED50) was sufentanil (0.02 nmol; mu) > PD117302 (0.5 nmol; kappa); spiradoline (1.5 nmol; kappa) morphine (2.4 nmol; mu) > DADL (15 nmol; delta); DPDPE (18 nmol; delta) > U-50,488H (620 nmol; kappa) > naloxone = 0. The intraarticular administration of mu and kappa, but not delta agonists, produced a dose-dependent blockade of a compression-evoked increase in blood pressure, with the order of drug activity (ED40) as follows: sufentanil (0.04 mumol) > PD117302 (0.3 mumol); spiradoline (0.8 mumol), morphine (0.9 mumol) > U-50,488H (0.9 mumol) > DPDPE (> 5 mumol); DADL (> 18 mumol) > naloxone = 0. Intramuscular injection of these agonists caused suppression, with the order of drug activity (ED50) as follows: sufentanil (0.2 mumol) > PD117302 (2 mumol); spiradoline (11 mumol) morphine (9 mumol) > DPDPE (> 5 mumol); DADL (18 mumol) > U-50,488H (22 mumol) > naloxone = 0. All intraarticular effects were reversible by injecting naloxone intramuscularly, with the ordering of naloxone potency against equiactive doses of morphine > U50,488H. The activity of the respective agonists and the intraarticular > intramuscular ordering of systemic potency in this model indicate that opioids, by an action at mu and kappa, can exert a direct antihyperalgesic action at the terminals of primary afferents projecting to a region of inflammation. These observations offer strong support for a peripheral action of opioids in certain states in inflammation-induced hyperalgesia.

Spinal opioid systems in inflammation

Until recently, basic science studies, both behavioural and electrophysiological, have concentrated on the antinociceptive actions of opioids primarily gauged against acute nociceptive responses. However, of more relevance to clinical situations are the actions of opioids in more persistent/prolonged pain states. This review sets out to examine the central actions of opioids against nociception of inflammatory origins. The first section deals with the response of the endogenous opioid system to the development of an inflammatory state and the second examines the ability of exogenous opioids to modulate inflammatory nociception. There are complex changes in the roles of endogenous opioids, in particular dynorphin, at the spinal level after inflammation although the physiological consequences remain unclear. With regard to exogenous opioids, the effectiveness of spinal morphine is rapidly enhanced after inflammation, likely to be due to changes in the interaction between the peptide cholecystokinin and the mu opioid receptor. The ability of inflammatory processes to alter both endogenous opioids and morphine analgesia at the spinal level illustrates the considerable degree of plasticity observed in opioid function.