7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Sexually dimorphic therapeutic response in bortezomib-induced neuropathic pain reveals altered pain physiology in female rodents

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (CINP) in both sexes compromises many current chemotherapeutics and lacks a FDA-approved therapy. We recently identified the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor subtype 1 (S1PR1) and A 3 adenosine receptor subtype (A 3 AR) as novel targets for therapeutic intervention. Our work in male rodents using paclitaxel, oxaliplatin and bortezomib showed robust inhibition of CINP with either S1PR1 antagonists or A 3 AR agonists. The S1PR1 functional antagonist FTY720 (Gilenya®) is FDA approved for treating multiple sclerosis and selective A 3 AR agonists are in advanced clinical trials for cancer and inflammatory disorders, underscoring the need for their expedited trials in CINP patients as chemotherapy adjuncts. Our findings reveal that S1PR1 antagonists and A 3 AR agonists mitigate paclitaxel and oxaliplatin CINP in female and male rodents, but failed to block or reverse bortezomib-induced neuropathic pain (BINP) in females. Although numerous mechanisms likely underlie these differences, we focused on receptor levels. We found that BINP in male rats, but not female rats, was associated with increased expression of A 3 AR in spinal cord dorsal horn, while S1PR1 levels were similar in both sexes. Thus, alternative mechanisms beyond receptor expression may account for sex differences in response to S1PR1 antagonists. Morphine and duloxetine, both clinical analgesics, reversed BINP in female mice, demonstrating that the lack of response is specific to S1PR1 and A 3 AR agents. Our findings suggest that A 3 AR- and S1PR1-based therapies are not viable approaches in preventing and treating BINP in females and should inform future clinical trials of these drugs as adjuncts to chemotherapy. We have found that there are sexually dimorphic responses to S1PR1 antagonists and A 3 AR agonists for the treatment of bortezomib-induced neuropathic pain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings.

          Recent years have witnessed substantially increased research regarding sex differences in pain. The expansive body of literature in this area clearly suggests that men and women differ in their responses to pain, with increased pain sensitivity and risk for clinical pain commonly being observed among women. Also, differences in responsivity to pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain interventions have been observed; however, these effects are not always consistent and appear dependent on treatment type and characteristics of both the pain and the provider. Although the specific aetiological basis underlying these sex differences is unknown, it seems inevitable that multiple biological and psychosocial processes are contributing factors. For instance, emerging evidence suggests that genotype and endogenous opioid functioning play a causal role in these disparities, and considerable literature implicates sex hormones as factors influencing pain sensitivity. However, the specific modulatory effect of sex hormones on pain among men and women requires further exploration. Psychosocial processes such as pain coping and early-life exposure to stress may also explain sex differences in pain, in addition to stereotypical gender roles that may contribute to differences in pain expression. Therefore, this review will provide a brief overview of the extant literature examining sex-related differences in clinical and experimental pain, and highlights several biopsychosocial mechanisms implicated in these male-female differences. The future directions of this field of research are discussed with an emphasis aimed towards further elucidation of mechanisms which may inform future efforts to develop sex-specific treatments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Mouse Estrous Cycle Identification Tool and Images

            The efficiency of producing timed pregnant or pseudopregnant mice can be increased by identifying those in proestrus or estrus. Visual observation of the vagina is the quickest method, requires no special equipment, and is best used when only proestrus or estrus stages need to be identified. Strain to strain differences, especially in coat color can make it difficult to determine the stage of the estrous cycle accurately by visual observation. Presented here are a series of images of the vaginal opening at each stage of the estrous cycle for 3 mouse strains of different coat colors: black (C57BL/6J), agouti (CByB6F1/J) and albino (BALB/cByJ). When all 4 stages (proestrus, estrus, metestrus, and diestrus) need to be identified, vaginal cytology is regarded as the most accurate method. An identification tool is presented to aid the user in determining the stage of estrous when using vaginal cytology. These images and descriptions are an excellent resource for learning how to determine the stage of the estrous cycle by visual observation or vaginal cytology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Efficient analysis of experimental observations.

              W. Dixon (1980)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pain
                Pain
                PAIN
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0304-3959
                1872-6623
                2020
                January 2020
                September 3 2019
                : 161
                : 1
                : 177-184
                Article
                10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001697
                6923586
                31490328
                9e45dadf-cdaa-4c5a-92ea-be25c750c9a8
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article