Rosuvastatin Synergistically Enhances the Antinociceptive Efficacy of Duloxetine in Paclitaxel-Induced Neuropathic Pain in Mice.

Paclitaxel, a widely used cancer chemotherapeutic agent, has high incidence of neurotoxicity associated with the production of neuropathic pain, for which only duloxetine has shown significant but moderate analgesic effect. Since statins, classically used to reduce hypercholesterolemia, have shown antinociceptive effect in preclinical studies on neuropathic pain, we studied whether the antinociceptive efficacy of duloxetine could be synergistically potentiated by rosuvastatin in a model of paclitaxel-induced neuropathy in mice. The astrocytic and microglial responses in the spinal cord of paclitaxel-treated mice were also assessed by measuring GFAP and CD11b proteins, respectively. Paclitaxel treatment did not impair motor coordination and balance in rotarod testing. Rosuvastatin, duloxetine, and the rosuvastatin/duloxetine combination (combined at equieffective doses) dose-dependently decreased mechanical allodynia (ED30, von Frey testing) and thermal hyperalgesia (ED50, hot plate testing) in paclitaxel-treated mice. Isobolographic analysis showed a superadditive interaction for rosuvastatin and duloxetine, as both the ED30 and ED50 for the rosuvastatin/duloxetine combination contained only a quarter of each drug compared to the individual drugs. The rosuvastatin/duloxetine combination reversed paclitaxel-induced GFAP overexpression, indicating that such effects might depend in part on astrocyte inactivation. Results suggest that statins could be useful in synergistically enhancing the efficacy of duloxetine in some chemotherapy-induced neuropathic conditions.

Chronic toxicity study of neosaxitoxin in rats.

Neosaxitoxin (NeoSTX) is a specific reversible blocker of voltage gated sodium channels on excitable cells. In the last decade, it has been tested in a number of interesting clinical trials, however there is still little information available on mammalian toxicity. Rats were treated for 12 weeks with doses of 1, 3 or 6 µg/kg of subcutaneous NeoSTX. At weeks 12 and 17, animals were sacrificed and blood samples collected for hematological and biochemical analysis. Organs were harvested for weight determination and histopathological assessments. The lowest acute toxicity via the intraperitoneal (ip) route was (30.35 µg/kg) and there was no significant difference between intramuscular and subcutaneous routes (11.4 and 12.41 µg/kg). The NeoSTX adiministration did not produce lethality at week 12 and after five weeks of suspension. NeoSTX 6 µg/kg ip produced reductions (p < 0.05) in body weight and food intake, and increased blood level of total and direct bilirubin, GGT and SGOT at week 12; all of these were reversed in the recovery period. NeoSTX 1 and 3 µg/kg ip did not show significant changes with the control group. Histopathological presentations were normal in all groups. This study revealed that NeoSTX is safe in vivo, giving a reliable security margin for its use like a local anesthetic.

The antinociceptive effect of resveratrol in bone cancer pain is inhibited by the Silent Information Regulator 1 inhibitor selisistat.

OBJECTIVES: To study the antinociceptive effect of single and repeated doses of resveratrol in a bone cancer pain model, and whether this effect is prevented by the Silent Information Regulator 1 (SIRT1) inhibitor selisistat. METHODS: The femoral intercondylar bone of BALB/c mice was injected with 1 000 000 BJ3Z cancer cells. Bone resorption and tumour mass growth (measured by in vivo X-ray and fluorescence imaging), as well as mechanical nociceptive thresholds (von Frey device) and dynamic functionality (rotarod machine), were evaluated during the following 4 weeks. Acute resveratrol (100 mg/kg i.p.) and/or selisistat (10 mg/kg s.c.) were administered on day 14. Chronic resveratrol (100 mg/kg i.p., daily) and/or selisistat (0.5 µg/h s.c., Alzet pump) were administered between days 14 and 20. KEY FINDINGS: Tumour growth gradually incremented until day 31, while mechanical hyperalgesia started on day 3 after cancer cell injection. Acute resveratrol increased the mechanical threshold of pain (peaking at 1.5 h), while the dynamic functionality decreased. Chronic resveratrol produced a sustained antinociceptive effect on mechanical hyperalgesia and improved the loss of dynamic functionality induced by the bone cancer tumour. Selisistat prevented all the effects of resveratrol. CONCLUSIONS: Acute and chronic resveratrol induces antinociceptive effect in the model of metastatic osseous oncological pain, an effect that would be mediated by SIRT1 molecular signalling.

Involvement of nitridergic and opioidergic pathways in the antinociception of gabapentin in the orofacial formalin test in mice.

BACKGROUND: Pain is one of the most common problems in clinical medicine. There is considerable evidence that pharmacologic approaches are the most widely used therapeutic options to ameliorate persistent or chronic pain. In this study it was evaluated the effect of l-NAME and naltrexone in the antinociception induced by administration of gabapentin in the orofacial formalin test of mice. METHODS: The algesiometer assay was performed by the administration of 20 µl of 2% formalin solution injected into the upper right lip of each mouse. RESULTS: The dose of gabapentin that produces the 50% of the maximum possible effect (ED50) was significantly increased by the pretreatment with l-NAME or naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that gabapentin produce antinociception partly via the activation nitridergic pathways and opioid system.

Anaerobic growth of Escherichia coli on D-tartrate depends on the fumarate carrier DcuB and fumarase, rather than the L-tartrate carrier TtdT and L-tartrate dehydratase.

Escherichia coli is able to grow under anaerobic conditions on D: -tartrate when glycerol is supplied as an electron donor (D-tartrate fermentation). D-Tartrate was converted to succinate. Growth was lost in strains deficient for DcuB, the fumarate/succinate antiporter of fumarate respiration. The L-tartrate/succinate antiporter TtdT of L-tartrate fermentation, or the C4-dicarboxylate carriers DcuA and DcuC, were not able to support D-tartrate transport and fermentation. Deletion of fumB demonstrated, that fumarase B is required for growth on D-tartrate. The mutant lost most (about 79%) of D-tartrate dehydratase activity. L-Tartrate dehydratase (TtdAB), and fumarase A or C, showed no or only a small contribution to D-tartrate dehydratase activity. Therefore D-tartrate is metabolised by a sequence of reactions analogous to that from L-tartrate fermentation, including dehydration to oxaloacetate, which is then converted to malate, fumarate and succinate. The stereoisomer specific carrier TtdT and dehydratase TtdAB of L-tartrate fermentation are substituted by enzymes from general anaerobic fumarate metabolism, the antiporter DcuB and fumarase B, which have a broader substrate specificity. No D-tartrate specific carriers and enzymes are involved in the pathway.