Free
Meeting Abstracts  |   November 2007
Differential Presynaptic Effects of Opioid Agonists on Aδ- and C-afferent Glutamatergic Transmission to the Spinal Dorsal Horn
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Miho Ikoma, M.D., Ph.D.
    *
  • Tatsuro Kohno, M.D., Ph.D.
  • Hiroshi Baba, M.D., Ph.D.
  • * Assistant Professor, † Associate Professor, ‡ Professor and Chairman.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   November 2007
Differential Presynaptic Effects of Opioid Agonists on Aδ- and C-afferent Glutamatergic Transmission to the Spinal Dorsal Horn
Anesthesiology 11 2007, Vol.107, 807-812. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000286985.80301.5e
Anesthesiology 11 2007, Vol.107, 807-812. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000286985.80301.5e
EARLY-ONSET first pain, evoked by activation of myelinated Aδ fibers, is sharp and well localized, whereas in contrast, unmyelinated C fiber–mediated secondary pain is dull and much less localized. Postoperative pain is an example of a clinical condition in which distinct sensations can be attributed to either Aδ- or C-fiber activity.1 Tonic postoperative pain, dominated by C-fiber activity, is generally well controlled by systemic morphine, whereas phasic pain, dominated by Aδ-fiber activity, is less responsive. These clinical findings are supported by previous studies that showed that systemically applied morphine is more potent in attenuating nociception mediated by C fibers than Aδ fibers.2–4 In addition, electrophysiologic experiments have demonstrated a preferential effect of systemic morphine on C fiber versus  A fiber (Aβ and Aδ)–evoked dorsal horn neuronal responses.5–7 However, it has not been established whether intrathecal opioid application more effectively terminates C fiber–mediated pain. Intrathecal administration of opioids produces antinociceptive effects mediated by μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptors in the spinal dorsal horn of both laboratory animals and humans.8–10 Previous physiologic and behavioral studies indirectly suggested that intrathecal administration of opioids suppresses C-fiber responses more effectively than A-fiber responses.11,12 Whereas electrophysiologic studies have demonstrated that both μ- and δ-opioid receptor agonists inhibit transmission of nociceptive, but not innocuous, information to the rat spinal cord,13 differences in opioid action on distinct classes of nociceptive afferents (Aδ fiber and C fiber) are not well understood.
The substantia gelatinosa (SG; lamina II) of the spinal cord is thought to modulate nociceptive transmission from peripheral Aδ and C primary afferents.14–16 Presynaptically, μ- and δ-opioid receptor agonists inhibit synaptic transmission to spinal dorsal horn neurons by blocking voltage-gated calcium channels,17 thereby reducing transmitter release.18,19 Postsynaptically, opioids activate μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptors, which open G protein–coupled inwardly rectifying potassium channels, thus hyperpolarizing the membrane potential and inhibiting excitatory transmission in spinal cord.20–22 Such presynaptic and postsynaptic actions of opioids are supported by immunohistochemical and binding studies. These opioid receptors have been localized presynaptically on the central terminals of small-diameter nociceptive primary afferents (Aδ and C fibers), as well as postsynaptically in the superficial layers of the spinal cord, especially lamina II.23–26 The aim of the current study was to examine the presynaptic effects of μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptor agonists on excitatory synaptic transmission, particularly Aδ and C fiber–mediated transmission, to SG neurons in rat spinal cord slices.
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by the Animal Research Committee of Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences in Niigata, Japan. Thick (600-μm) spinal cord slices containing the L4 dorsal root (10–20 mm) were prepared from adult rats (aged 5–7 weeks) as described previously.27,28 The slice was placed on a nylon mesh in the recording chamber and then perfused at a rate of 10 ml/min with Krebs solution, which was saturated with 95% O2and 5% CO2maintained at 36°± 1°C. The Krebs solution contained 117 mm NaCl, 3.6 mm KCl, 2.5 mm CaCl2, 1.2 mm MgCl2, 1.2 mm NaH2PO4, 25 mm NaHCO3, and 11 mm d-glucose.
Substantia gelatinosa was identifiable as a translucent band across the superficial dorsal horn under a dissecting microscope with transmitted illumination. Whole cell patch clamp recordings were made from SG neurons in voltage clamp mode with patch pipette electrodes having a resistance of 10 MΩ. The patch pipette solution contained 110 mm Cs2SO4, 0.5 mm CaCl2, 2 mm MgCl2, 5 mm EGTA, 5 mm HEPES, 5 mm TEA, 5 mm ATP-Mg salt, and 1 mm guanosine 5′-O-(2-thiodiphosphate) (GDP-β-S). GDP-β-S and K+channel blockers (Cs+and TEA) were used to inhibit postsynaptic actions of opioid agonists on G proteins and K+channels, respectively. Signals were amplified with an Axopatch 200A (Molecular Devices, Union City, CA) and were filtered at 2 kHz and digitized at 5 kHz. Data were collected and analyzed using pClamp8.0 (Molecular Devices). The holding potential used was −70 mV, the reversal potential of glycine and γ-aminobutyric acid receptor–mediated synaptic currents. Excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) were elicited by dorsal root stimulation using a suction electrode, low-intensity (50–100 μA, 0.05 ms) stimulation for Aδ fibers, and higher-intensity and longer-duration (200–1,000 μA, 0.5 ms) stimulation for C fibers.29,30 The stimulus intensity necessary to activate Aδ and C fibers and the afferent fiber conduction velocity was determined by extracellular recording of compound action potentials from the dorsal root.29 Aδ fiber–evoked EPSCs (Aδ-EPSCs) were judged as monosynaptic on the basis of both their short and constant latencies and the absence of failures with repetitive stimulation at 20 Hz. Identification of C fiber–evoked monosynaptic EPSCs (C-EPSCs) was based on an absence of failures with low-frequency (1 Hz) repetitive stimulation.31,32 Opioids were dissolved in Krebs solution and applied by perfusion without alteration in the perfusion rate or temperature.
Drugs used were [D-Ala2-N-Me-Phe4, Gly5-ol]enkephalin (DAMGO), [D-Pen2, D-Pen5]-enkephalin (DPDPE), D-(5α,7α,8β)-(+)-N-methyl-N-[7-(1-pyrrolidinyl)- 1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-8-yl] benzeneacetamide (U69593), Phe-Cys-Tyr-d-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2(CTAP), naltrindole, 6-cyano-7-nitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione (CNQX), and GDP-β-S (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO).
Statistical Analysis
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined as P  < 0.05 using either the Student paired or unpaired t  test. In all cases, n refers to the number of neurons studied. The neurons examined were considered to sensitive to the opioids if they exhibited depressions of more than 5%. All statistical calculations were performed using StatView 5.0 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
Whole cell recordings were obtained from 204 SG neurons. All SG neurons exhibited spontaneous EPSCs at −70 mV as reported previously.27 In 78 (38%) of 204 neurons examined, stimulating the dorsal root with Aδ-fiber intensity elicited glutamatergic monosynaptic EPSCs (fig. 1A), which displayed no failures and no change in latency when stimulated at 20 Hz. Conduction velocity averaged 6.2 m/s (range, 5.0–9.0 m/s); these values were within the Aδ-fiber range obtained from experiments in dorsal root ganglion neurons.31,32 Aδ-EPSCs had a mean amplitude of 297 ± 36 pA. Similarly, stimulating the dorsal root at C-fiber intensity induced glutamatergic monosynaptic C-EPSCs (fig. 1B) in 79 (39%) of 204 neurons examined. C-EPSCs had no failures when stimulated at 1 Hz. The average conduction velocity was 0.6 m/s (range, 0.4–0.9 m/s), comparable to values measured in the dorsal root ganglion.31,32 C-EPSCs had a mean amplitude of 239 ± 34 pA. Six percent (n = 13) of the all neurons tested exhibited both monosynaptic Aδ- and C-EPSCs, as seen in figure 1C. These EPSCs were completely inhibited by CNQX (10 μm, n = 4), indicating the involvement of non–N  -methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptors, as reported previously.27 
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  –C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  –C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
×
The proportion of EPSCs inhibited by each opioid was quite different (table 1). Therefore, to compare efficacies of the different opioid receptor agonists, we showed the effects on the amplitudes of Aδ- and C-EPSCs from all recorded neurons. Effects of the μ-receptor agonist, DAMGO (1 μm), on monosynaptic Aδ- and/or C-EPSCs were examined in 28 SG neurons. Superfusing DAMGO reversibly inhibited the peak amplitude of Aδ-EPSCs from 350 ± 39 pA to 242 ± 33 pA in almost all neurons (29 ± 5%, n = 19; P  < 0.01; figs. 1A and 2A). Similarly, superfusion of DAMGO inhibited the peak amplitude of the C-EPSCs from 164 ± 34 pA to 76 ± 23 pA in almost all neurons (52 ± 9%, n = 12; P  < 0.01; figs. 1B and 2A). C-EPSCs were more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than Aδ-EPSCs (unpaired t  test, P  < 0.01; fig. 2B). Differential effects of DAMGO on Aδ- and C-EPSCs were also observed in neurons with both Aδ- and C-EPSCs (fig. 1C). A dose of 1 μm for DAMGO is well above the EC5018,33; we next examined the effects of a lower dose of DAMGO (0.1 μm) on Aδ- or C-EPSCs. DAMGO inhibited Aδ-EPSCs (18 ± 4%, n = 11; P  < 0.01) and C-EPSCs (37 ± 6%, n = 13; P  < 0.01), respectively (fig. 2A). Similarly, C-EPSCs were more effectively inhibited by DAMGO (0.1 μm) than Aδ-EPSCs (unpaired t  test, P  < 0.05). Inhibitory effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on Aδ- and C-EPSCs were reversed by a μ antagonist, CTAP (1 μm, n = 4; fig. 2C), indicating specific activation of μ receptors by DAMGO. The Aδ- and C-EPSCs were depressed in amplitude by DAMGO with a similar time course, maximal at approximately 2 min after beginning DAMGO superfusion.
Table 1. Proportion of Neurons Exhibiting Inhibition by μ-, δ-, and κ-Receptor Agonists with Respect to the Amplitude of the Aδ- or C Excitatory Postsynaptic Current 
Image not available
Table 1. Proportion of Neurons Exhibiting Inhibition by μ-, δ-, and κ-Receptor Agonists with Respect to the Amplitude of the Aδ- or C Excitatory Postsynaptic Current 
×
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC  . **P  < 0.01, A  δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm) 
	. Vertical bars  show SEM 
	. **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC 
	. **P  < 0.01, A 
	δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC  . **P  < 0.01, A  δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
×
We next examined the effects of the δ-receptor agonist, DPDPE (1 μm), on monosynaptic Aδ- and/or C-EPSCs in a total of 30 SG neurons. DPDPE reduced the amplitude of Aδ-EPSC from 314 ± 46 pA to 271 ± 46 pA (12 ± 3%, n = 13; P  < 0.01; figs. 3A and C), with little affect on the amplitude of C-EPSC (4 ± 3%, n = 20; P  > 0.05; figs. 3B and C). A dose of 1 μm for DPDPE is not well above the EC5018; we next investigated the effects of a higher dose of DPDPE (10 μm) on Aδ- or C-EPSCs. Superfusing DPDPE inhibited Aδ-EPSC (19 ± 5%, n = 14; P  < 0.01; fig. 4A) and C-EPSC (10 ± 4%, n = 16; P  < 0.05; fig. 4A). Unlike DAMGO, Aδ- and C-EPSCs were equally inhibited by DPDPE (10 μm) (unpaired t  test, P  > 0.05; fig. 4B). The inhibitory effects of DPDPE (10 μm) on Aδ- and C-EPSCs were not seen in the presence of a δ-receptor antagonist, naltrindole (1 μm; 4 ± 4% and 3 ± 4%, respectively, n = 5; data not shown), suggesting specific activation of δ receptors by DPDPE. In contrast to DAMGO and DPDPE, the κ-receptor agonist, U69593 (1 μm), had no effect on the amplitude of Aδ- or C-EPSCs (7 ± 3% and 5 ± 4%, respectively, n = 9 and n = 10; P  > 0.05; data not shown). Because a dose of 1 μm for U69593 is well above the EC50,21 we did not run the experiments with a higher dose of U69593.
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  –C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  –C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
×
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . *P  < 0.05  , **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A  δversus  C. 
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm) 
	. Vertical bars  show SEM 
	. *P  < 0.05 
	, **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A 
	δversus  C. 
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . *P  < 0.05  , **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A  δversus  C. 
×
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare the presynaptic effects of the μ-, δ-, and κ-opioid receptor agonists on Aδ and C fiber–evoked excitatory transmission to SG neurons of adult rat spinal cord slices. The μ agonist (DAMGO, 0.1, 1 μm) depressed both Aδ- and C-EPSCs; C-EPSCs were more sensitive to DAMGO inhibition than Aδ-EPSCs. In contrast, the δ agonist (DPDPE, 1 μm) produced only moderate inhibition of Aδ-EPSCs and no inhibition of C-EPSCs. At a higher dose of DPDPE (10 μm), Aδ- and C-EPSCs were moderately inhibited equally. However, the κ agonist (U69593, 1 μm) had no effect on either Aδ- or C-EPSCs. The current results that μ and δ but not κ agonist (1 μm) depressed Aδ fiber–mediated excitatory transmission are consistent with our previous study.19 The current work is the first electrophysiologic report that the presynaptic effect of μ agonist was more potent at C afferents than at Aδ afferents. The results of this study are consistent with our recent study examining the effects of DAMGO on primary afferent–induced extracellular signal–regulated kinase activation in dorsal horn neurons of rat spinal cord slices, a marker for nociceptive-evoked activity. Activation of extracellular signal–regulated kinase induced by C-fiber stimulation34 was more effectively suppressed by DAMGO than Aδ fiber–induced extracellular signal–regulated kinase activation.28 
Immunohistochemistry and receptor autoradiography have shown that opioid receptors are located on small dorsal root ganglion neurons and in laminae Ι and ΙΙ of the dorsal horn,35–38 suggesting that these receptors are present presynaptically on Aδ- and C-fiber terminals. Moreover, the number of opioid-binding sites in the dorsal horn is reduced 40–70% after dorsal rhizotomy, indicating that opioid receptors are localized to presynaptic terminals.23,25,39 Reduction of opioid receptors after capsaicin-induced C-fiber degeneration is similar to that observed after dorsal rhizotomy.40 Furthermore, μ receptors do not colocalize with RT97 (a marker for myelinated afferents, i.e.  , A fibers), indicating that μ receptors are only localized to neurons that give rise to unmyelinated afferent fibers (i.e.  , C fibers).38 However, we demonstrate DAMGO depression of Aδ-fiber EPSCs, indicating that functional μ receptors are expressed on myelinated Aδ afferents. Consistent with the current observation that C-EPSCs are more sensitive than Aδ-EPSCs to a μ agonist, calcium currents in small nociceptive cells of rat tooth pulp were most strongly inhibited by μ opioids.41 Taken together, this suggests that differences in μ receptor density are likely to underlie the differential sensitivity of C- and Aδ-EPSCs to μ agonists. Alternatively, each of the fiber terminals may express different subtypes of μ receptors. We could not, however, identify different μ receptors on Aδ-fiber and C-fiber terminals with the antagonist CTAP. Differences in DAMGO actions on Aδ-afferent and C-afferent terminals require future examination with a variety of μ-receptor antagonists. Although a cellular mechanism of action was not examined here, it is likely that EPSCs are reduced as a consequence of opioid-induced inhibition of voltage-gated calcium channels, because opioids have been reported to suppress calcium currents in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons.17,42 However, other possibilities, such as alternate mechanisms of reduced neurotransmitter release, different μ-receptor subtypes, or involvement of potassium channels, cannot be ruled out.
Although the EC50is different for each opioid agonist, rank order potency at the concentration (1 μm) for inhibiting Aδ- and C-EPSCs was μ > δ >> κ.19 This rank order was the same as that for the proportion of neurons in which each of the opioids inhibited excitatory transmission by more than 5% (table 1). Radioligand binding experiments in the rat spinal cord have demonstrated that the most prevalent type of opioid receptor in laminae I and II is the μ receptor (63% or more), with considerably less δ receptor (23% or less) and κ receptor (15% or less),23,43 precisely reflecting the different potencies.
Previous studies have reported that systemic application of morphine attenuates nociception mediated by C fibers more potently than that mediated by Aδ fibers.2–4 However, systemically applied opioids may produce antinociception via  both supraspinal and spinal mechanisms. Intrathecal administration of alfentanil, a μ agonist, has a greater inhibitory effect on the C fiber–mediated somatosympathetic reflex than on the Aδ-fiber reflex.12 Similarly, low doses of intrathecal μ agonist inhibited C fiber–mediated responses more potently than Aδ fiber–mediated responses.11 Our findings further support the notion of differences in the presynaptic actions of μ opioids on different afferent terminals in the spinal dorsal horn. However, at the spinal level, opioids act on postsynaptic targets20,22,33 such as excitatory interneurons and projection neurons, as well as on presynaptic inputs from primary afferents. We do not yet understand how inhibitory information from SG neurons, which are known to be excitatory or inhibitory interneurons, is modulated.
In summary, the results presented here provide the antinociceptive presynaptic action of opioid receptor agonists on primary afferent Aδ and C fibers. The differential inhibitory effects of opioids reported here may partially account for differences in clinical analgesic actions of this class of nociceptive agents.
The authors thank Kohei Akazawa, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Medical Informatics, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata, Japan), and Kimberley Moore, Ph.D. (San Francisco, California).
References
Pirec V, Laurito CE, Lu Y, Yeomans DC: The combined effects of N-type calcium channel blockers and morphine on A delta versus  C fiber mediated nociception. Anesth Analg 2001; 92:239–43Pirec, V Laurito, CE Lu, Y Yeomans, DC
Yeomans DC, Cooper BY, Vierck CJ Jr: Effects of systemic morphine on responses of primates to first or second pain sensations. Pain 1996; 66:253–63Yeomans, DC Cooper, BY Vierck, CJ
Yeomans DC, Pirec V, Proudfit HK: Nociceptive responses to high and low rates of noxious cutaneous heating are mediated by different nociceptors in the rat: Behavioral evidence. Pain 1996; 68:133–40Yeomans, DC Pirec, V Proudfit, HK
Cooper BY, Vierck CJ Jr, Yeomans DC: Selective reduction of second pain sensations by systemic morphine in humans. Pain 1986; 24:93–116Cooper, BY Vierck, CJ Yeomans, DC
Carstens E, Tulloch I, Zieglgansberger W, Zimmermann M: Presynaptic excitability changes induced by morphine in single cutaneous afferent C- and A-fibers. Pflugers Arch 1979; 379:143–7Carstens, E Tulloch, I Zieglgansberger, W Zimmermann, M
Le Bars D, Guilbaud G, Jurna I, Besson JM: Differential effects of morphine on responses of dorsal horn lamina V type cells elicited by A and C fibre stimulation in the spinal cat. Brain Res 1976; 115:518–24Le Bars, D Guilbaud, G Jurna, I Besson, JM
Johnson SM, Duggan AW: Evidence that the opiate receptors of the substantia gelatinosa contribute to the depression, by intravenous morphine, of the spinal transmission of impulses in unmyelinated primary afferents. Brain Res 1981; 207:223–8Johnson, SM Duggan, AW
Yaksh TL, Rudy TA: Analgesia mediated by a direct spinal action of narcotics. Science 1976; 192:1357–8Yaksh, TL Rudy, TA
Wang JK, Nauss LA, Thomas JE: Pain relief by intrathecally applied morphine in man. Anesthesiology 1979; 50:149–51Wang, JK Nauss, LA Thomas, JE
Onofrio BM, Yaksh TL: Long-term pain relief produced by intrathecal morphine infusion in 53 patients. J Neurosurg 1990; 72:200–9Onofrio, BM Yaksh, TL
Lu Y, Pirec V, Yeomans DC: Differential antinociceptive effects of spinal opioids on foot withdrawal responses evoked by C fibre or A delta nociceptor activation. Br J Pharmacol 1997; 121:1210–6Lu, Y Pirec, V Yeomans, DC
Wang C, Chakrabarti MK, Whitwam JG: Effect of low and high concentrations of alfentanil administered intrathecally on A delta and C fibre mediated somatosympathetic reflexes. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68:503–7Wang, C Chakrabarti, MK Whitwam, JG
Dickenson AH, Sullivan AF, Knox R, Zajac JM, Roques BP: Opioid receptor subtypes in the rat spinal cord: electrophysiological studies with mu- and delta-opioid receptor agonists in the control of nociception. Brain Res 1987; 413:36–44Dickenson, AH Sullivan, AF Knox, R Zajac, JM Roques, BP
Kumazawa T, Perl ER: Excitation of marginal and substantia gelatinosa neurons in the primate spinal cord: Indications of their place in dorsal horn functional organization. J Comp Neurol 1978; 177:417–34Kumazawa, T Perl, ER
Yoshimura M, Jessell TM: Primary afferent-evoked synaptic responses and slow potential generation in rat substantia gelatinosa neurons in vitro  . J Neurophysiol 1989; 62:96–108Yoshimura, M Jessell, TM
Willis WDJ, Coggeshall RE: Sensory mechanisms of the spinal cord, Sensory Mechanisms of the Spinal Cord. Edited by Press P. New York, Plenum Press, 1991Willis, WDJ Coggeshall, RE Press P New York Plenum Press
Schroeder JE, Fischbach PS, Zheng D, McCleskey EW: Activation of mu opioid receptors inhibits transient high- and low-threshold Ca2+ currents, but spares a sustained current. Neuron 1991; 6:13–20Schroeder, JE Fischbach, PS Zheng, D McCleskey, EW
Glaum SR, Miller RJ, Hammond DL: Inhibitory actions of delta 1-, delta 2-, and mu-opioid receptor agonists on excitatory transmission in lamina II neurons of adult rat spinal cord. J Neurosci 1994; 14:4965–71Glaum, SR Miller, RJ Hammond, DL
Kohno T, Kumamoto E, Higashi H, Shimoji K, Yoshimura M: Actions of opioids on excitatory and inhibitory transmission in substantia gelatinosa of adult rat spinal cord. J Physiol 1999; 518:803–13Kohno, T Kumamoto, E Higashi, H Shimoji, K Yoshimura, M
Yoshimura M, North RA: Substantia gelatinosa neurones hyperpolarized in vitro  by enkephalin. Nature 1983; 305:529–30Yoshimura, M North, RA
Grudt TJ, Williams JT: κ-Opioid receptors also increase potassium conductance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993; 90:11429–32Grudt, TJ Williams, JT
Eckert WA III, Light AR: Hyperpolarization of substantia gelatinosa neurons evoked by mu-, kappa-, delta 1-, and delta 2-selective opioids. J Pain 2002; 3:115–25Eckert, WA Light, AR
Besse D, Lombard MC, Zajac JM, Roques BP, Besson JM: Pre- and postsynaptic distribution of mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors in the superficial layers of the cervical dorsal horn of the rat spinal cord. Brain Res 1990; 521:15–22Besse, D Lombard, MC Zajac, JM Roques, BP Besson, JM
Faull RL, Villiger JW: Opiate receptors in the human spinal cord: A detailed anatomical study comparing the autoradiographic localization of [3H]diprenorphine binding sites with the laminar pattern of substance P, myelin and Nissl staining. Neuroscience 1987; 20:395–407Faull, RL Villiger, JW
Gouarderes C, Beaudet A, Zajac JM, Cros J, Quirion R: High resolution radioautographic localization of [125I]FK-33-824-labelled mu opioid receptors in the spinal cord of normal and deafferented rats. Neuroscience 1991; 43:197–209Gouarderes, C Beaudet, A Zajac, JM Cros, J Quirion, R
Mansour A, Fox CA, Akil H, Watson SJ: Opioid-receptor mRNA expression in the rat CNS: Anatomical and functional implications. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18:22–9Mansour, A Fox, CA Akil, H Watson, SJ
Yoshimura M, Nishi S: Blind patch-clamp recordings from substantia gelatinosa neurons in adult rat spinal cord slices: Pharmacological properties of synaptic currents. Neuroscience 1993; 53:519–26Yoshimura, M Nishi, S
Kohno T, Ji RR, Ito N, Allchorne AJ, Befort K, Karchewski LA, Woolf CJ: Peripheral axonal injury results in reduced mu opioid receptor pre- and post-synaptic action in the spinal cord. Pain 2005; 117:77–87Kohno, T Ji, RR Ito, N Allchorne, AJ Befort, K Karchewski, LA Woolf, CJ
Kohno T, Moore KA, Baba H, Woolf CJ: Peripheral nerve injury in the rat alters excitatory synaptic transmission in lamina II of the dorsal horn. J Physiol 2003; 548:131–8Kohno, T Moore, KA Baba, H Woolf, CJ
Kohno T, Wakai A, Ataka T, Ikoma M, Yamakura T, Baba H: Actions of midazolam on excitatory transmission in dorsal horn neurons of adult rat spinal cord. Anesthesiology 2006; 104:338–43Kohno, T Wakai, A Ataka, T Ikoma, M Yamakura, T Baba, H
Nakatsuka T, Ataka T, Kumamoto E, Tamaki T, Yoshimura M: Alteration in synaptic inputs through C-afferent fibers to substantia gelatinosa neurons of the rat spinal dorsal horn during postnatal development. Neuroscience 2000; 99:549–56Nakatsuka, T Ataka, T Kumamoto, E Tamaki, T Yoshimura, M
Ataka T, Kumamoto E, Shimoji K, Yoshimura M: Baclofen inhibits more effectively C-afferent than Adelta-afferent glutamatergic transmission in substantia gelatinosa neurons of adult rat spinal cord slices. Pain 2000; 86:273–82Ataka, T Kumamoto, E Shimoji, K Yoshimura, M
Grudt TJ, Williams JT: μ-Opioid agonists inhibit spinal trigeminal substantia gelatinosa neurons in guinea pig and rat. J Neurosci 1994; 14:1646–54Grudt, TJ Williams, JT
Kawasaki Y, Kohno T, Ji RR: Different effects of opioid and cannabinoid receptor agonists on C-fiber-induced extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation in dorsal horn neurons in normal and spinal nerve-ligated rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2006; 316:601–7Kawasaki, Y Kohno, T Ji, RR
Fields HL, Emson PC, Leigh BK, Gilbert RF, Iversen LL: Multiple opiate receptor sites on primary afferent fibres. Nature 1980; 284:351–3Fields, HL Emson, PC Leigh, BK Gilbert, RF Iversen, LL
Abbadie C, Lombard MC, Besson JM, Trafton JA, Basbaum AI: Mu and delta opioid receptor-like immunoreactivity in the cervical spinal cord of the rat after dorsal rhizotomy or neonatal capsaicin: An analysis of pre- and postsynaptic receptor distributions. Brain Res 2002; 930:150–62Abbadie, C Lombard, MC Besson, JM Trafton, JA Basbaum, AI
Cheng PY, Liu-Chen LY, Pickel VM: Dual ultrastructural immunocytochemical labeling of mu and delta opioid receptors in the superficial layers of the rat cervical spinal cord. Brain Res 1997; 778:367–80Cheng, PY Liu-Chen, LY Pickel, VM
Arvidsson U, Riedl M, Chakrabarti S, Lee JH, Nakano AH, Dado RJ, Loh HH, Law PY, Wessendorf MW, Elde R: Distribution and targeting of a mu-opioid receptor (MOR1) in brain and spinal cord. J Neurosci 1995; 15:3328–41Arvidsson, U Riedl, M Chakrabarti, S Lee, JH Nakano, AH Dado, RJ Loh, HH Law, PY Wessendorf, MW Elde, R
Ninkovic M, Hunt SP, Kelly JS: Effect of dorsal rhizotomy on the autoradiographic distribution of opiate and neurotensin receptors and neurotensin-like immunoreactivity within the rat spinal cord. Brain Res 1981; 230:111–9Ninkovic, M Hunt, SP Kelly, JS
Gamse R, Holzer P, Lembeck F: Indirect evidence for presynaptic location of opiate receptors on chemosensitive primary sensory neurones. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 1979; 308:281–5Gamse, R Holzer, P Lembeck, F
Taddese A, Nah SY, McCleskey EW: Selective opioid inhibition of small nociceptive neurons. Science 1995; 270:1366–9Taddese, A Nah, SY McCleskey, EW
North RA: Opioid actions on membrane ion channels, Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Edited by Herz A. Berlin, Springer, 1993, pp 773–97North, RA Herz A. Berlin Springer
Stevens CW, Lacey CB, Miller KE, Elde RP, Seybold VS: Biochemical characterization and regional quantification of mu, delta and kappa opioid binding sites in rat spinal cord. Brain Res 1991; 550:77–85Stevens, CW Lacey, CB Miller, KE Elde, RP Seybold, VS
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  –C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  –C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
Fig. 1. Effects of DAMGO (1 μm) on monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ and C fibers (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DAMGO. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 73, 480, and 380 μA, respectively. An illustration (  C  , left  ) showed how the amplitude of C-EPSC was measured. 
×
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC  . **P  < 0.01, A  δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm) 
	. Vertical bars  show SEM 
	. **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC 
	. **P  < 0.01, A 
	δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
Fig. 2. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ and C excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DAMGO (0.1, 1 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DAMGO (1 μm). Note that the C-EPSC was more effectively inhibited by DAMGO than the Aδ-EPSC  . **P  < 0.01, A  δversus  C. (  C  ) Time course of the peak amplitude of Aδ- (○) and C- (•) EPSCs recorded in the same neuron before and during DAMGO (1 μm). CTAP (1 μm) reversed the inhibition of Aδ- and C-EPSCs during application of DAMGO. Original traces of EPSCs indicated by numbers correspond to the time points on the graph. 
×
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  –C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  –C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
Fig. 3. Effects of DPDPE (1 μm) on excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) evoked by stimulating Aδ-fiber (  A  ) and C fiber (  B  ) or both Aδ- and C fiber EPSCs (  C  ). (  A  C  ) Averaged traces of five consecutive evoked EPSCs before (  left  ), during (  middle  ; where control EPSC on the left is superimposed for comparison), and after (  right  ) the action of DPDPE. The EPSCs were evoked at 0.1 Hz. The intensities of the stimuli used in  A  C  were 56, 380, and 560 μA, respectively. 
×
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . *P  < 0.05  , **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A  δversus  C. 
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm) 
	. Vertical bars  show SEM 
	. *P  < 0.05 
	, **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A 
	δversus  C. 
Fig. 4. (  A  ) Percentage inhibition of monosynaptic Aδ- and C fiber–evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) under the action of DPDPE (1, 10 μm)  . Vertical bars  show SEM  . *P  < 0.05  , **P  < 0.01, compared with control. (  B  ) A distribution of relative amplitude compared with control for Aδ- and C-EPSCs by DPDPE (10 μm). n.s. = not significant, A  δversus  C. 
×
Table 1. Proportion of Neurons Exhibiting Inhibition by μ-, δ-, and κ-Receptor Agonists with Respect to the Amplitude of the Aδ- or C Excitatory Postsynaptic Current 
Image not available
Table 1. Proportion of Neurons Exhibiting Inhibition by μ-, δ-, and κ-Receptor Agonists with Respect to the Amplitude of the Aδ- or C Excitatory Postsynaptic Current 
×