Free
Meeting Abstracts  |   April 1999
Fentanyl and Morphine, but not Remifentanil, Inhibit Acetylcholine Release in Pontine Regions Modulating Arousal 
Author Notes
  • (Mortazavi) Pain Fellow.
  • (Thompson) Research Technician.
  • (Baghdoyan, Lydic) Professor of Anesthesia.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   April 1999
Fentanyl and Morphine, but not Remifentanil, Inhibit Acetylcholine Release in Pontine Regions Modulating Arousal 
Anesthesiology 4 1999, Vol.90, 1070-1077. doi:
Anesthesiology 4 1999, Vol.90, 1070-1077. doi:
MORPHINE sulfate (MSO4) is known to decrease cholinergic neurotransmission in many brain regions. Opioid inhibition of acetylcholine (ACh) release is directly relevant to anesthesia because ACh plays a key role in the central nervous system regulation of arousal, respiratory control, and perception of painful stimuli. [1-3] Although opioids can contribute to clinically significant disruptions of arousal state and cardiopulmonary control, [4] the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying these opioid side effects remain incompletely understood. These diverse effects are unified, however, by the identification of a neuronal network in the pontine brain stem through which opioids and ACh modulate arousal state, [3,5] breathing, [6,7] and antinociceptive behavior. [8] 
The medial pontine reticular formation (mPRF) is a cholinoceptive region that receives its cholinergic input from the more rostral laterodorsal tegmental nuclei (LDT) and pedunculopontine tegmental nuclei (PPT). [9] Cholinomimetics microinjected into the mPRF of conscious animals enhance rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, [5] whereas MSO4microinjected into the mPRF inhibits REM sleep and concurrently increases apneic breathing. [10] This MSO4-inducedREM sleep inhibition is mediated by [micro sign]-opioid receptors in the mPRF. [11] ACh release in the mPRF is significantly increased during REM sleep, [12] and systemically administered MSO4inhibits ACh release in the mPRF. [13] The forgoing basic data are consistent with the clinical observation that opioids contribute to the sleep deprivation, delirium, and parasomnias comprising intensive care unit (ICU) syndrome. [14] 
The degree to which mPRF ACh is inhibited by opioids at cell bodies in the cholinergic LDT and cholinergic terminals projecting from LDT to the mPRF has not been quantified. Therefore, this study examined the hypothesis that dialysis delivery of MSO4, fentanyl, or remifentanil would decrease ACh in the mPRF and LDT regions of the pons. ACh in the mPRF also was measured during intravenous delivery of remifentanil.
Methods and Materials
Experimental Model and Microdialysis Procedure
Adult male cats (n = 9) were implanted with a permanent, plastic cranioplast designed to provide subsequent access to the pontine brain stem. [12,15,16] Cats were allowed to recover for 4 weeks before beginning the microdialysis experiments. For each experiment an animal was anesthetized by mask induction with halothane. The trachea was sprayed with lidocaine, 0.5%, and then intubated. An Ohmeda Rascal II monitor (Ohmeda, Salt Lake City, UT) was used to measure end tidal CO2and halothane. End-tidal CO2was maintained at 30 mmHg by adjusting ventilation. Halothane was maintained at 1.4% by adjusting inspired concentration (1 MAC for cat = 1.2%[17]). Blood pressure and oxygen saturation were measured noninvasively throughout each experiment using a Dinamap (Critikon, Tampa, FL) and an Ohmeda Biox 3700 Pulse Oximeter (Ohmeda, Boulder, CO). A T/Pump Heat Therapy System (Gaymar, TP400 Series, Orchard Park, NY) and a rectal thermometer (Model 43TA, Yellow Springs Instrument Co., Yellow Springs, OH) were used to maintain core body temperature at 37[degree sign]C. Repeated microdialysis experiments in the same animal were separated by a minimum of 1 week.
Microdialysis studies of unanesthetized cats have demonstrated that ACh levels in the pontine brain stem vary significantly across the sleep-wake cycle (reviewed in [3]). Fluctuating levels of arousal, therefore, will significantly alter measures of ACh release in the mPRF and LDT. Thus, halothane anesthesia was used in the present study to eliminate spontaneous oscillations during sleep and wakefulness. Holding arousal state constant with halothane made it possible to test the hypothesis that ACh levels in the LDT and mPRF were altered by opioids, independent of fluctuating states of arousal. ACh levels in the mPRF are slightly reduced below waking levels by halothane, [3] but halothane does not alter high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) column sensitivity for ACh detection. The use of halothane anesthesia as an experimental tool for studies of pontine cholinergic neurotransmission has been demonstrated. [16,18] 
As described elsewhere, [12,15,16] in vivo microdialysis was accomplished with a polycarbonate membrane (20 kDa pore, 2 mm length, 0.5 mm diameter). Before the in vivo portion of each experiment, preexperimental probe recoveries were determined by dialyzing a vial containing a known concentration of ACh. At the termination of the in vivo dialysis experiment, postexperimental probe recoveries again were collected using a known concentration of ACh. Pre- and postexperimental probe recoveries were compared to ensure that measures of ACh in pmol/10 min of dialysis reflected neurochemical changes rather than dialysis probe damage. Quantification of ACh with these techniques is widely regarded as measuring neurotransmitter release rather than neurotransmitter turnover because ACh release is blocked by dialysis delivery of tetrodotoxin and by dialysis with Ca++-freeRinger's solution.
For each experiment, the microdialysis probe was placed in the mPRF or LDT using the stereotaxic coordinates of Berman. [19] The large size of the feline brain made it possible to perform repeated dialysis sampling from different locations within the mPRF of each animal. After stereotaxically inserting the probe, pontine dialysis began at a rate of 3 [micro sign]l/min, and every 10 min sequential 30-[micro sign]l dialysate samples were collected for quantifying ACh (pmol/10 min of dialysis). The dialysis probe was linked via a liquid switch to three different syringes, each containing different drug solutions. Control data were provided by measures of ACh during 50-80 min (5-8 samples) of dialysis with Ringer's solution. The liquid switch then was turned to the syringe containing 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4dissolved in Ringer's solution, and another 50-80 min of dialysis samples were obtained. During the third portion of these experiments, the liquid switch was again activated to permit dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution containing naloxone (88 nM). Additional experiments simultaneously delivered these same concentrations of MSO4and naloxone while measuring mPRF ACh.
Acetylcholine in the mPRF also was measured during continuous intravenous administration of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg (-1)[middle dot] min-1)(Ultiva, Glaxo Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC) and during mPRF microdialysis delivery of Ringer's solution (control) versus Ringer's solution containing remifentanil (8.8 [micro sign]M). The dose-dependent effects of MSO4or fentanyl on mPRF ACh were examined by dialyzing the mPRF with three concentrations of MSO4or fentanyl (0.088, 0.88, and 8.8 [micro sign]M).
Acetylcholine Assay
At the end of each 10-min dialysis interval, the 30-[micro sign]l sample immediately was injected into the HPLC coupled with an electrochemical detection system (Bioanalytical Systems, West Lafayette, IN). Samples were carried in a 50 mM NaHPO4mobile phase, pH 8.5, at 1 ml/min. Samples initially passed through a polymeric analytical column, permitting separation of ACh and choline. Next, the samples passed through an immobilized enzyme reactor wherein immobilized acetylcholinesterase and choline oxidase converted ACh into H2O2and betaine. H2O2was produced from ACh and choline in stoichiometric amounts and measured at a 0.5-V applied potential on a platinum electrode relative to a Ag+/AgClreference electrode. The area under the chromatogram peaks was proportional to the amount of ACh and choline in the samples. Chromatogram peaks were recorded on a flatbed recorder and simultaneously digitized and stored on disk using ChromGraph (Bioanalytical Systems) software. The area under the chromatograph peak from each injection was referenced to a standard curve to calculate the amount of ACh in each dialysis sample, expressed as pmol/10 min of dialysis.
Statistical Analysis
Pre- and postexperimental dialysis probe recoveries were compared by independent t test to ensure that the ACh release data were not confounded by an alterations in dialysis probe recovery. Descriptive statistics provided mean +/− SD values for all dependent measures. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the presence of a statistically significant effect of microdialysis drug delivery on ACh release. When ANOVA indicated a statistically significant drug main-effect on ACh, the different drug conditions were compared using Tukey and Dunnett multiple comparison tests. Systolic and mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate were analyzed for all experiments. For all inferential statistics, the probability (P) value for statistical significance was P < 0.05.
Results
Morphine sulfate suppressed ACh released from microdialysis sites within the mPRF and LDT nuclei. Figure 1illustrates the anatomic relationship between the LDT and mPRF (Figure 1A) and unilateral dialysis probe placement in the LDT (Figure 1B) and mPRF (Figure 1C) regions of the pontine brain stem. All LDT ACh measures were obtained from animals in which no probe lesions had been created in the mPRF terminal field. Likewise, all mPRF dialysis measures were obtained from animals in which no microdialysis probes had been placed in the LDT cell body region. ACh levels in the mPRF were decreased by dialysis delivery of 1 [micro sign]M tetrodotoxin, a finding consistent with the well-accepted view that these microdialysis data reflect measures of ACh release. The blood pressure and heart rate data revealed no anesthesia-induced hypotension or bradycardia during pontine microdialysis.
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
×
Morphine Inhibits Pontine Cholinergic Neurotransmission
The time course for a typical experiment in which microdialysis was used to deliver Ringer's solution (control), Ringer's solution containing MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), and Ringer's solution containing naloxone (88 nM) to the cholinergic LDT is shown in Figure 2. These time-course data illustrate that individual experiments yielded multiple dialysis measures of ACh per treatment condition (Ringer's solution, morphine, naloxone). Figure 3summarizes the group data from all experiments in which the LDT was dialyzed with morphine followed by naloxone. Mean ACh in the LDT was 0.36 pmol/10 min with Ringer's solution and 0.25 pmol/10 min during dialysis delivery of morphine. Morphine caused a significant decrease (-30%) in LDT ACh, and this decrease was reversed by LDT administration of naloxone.
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
×
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
×
(Figure 4A) summarizes the effects of mPRF morphine and naloxone on mPRF ACh levels. During dialysis of the mPRF with Ringer's solution, mean mPRF ACh was 0.30 pmol/10 min of dialysis. When dialysis was switched to Ringer's solution containing MSO4, ACh in the mPRF was significantly decreased (-23%) to 0.23 pmol/10 min. During dialysis delivery of naloxone, ACh in the mPRF averaged 0.29 pmol/10 min, which was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group. To confirm naloxone blocking (Figure 4A) and rule out the possibility of non-specific wash out of morphine during microdialysis with naloxone, the two compounds also were coadministered by microdialysis. Figure 4B shows that mPRF ACh was not altered by MSO4when it was coadministered with naloxone.
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
×
Dialysis of the mPRF with increasing concentrations of MSO4caused a dose-dependent decrease in mPRF ACh (Figure 5). Average mPRF ACh (pmol/10 min) by dialysis condition was Ringer's solution, 0.26; 0.088 [micro sign]M MSO4, 0.28; 0.88 [micro sign]M MSO4, 0.22; 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4, 0.11. It was not possible-with the electrical sensitivity necessary to measure ACh in fractions of a pmol-to deliver morphine in concentrations greater than 8.8 [micro sign]M. For example, at a concentration of 88.0 [micro sign]M, MSO4passing over the electrochemical detector produced a chromatographic peak of sufficient amplitude and duration to occlude the ACh chromatogram.
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
×
The forgoing results with MSO4encouraged quantification of mPRF ACh during dialysis delivery of synthetic opioids. In three animals, mPRF ACh was measured during mPRF dialysis delivery of 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil followed by naloxone (Figure 6A) and during continuous intravenous delivery of remifentanil (Figure 6B). In contrast to MSO4, remifentanil had no effect on mPRF ACh during dialysis delivery into the mPRF (Figure 6A) or during intravenous administration (Figure 6B). In three additional animals, mPRF ACh was measured in response to mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. Fentanyl caused a dose-dependent decrease in mPRF ACh (Figure 7). Average mPRF ACh (pmol/10 min) by dialysis condition was Ringer's solution, 0.29; 0.088 [micro sign]M fentanyl, 0.25; 0.88 [micro sign]M fentanyl, 0.20; 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl, 0.17.
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
×
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
×
Discussion
Morphine Depresses ACh at Pontine Cholinergic Cell Bodies (LDT) and Cholinergic Terminals (mPRF)
Intravenous administration of morphine previously was shown to decrease cholinergic neurotransmission in mPRF regions known to regulate electroencephalographic (EEG) and behavioral arousal. [13] It was not clear, however, whether morphine decreased ACh release by actions at cholinergic cell bodies or by actions at cholinergic terminals (Figure 1A). The present data resolve this question by showing that dialysis delivery of morphine decreased ACh release in the cholinergic LDT (Figure 1B and Figure 3) and in the LDT terminal projection field within the mPRF (Figure 1C and Figure 4). At both the cholinergic LDT and the mPRF regions receiving LDT cholinergic efferents, the statistically significant reductions in ACh caused by morphine were reversed by naloxone (Figure 3and Figure 4).
A statistically significant, dose-dependent decrease in mPRF ACh was observed during microdialysis delivery of morphine (Figure 5) or fentanyl (Figure 7) to the mPRF. These data parallel the previous discovery that microinjection of morphine into the mPRF of intact, unanesthetized cats caused a naloxone-reversible, dose-dependent inhibition of REM sleep. [10] Morphine inhibition of REM sleep [10] and mPRF ACh (Figure 5) also is consistent with converse lines of evidence demonstrating REM sleep-specific enhancement of cholinergic neurotransmission. For example, mPRF ACh release is significantly increased during REM sleep, [12] and electrically stimulating pontine cholinergic neurons significantly increases mPRF ACh release [15] and REM sleep. [20] 
Morphine Differentially Alters Supraspinal and Spinal ACh
The present finding that morphine decreased pontine ACh is consistent with other data indicating that morphine inhibits cholinergic neurotransmission. Although opioids have been shown to decrease ACh release in many brain regions, it should be clear that opioid effects on ACh release vary as a function of the tissue in which ACh is measured. Morphine decreases ACh in the pons (Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5), but opioids stimulate ACh release in spinal cord. [21] In ewes and in one human volunteer, intravenous morphine increased release of ACh in spinal cord. [21] Opioid receptors are differentially distributed throughout the brain, [22] and the effects of activating even a particular opioid receptor subtype can be site-dependent within the nervous system.
In addition to the forgoing site-specific differences in the effects of opioids on ACh, there also are some remarkable similarities between spinal and pontine cholinergic neurotransmission. These similarities are demonstrated by four congruent lines of evidence. First, muscarinic cholinergic receptors play a role in regulating ACh release in spinal cord, [23] and ACh release in the mPRF also is modulated by muscarinic autoreceptors of the M2 subtype. [16] Second, the ubiquitous transmembrane signaling molecule nitric oxide has been associated with cholinergic neurotransmission in the mPRF and spinal cord. Inhibition of mPRF nitric oxide synthase decreases mPRF ACh release, [12] and in spinal cord ACh stimulates the production of nitric oxide. [23] Third, longstanding (reviewed in [24]) and recent [25] evidence shows that spinal application of cholinomimetics is powerfully antinociceptive. In the same regions of the mPRF illustrated by Figure 1, microinjection of cholinergic agonists and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors enhanced antinociceptive behavior. [8] Finally, remifentanil has been observed not to alter neurotransmission at pontine and spinal levels. The inability of remifentanil to alter mPRF ACh (Figure 6) is similar to the finding that continuous spinal remifentanil infusion failed to alter glutamate release. [26] The variety of cellular cascades by which opioids differentially alter supraspinal and spinal ACh release remains to be specified. The forgoing similarities and differences suggest research opportunities aiming to characterize the supraspinal and spinal mechanisms of opioid action on cholinergic neurotransmission and arousal state control.
Potential Clinical Relevance
Although patients who receive opioids report feeling sleepy, morphine actually increases wakefulness and inhibits the REM phase of sleep. [27-29] At the beginning of this decade, pioneering studies documented significant changes in REM sleep and cardiopulmonary control caused by the perioperative use of opioids. The first night after surgery is characterized by REM sleep inhibition, followed by intense REM sleep rebound on the second and third postoperative nights. [28] Postoperative patients treated with morphine display a dose-related decrement in REM sleep. [28] Additionally, hypoxic episodes during REM sleep rebound on postoperative nights 2 and 3 are 300% more frequent than on the preoperative night. [30] It now is clear from many clinical studies that cardiopulmonary complications are correlated with REM sleep rebound occurring postoperatively. [4,30-35] Disruption of cortical cholinergic neurotransmission also is known to cause delirium and impaired memory function. [36] Transient postoperative delirium after anesthesia has an incidence of 10-60% and contributes to an increase in patient morbidity, delayed functional recovery, and prolonged hospital stays. [36] Thus, multiple lines of evidence demonstrate the potential clinical significance of understanding the mechanisms by which opioids disrupt arousal state control.
Limitations and Conclusions
One limitation of the present study is the inability to account for the observation that remifentanil did not decrease mPRF ACh levels. Two factors contributed to the expectation that remifentanil would depress mPRF ACh. First, mPRF ACh was decreased by morphine (Figure 4and Figure 5). Second, remifentanil behaves as a [micro sign]-opioid agonist with an antinociceptive intrathecal potency that is 17 times greater than morphine. [37] Remifentanil hydrochloride is formulated to contain glycine, a potent inhibitory neurotransmitter. [38] It is not clear from these data whether the inability of remifentanil to alter pontine ACh levels is a result of the presence of glycine or of the fact that remifentanil is rapidly hydrolyzed.
Acetylcholine modulates cortical activation and behavioral arousal, but no single neurotransmitter regulates arousal state control. Monoamines also are known to alter sleep, [9] sedation, and nociception. [39] Therefore, another limitation of the present study is the possibility that monoamines or some other neurotransmitter system contributed to opioid inhibition of ACh. This possibility is open to future experimental tests.
In conclusion, the present data show for the first time that dialysis delivery of opioids decreased ACh levels in the cholinergic LDT (Figure 2and Figure 3) and in the LDT terminal projection field within the mPRF (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 7). The naloxone-blocking data (Figure 4) and opioid dose-dependent reduction of ACh levels (Figure 5and Figure 7) suggest [micro sign]-receptor modulation of cholinergic neurotransmission. The finding that centrally administered opioids decreased ACh levels in the mPRF agrees with previous data showing that microinjection of opioids into the mPRF disrupts REM sleep. [10,11] In the human brain, pontine reticular sites homologous to those described here (Figure 1) also regulate arousal [40] and REM sleep. [41] Thus, the present results are consistent with the possibility that inhibition of pontine cholinergic neurotransmission contributes to arousal state disruption by opioids. Finally, cholinergic stimulation of the mPRF has been shown to reverse halothane-induced depression of cortical excitability. [18,42] Taken together, these findings support the working hypothesis that pontine cholinergic mechanisms known to generate naturally occurring states of consciousness preferentially modulate the altered states of consciousness produced by analgesic and anesthetic molecules. [3,6] 
The authors thank Dr. Garfield Russell for his critical reading of the manuscript; for expert assistance, the authors also thank N. Parisi, J. L. DiVittore, W. A. Martin, J. Graybeal, and P. Myers.
REFERENCES
Lambert DG, Appadu BL: Muscarinic receptor subtypes: Do they have a place in clinical anaesthesia? Br J Anaesth 1995; 74:497-9
Durieux ME: Muscarinic signaling in the central nervous system: Recent developments and anesthetic implications. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:173-89
Lydic R, Baghdoyan HA: Cholinergic contributions to the control of consciousness, Anesthesia: Biologic Foundations. Edited by Yaksh TL, Lynch C, Zapol WM, Maze M, Biebuyck JF, Saidman LJ. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997, pp 433-50
Rosenberg-Adamsen S, Kehlet H, Dodds C, Rosenberg J: Postoperative sleep disturbances: Mechanisms and clinical implications. Br J Anaesth 1996; 76:552-9
Baghdoyan HA: Cholinergic mechanisms regulating REM sleep, Sleep Science: Integrating Basic Research and Clinical Practice. Monographs in Clinical Neuroscience, Volume 15. Edited by Schwartz WJ. Basel, Karger, 1997, pp 88-116
Lydic R: Pontine modulation of breathing during sleep and anesthesia. Curr Opin Pulm Med 1996; 2:474-81
Lydic R: Respiratory modulation by non-respiratory neurons, Sleep Science: Integrating Basic Research and Clinical Practice. Monographs in Clinical Neuroscience, Volume 15. Edited by Schwartz WJ. Basel, Karger, 1997, pp 117-42
Kshatri AM, Baghdoyan HA, Lydic R: Cholinomimetics, but not morphine, increase antinociceptive behavior from pontine regions regulating rapid eye movement sleep. Sleep 1998; 21:553-61
Steriade M, McCarley RW: Brainstem Control of Wakefulness and Sleep, New York, Plenum Press, 1990
Keifer JC, Baghdoyan HA, Lydic R: Sleep disruption and increased apneas after pontine microinjection of morphine. Anesthesiology 1992; 77:973-82
Cronin A, Keifer JC, Baghdoyan HA, Lydic R: Narcotic inhibition of rapid eye movement sleep induced by a specific mu receptor agonist. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74:188-92
Leonard TO, Lydic R: Pontine nitric oxide modulates acetylcholine release, rapid eye movement sleep generation, and respiratory rate. J Neurosci 1997; 17:774-85
Lydic R, Keifer JC, Baghdoyan HA, Becker L: Microdialysis of the pontine reticular formation reveals inhibition of acetylcholine release by morphine. Anesthesiology 1993; 79:1003-12
Krachman SL, D'Alonzo GE, Criner GJ: Sleep in the intensive care unit. Chest 1995; 107:1713-20
Lydic R, Baghdoyan HA: Pedunculopontine stimulation alters respiration and increases ACh release in the pontine reticular formation. Am J Physiol 1993; 264:R544-R54
Baghdoyan HA, Lydic R, Fleegal MA: M2 muscarinic autoreceptors modulate acetylcholine release in the medial pontine reticular formation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1998; 286:1446-52
Tavis CC, Bowers JC: Interspecies scaling of anesthetic potency. Toxicol Ind Health 1991; 7:249-60
Roth MT, Fleegal MA, Lydic R, Baghdoyan HA: Pontine acetylcholine release is regulated by muscarinic autoreceptors. NeuroReport 1996; 7:3069-72
Berman AL: The Brain Stem of the Cat, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1968
Thakkar M, Portas C, McCarley RW: Chronic low-amplitude electrical stimulation of the laterodorsal tegmental nucleus of freely moving cats increases REM sleep. Brain Res 1996; 723:223-7
Bouaziz H, Chuanyao T, Young Y, Hood D, Eisenach J: Intravenous opioids stimulate norepinephrine and acetylcholine release in spinal cord dorsal horn. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:143-54
Mansour A, Fox CA, Akil H, Watson SJ: Opioid-receptor mRNA expression in the rat CNS: Anatomical and functional implications. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18:22-9
Xu Z, Tong C, Pan HL, Cerda SE, Eisenach JC: Intravenous morphine increases release of nitric oxide from spinal cord by an [Greek small letter alpha]-adrenergic and cholinergic mechanism. J Neurophysiol 1997; 78:2072-8
Hartvig P, Gillberg PG, Gordh T, Post C: Cholinergic mechanisms in pain and analgesia. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1989; Dec. Suppl:75-9
Eisenach JC, Hood DD, Curry R: Phase I human safety assessment of intrathecal neostigmine containing methyl- and propylparabens. Anesth Analg 1997; 85:842-6
Buerkle H, Marsala M, Yaksh TL: Effect of continuous spinal remifentanil infusion on behavioral and spinal glutamate release evoked by subcutaneous formalin in the rat. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80:348-53
Kay DC, Eisenstein RB, Jasinski DR: Morphine effects on human REM state, waking state, and NREM sleep. Psychopharmacologia 1969; 14:404-16
Knill RL, Moote CA, Skinner MI, Rose EA: Anesthesia with abdominal surgery leads to intense REM sleep during the first postoperative week. Anesthesiology 1990; 74:52-61
Lehmkuhl D, Prass D, Pichlmayr I: General anesthesia and post-narcotic sleep disorders. Neuropsychobiology 1987; 18:37-42
Rosenberg J, Wildschiodtz G, Pedersen MH, Von Jessen F, Kehlet H: Late postoperative nocturnal episodic hypoxaemia and associated sleep pattern. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72:145-50
Aakerlund LP, Rosenberg J: Postoperative delirium: Treatment with supplementary oxygen. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72:286-90
Entwistle MD, Roe PG, Sapsford DJ, Berrisford RG, Jones JG: Patterns of oxygenation after thoracotomy. Br J Anaesth 1991; 67:704-11
Reeder MK, Muir AD, Foex P, Goldman MD, Loh L, Smart D: Postoperative myocardial ischemia: Temporal association with nocturnal hypoxaemia. Br J Anaesth 1991; 67:626-31
Reeder MK, Goldman MD, Loh L, Muir AD, Foex P, Casey KR, McKenzie PJ: Postoperative hypoxaemia after major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68:23-6
VanDercar DH, Martinez AP, DeLisser EA: Sleep apnea syndromes: A potential contraindication for patient-controlled analgesia. Anesthesiology 1991; 74:623-4
Parikh S, Chung F: Postoperative delirium in the elderly. Anesth Analg 1995; 80:1223-32
Buerkle H, Yaksh TL: Comparison of the spinal actions of the mu opioid remifentanil with alfentanil and morphine in the rat. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:94-102
Buerkle H, Yaksh TL: Continuous intrathecal administration of short-lasting [micro sign] opioids remifentanil and alfentanil in the rat. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:926-35
Kamibayashi T, Harasawa K, Maze M: Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44:R13-8
Kinomura S, Larsson J, Gulyas B, Roland PE: Activation of attention by the human reticular formation and thalamic intralaminar nuclei. Science 1996; 271:512-4
Lavie P, Pratt H, Scharf R, Brown J: Localized pontine lesion: Near total absence of REM sleep. Neurology 1984; 34:118-20
Keifer JC, Baghdoyan HA, Lydic R: Pontine cholinergic mechanisms modulate the cortical electroencephalographic spindles of halothane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:945-54
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
Figure 1. Sagittal views of the pontine brain stem. (A) Schematic diagram indicating that cholinergic LDT neurons send projections to the cholinoceptive mPRF. The LDT-mPRF relationship is simplified here for illustrative purposes. LDT connectivity is complex, including LDT reciprocal connections and projections to the thalamus and to the contralateral mPRF (reviewed in [9]). Cresyl violet-stained sections of the brain stem illustrate lesions used to confirm dialysis probe placement in the LDT (B) and mPRF (C). In B and C, the black arrow marks the tip of the dialysis probe lesion in the LDT and mPRF, respectively; calibration bars at lower right = 1 mm. Approximate lateralities are 1.2 mm for LDT (B) and 1.6 mm for mPRF (C). 6N = abducens nerve; 7G = genu of facial nerve; PAG = periaqueductal gray; TB = trapezoid body.
×
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
Figure 2. Time course of ACh in pmol/10 min of LDT dialysis during a representative experiment from one animal. LDT ACh is plotted as a function of dialysis time in min. Time bins 10-50 plot ACh during Ringer's solution (control) dialysis. Time bins 60-100 indicate ACh during dialysis delivery of morphine to the LDT, and bins 110-150 show dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM). There are no indications of variance here because each bar represents the pmol value of ACh measured during one 10-min dialysis sample. In contrast, the data summarized by Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7represent mean change in ACh release averaged by condition for multiple experiments conducted in multiple animals.
×
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
Figure 3. Mean + SD ACh in the LDT during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone. These data summarize 460 min of LDT dialysis data obtained from three animals. Morphine caused a statistically significant decrease (*) in LDT ACh (F = 11.3; d.f. = 3, 45; P < 0.0001). The MSO4-induceddecrease in ACh was reversed by dialysis delivery of naloxone (88 nM).
×
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
Figure 4. Mean +/− SD ACh release in the mPRF during sequential dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, MSO4, and naloxone (A) and during simultaneous dialysis delivery of MSO4plus naloxone (B). In four animals, ACh was significantly decreased (*) by MSO4(F = 10.1; d.f. = 2, 89; P < 0.0002), and the decrease in ACh release was reversed by naloxone. When naloxone (88 nM) was delivered to the mPRF along with MSO4(8.8 [micro sign]M), ACh was not significantly different from the Ringer's solution control group (B).
×
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
Figure 5. Mean + SD mPRF ACh as a function of dialysis delivery of increasing concentrations of MSO4to the mPRF. Six dialysis experiments in four animals revealed a statistically significant concentration main-effect of MSO4on ACh (F = 7.1; d.f. = 3, 151; P < 0.0002). For the group data and the representative experiment shown here, only 8.8 [micro sign]M MSO4was significantly different (*) by multiple comparisons test from all other morphine concentrations in altering mPRF ACh.
×
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
Figure 6. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during administration of remifentanil. In three animals, mPRF ACh was not significantly altered during dialysis delivery of Ringer's solution, 8.8 [micro sign]M remifentanil, or naloxone (88 nM) to the mPRF (A). There was no significant difference in mPRF ACh comparing mPRF Ringer's solution dialysis to mPRF dialysis during 50 min of continuous intravenous administration (B) of remifentanil (0.5 [micro sign]g [middle dot] kg-1[middle dot] min-1).
×
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
Figure 7. Mean + SD mPRF ACh during mPRF dialysis delivery of fentanyl. There was a statistically significant concentration main-effect (F = 4.35; d.f.= 3, 59; P < 0.008) of fentanyl on mPRF ACh. Dunnett statistic indicated that both 0.88 [micro sign]M and 8.8 [micro sign]M fentanyl significantly (*) decreased mPRF ACh compared with the Ringer's solution control group.
×