AJP - GI Watch the video to learn how APS reaches out to developing nations.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 294: G963-G970, 2008. First published February 7, 2008; doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00562.2007
0193-1857/08 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
294/4/G963    most recent
00562.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Page, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Blackshaw, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Page, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Blackshaw, L. A.

NEUROREGULATION AND MOTILITY

Opioid modulation of ferret vagal afferent mechanosensitivity

Amanda J. Page,1,2,3 Tracey A. O'Donnell,1 and L. Ashley Blackshaw1,2,3

1Nerve Gut Research Laboratory, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hanson Institute, Royal Adelaide Hospital; and 2Discipline of Medicine and 3Discipline of Physiology, School of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Submitted 3 December 2007 ; accepted in final form 2 February 2008


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Despite universal use of opioids in the clinic to inhibit pain, there is relatively little known of their peripheral actions on sensory nerve endings, where in fact they may be better targeted with more widespread applications. Here we show differential effects of µ-, {kappa}-, and {delta}-opioids on mechanosensitive ferret esophageal vagal afferent endings investigated in vitro. The effects of selective agonists [D-Ala2,N-Me-Phe4,Gly-ol5]-enkephalin (DAMGO), 2-(3, 4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-[(1S)-1phenyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl) ethyl] acetamide hydrochlorine (ICI 199441), and (+)-4-[({alpha}R)-{alpha}-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-methoxybenzyl]-N,N-diethylbenzamide (SNC-80), respectively, on mechanosensory stimulus-response functions were quantified. DAMGO (10–7 to 10–5 M) reduced the responses of tension receptors to circumferential tension (1–5 g) by up to 50%, and the responses of mucosal receptors to mucosal stroking (10–1,000 mg von Frey hair) by >50%. DAMGO effects were reversed by naloxone (10–5 M). Tension/mucosal (TM) receptor responses to tension and stroking were unaffected by DAMGO. ICI 199441 (10–6 to 10–5 M) potently inhibited all responses except TM receptor responses to tension, and SNC-80 (10–5 to 10–3 M) had no effect other than a minor inhibition of mucosal receptor responses to intense stimuli at 10–3 M. We conclude that µ- and {kappa}-opioids have potent and selective peripheral effects on esophageal vagal afferents that may have applications in treatment of disorders of visceral sensation.

vagal afferents; neuromodulation; esophagus

OPIOID RECEPTORS WERE IDENTIFIED more than 30 years ago as the primary targets with which morphine and its derivatives interact to exert their analgesic and other effects. The receptors, along with their endogenous ligands, enkephalins, endorphins, and other opioid peptides, are widely distributed in the central and peripheral nervous system and play an important role in modulating endocrine, immune, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal functions. Three major types of opioid receptors, µ, {delta}, and {kappa}, have been defined pharmacologically. Both spinal and vagal sensory neurons express different numbers of µ-, {delta}-, and {kappa}-opioid receptors that are transported into the peripheral axons (1, 13, 15, 17, 31). The {kappa}-opioid receptor (KOR) agonist fedotozine decreases sensitivity of rat visceral afferents to gastric and colonic distension (7). Despite robust effects of KOR ligands, µ- and {delta}-opioid receptor agonists have not been found to affect mechanosensitivity in these models (20, 34), indicating selectivity of expression within rodent distension-sensitive afferents. The effect of opioid agonists in other species and on different classes of visceral afferents is unknown: for instance mucosal mechanoreceptors, which only respond to mucosal stroking (22, 23). Such effects may have an important bearing on interpretation of clinical findings, such as the inhibitory effect of the µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonist morphine on triggering of transient lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation by gastric distension in humans (27) and the effect of opioids on the perception of mechanical events in the human gut (10).

We chose the ferret as our species for investigation because of a number of similarities with humans: the occurrence of vomiting and gastroesophageal reflux, the similarity of its upper gastrointestinal anatomy, and the fact that observations of pharmacology of ferret gastroesophageal vagal afferents in vitro translates to effects on mechanical triggering of transient LES relaxations and thus gastroesophageal reflux in humans (22, 23). Using this in vitro preparation, we investigated the effect of selective MOR, KOR, and {delta}-opioid receptor (DOR) agonists on the sensitivity of esophageal vagal afferents to mechanical stimulation. We studied all of the mechanosensitive esophageal vagal afferent subtypes to determine whether opioid actions are specific to a select sensory modality of vagal afferent fiber.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
All studies were approved and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Animals Ethics Committees of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Institute for Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, and also the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide.

In vitro ferret gastroesophageal afferent preparation. This preparation has been described in detail previously (21, 22, 24, 25). Briefly, ferrets (0.6–1.0 kg body wt) were deeply anesthetized with sodium pentobarbitone (50 mg/kg ip) and exsanguinated by cardiac puncture. The stomach and esophagus with attached vagal nerves were dissected in a modified Krebs solution of the following composition (in mM): 118.1 NaCl, 4.7 KCl, 25.1 NaHCO3, 1.3 NaH2PO4, 1.2 mgSO4·7H2O, 1.5 CaCl2, 1.0 citric acid, and 11.1 glucose, bubbled with 95% O2 and 5% CO2. The preparation was then opened longitudinally along the esophagus and pinned out flat, mucosal side up, in a Perspex chamber and perfused at a rate of 12 ml/min with Krebs bicarbonate buffer solution maintained at 34°C containing nifedipine (1 µM) to prevent smooth muscle contraction. The vagus nerve was drawn through a small hole into an isolated recording chamber filled with paraffin oil. Under a dissecting microscope, a small longitudinal incision was made in the nerve sheath. By use of fine forceps, nerve fibers were teased back onto a platinum recording electrode.

Characterization of esophageal vagal afferent properties. Location of receptive fields of all types of vagal afferent fibers was determined by mechanical stimulation throughout the preparation with a brush, then more accurately with a blunt glass rod. Accurate quantification of mechanical responsiveness was performed differently according to the primary adequate stimulus for the type of fiber. Mechanical thresholds of all types were determined by using calibrated von Frey hairs. Mucosal receptors showed rapidly adapting responses to maintained pressure on the receptive field with a von Frey hair. This type of responsiveness was also seen in responses of tension/mucosal (TM) receptors to low-level mucosal mechanical stimulation. The most reproducible responses of these afferents to mucosal stimuli were evoked when the probe was moved at ~5 mm/s across the receptive field. Because receptive fields of these afferents are small (1–3 mm2), a single test at each intensity is likely to miss the center of the receptive field on occasions. Therefore, we minimized error by measuring the mean response to the middle 8 of 10 standard strokes given at 1-s intervals. Tension-response curves were also obtained for all afferent fibers, which were used in combination with von Frey thresholds to determine whether the receptive fields of fibers were located in the mucosa, the muscle layer, or both. Tension stimuli were applied via a thread attached to an unpinned point adjacent to the mechanoreceptive field. The thread was attached to a cantilever (22). Each weight was applied as a step and maintained for 1 min, and the response was measured as the mean discharge evoked over this period. Because all responses to tension were similarly slowly adapting, this method of assessment was considered representative of physiological responsiveness. The tension-response curves were produced by randomly applying weights to the cantilever system (1, 3, and 5 g). A recovery period of at least 1 min was allowed between each tension stimulus. Although conduction velocity was not recorded in this study, our previous observations indicate that these are in the C- and A-{delta} range, with no functional differences according to conduction velocity (21, 22).

Effect of opioid receptor agonists on the mechanosensitivity of vagal afferents. After mechanical sensitivity of the esophageal vagal afferent had been established, the effect of the MOR agonist [D-Ala2,N-Me-Phe4,Gly-ol5]-enkephalin (DAMGO) on mechanical sensitivity was determined. DAMGO (0.1 µM) was added to the superfusing solution and allowed to equilibrate for 20 min, after which the tension-response and stroke-response curves were redetermined. This equilibration period was observed so as to ensure penetration of the drug into all layers of the tissue. This procedure was repeated for DAMGO at increasingly higher doses (0.3–1 µM).

The same procedure was carried out for the KOR agonist 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-[(1S)-1phenyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl) ethyl] acetamide hydrochlorine (ICI 199441; 1–10 µM) and the DOR agonist (+)-4-[({alpha}R)-{alpha}-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-methoxybenzyl]-N,N-diethylbenzamide (SNC-80; 0.01–1 mM) in different groups of experiments. Time control experiments were performed in which there was no significant change in the mechanical responses over a comparable duration.

Effect of opioid antagonism and agonism on the mechanical sensitivity of ferret mucosal afferents. After the mechanical sensitivity of the esophageal mucosal receptors had been established, the effect of the agonists DAMGO (1 µM) or ICI 199441 (10 µM) on mechanical sensitivity to mucosal stroking was determined in separate series of experiments. The maximal concentration of agonist was added to the superfusing solution and allowed to equilibrate for 20 min, after which time the stroke-response curves were redetermined. The opioid receptor antagonist naloxone (10 µM) was then added to the Krebs superfusing solution along with DAMGO (1 µM) or ICI 199441 (10 µM) and allowed to equilibrate for 20 min. Mechanical response relationships were then redetermined.

Data recording and analysis. Afferent impulses were amplified with a biological amplifier (DAM 50; World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL), filtered (band-pass filter-932; CWE, Ardmore, PA), and monitored by use of an oscilloscope (DL 1200 A; Yokogawa, Tokyo). Single units were discriminated on the basis of action potential shape, duration, and amplitude via Spike 2 software (Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK). All data were recorded and analyzed offline with a personal computer (IBM Thinkpad). Peristimulus time histograms and discharge traces were displayed by using Spike 2 software. Data are expressed as means ± SE, with n = number of individual afferents in all instances. Differences between stimulus-response curves were evaluated by two-way ANOVA. Differences were considered significant if P < 0.05.

Drugs. Stock solutions of all drugs were kept frozen and diluted to their final concentration in Krebs solution on the day of the experiment. DAMGO, ICI 199441, and SNC-80 were all obtained from Tocris Bioscience (Northpoint, Avonmouth, UK), and naloxone was obtained from Sigma (Castle Hill, NSW, Australia).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Mechanosensory properties of esophageal vagal afferent fibers. Three types of mechanosensitive fiber were observed using this in vitro preparation: those responding to circumferential tension but not low-intensity mucosal stimuli (tension receptors; n = 19), those responding only to mucosal stroking (mucosal receptors; n = 23), and those responding to both mucosal stroking and circumferential tension, which we have previously termed tension mucosal, or TM, receptors (n = 35) (22) All of the afferent fibers recorded had receptive fields in the esophagus or the gastroesophageal junction.

Effect of DAMGO on the mechanosensitivity of esophageal vagal afferents. The selective MOR agonist DAMGO (0.1–1 µM) (12, 16) did not significantly affect the basal discharge of vagal esophageal mucosal, tension, or TM receptors (data not illustrated). The effect of DAMGO on mucosal, tension, and TM receptor sensitivity to mechanical stimulation is illustrated in Fig. 1 and summarized in Table 1. A typical response of a tension receptor to circumferential tension (3 g) is illustrated in Fig. 1D. DAMGO (0.3–1 µM) significantly and dose dependently reduced the response of mucosal receptors to mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 1A). DAMGO (0.1–1 µM) significantly and dose dependently reduced the response of tension receptors to circumferential tension (1, 3, and 5 g; Fig. 1, B and D). DAMGO (0.1–1 µM) did not significantly affect the response of TM receptors to either mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 1Ci) or circumferential tension (1, 3, and 5 g; Fig. 1Cii).


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Effect of [D-Ala2,N-Me-Phe4,Gly-ol5]-enkephalin (DAMGO) on ferret esophageal vagal afferents. Stimulus response functions of mucosal (A) and tension/mucosal (Ci) receptors to mucosal stroking. Stimulus response functions of tension (B) and tension/mucosal (Cii) receptors to circumferential tension. The responses are before (bullet) and after exposure to DAMGO [0.1 µM ({circ}), 0.3 µM ({blacksquare}), and 1 µM ({square})]. Asterisks indicate significant difference from control by 2-way ANOVA (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001). D: original recording of a tension receptor response to circular tension with a 3-g weight in the absence (Di) and presence of DAMGO [0.1 µM (Dii), 0.3 µM (Diii), 1 µM (Div)]. Imp./5s, impulses/5 seconds.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. A summary of the effect of selective opioid receptor agonists on mechanosensitivity of esophageal vagal afferents

 
Effect of ICI 199441 on the mechanosensitivity of esophageal vagal afferents. The selective KOR agonist ICI 199441 (1–10 µM) (3, 18) did not significantly affect the basal discharge of vagal esophageal mucosal, tension, or TM receptors (data not illustrated). The effect of ICI 199441 on mucosal, tension, and TM receptor sensitivity to mechanical stimulation is illustrated in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 1. A typical response of a mucosal receptor to mucosal stroking with a 50 mg von Frey hair is illustrated in Fig. 2D. ICI 199411 (10 µM) significantly and dose dependently reduced the response of mucosal receptors to mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 2, A and D). ICI 199441 (3–10 µM) significantly and dose dependently reduced the response of tension receptors to circumferential tension (3 and 5 g; Fig. 2B). ICI 199441 (3–10 µM) significantly and dose dependently reduced the response of TM receptors to mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 2Ci) but did not significantly affect the response of the same TM receptors to circumferential tension (1, 3, and 5 g; Fig. 2Cii).


Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Effect of 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-[(1S)-1phenyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl) ethyl] acetamide hydrochlorine (ICI 199441) on ferret esophageal vagal afferents. Stimulus response functions of mucosal (A) and tension/mucosal (Ci) receptors to mucosal stroking. Stimulus response functions of tension (B) and tension/mucosal (Cii) receptors to circumferential tension. The responses are before (bullet) and after exposure to ICI 199441 [1 µM ({circ}), 3 µM ({blacksquare}), and 10 µM ({square})]. Asterisks indicate significant difference from control by 2-way ANOVA (*P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001). D: original recording of a mucosal receptor response to mucosal stroking with a 50-mg von Frey hair in the absence (Di) and presence of ICI 199441 [1 µM (Dii), 3 µM (Diii), and 10 µM (Div)]. Instant. Freq., instantaneous frequency.

 
Effect of SNC-80 on the mechanosensitivity of esophageal vagal afferents. The selective DOR agonist SNC-80 (0.01–1 mM) (4, 30) did not significantly affect the basal discharge of vagal esophageal mucosal, tension, or TM receptors (data not illustrated). The effect of SNC-80 on mucosal, tension, and TM receptor sensitivity to mechanical stimulation is illustrated in Fig. 3 and summarized in Table 1. A typical response of a tension receptor to circumferential tension (3 g) is illustrated in Fig. 3D. SNC-80 (1 mM) only reduced the response of mucosal receptors to mucosal stroking with the 1,000 mg von Frey hair. SNC-80 (0.01–1 mM) did not significantly affect the response of tension receptors to circumferential tension (1, 3, and 5 g; Fig. 3, B and D). SNC-80 (0.01–1 mM) did not significantly affect the response of TM receptors to either mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 3Ci) or circumferential tension (1, 3, and 5 g; Fig. 3Cii).


Figure 3
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Effect of (+)-4-[({alpha}R)-{alpha}-((2S,5R)-4-allyl-2,5-dimethyl-1-piperazinyl)-3-methoxybenzyl]-N,N-diethylbenzamide (SNC-80) on ferret esophageal vagal afferents. Stimulus response functions of mucosal (A) and tension/mucosal (Ci) receptors to mucosal stroking. Stimulus response functions of tension (B) and tension/mucosal (Cii) receptors to circumferential tension. The responses are before (bullet) and after exposure to SNC-80 [0.01 mM ({circ}), 0.1 mM ({blacksquare}), and 1 mM ({square})]. Asterisks indicate significant difference from control by 2-way ANOVA (*P < 0.05). D: original recording of a tension receptor response to circular tension with a 3-g weight in the absence (Di) and presence of SNC-80 [0.01 mM (Dii), 0.1 mM (Diii), and 1 mM (Div)].

 
Effect of opioid receptor antagonism on the inhibitory effect of DAMGO and ICI 199441. The effect of the nonselective opioid receptor antagonist naloxone on inhibition of ferret esophageal mucosal receptors by opioid agonists is shown in Fig. 4. DAMGO (1 µM) alone significantly reduced the response of mucosal receptors (n = 6) to mucosal stroking with calibrated von Frey hairs (10–1,000 mg; Fig. 4, A and C). When naloxone (10 µM) was added to the Krebs superfusate along with DAMGO (1 µM), the inhibitory effect of DAMGO was completely reversed to control values (Fig. 4A). A comparable reversal of the effect of ICI 199441 (10 µM) was seen with naloxone (10 µM, Fig. 4B).


Figure 4
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Effect of naloxone on inhibition of ferret esophageal vagal afferents by DAMGO and ICI 199441. Stimulus response functions of mucosal receptors to mucosal stroking (A and B). A: responses before (bullet) and after exposure to DAMGO (1 µM, {circ}) and DAMGO (1 µM) plus naloxone (10 µM, {blacksquare}). B: responses before (bullet) and after ICI 199441 (10 µM, {circ}) and ICI 199441 (10 µM) plus naloxone (10 µM, {blacksquare}). ***P < 0.001, significant difference from control by 2-way ANOVA. ###P < 0.001, significance from data obtained in the presence of agonist and naloxone by 2-way ANOVA. C: original recording of a mucosal receptor response to mucosal stroking with a 50 mg von Frey hair in the absence (Ci) and presence of DAMGO (1 µM; Cii) and DAMGO along with naloxone (10 µM; Ciii).

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
The present study provides the first evidence that visceral afferents are differentially affected by opioid receptor agonists. Our results confirm previous reports that KOR agonists reduce the sensitivity of rat vagal tension receptors (20). We further demonstrate that the KOR agonist reduced the mechanosensitivity of mucosal receptors and TM receptor responses to mucosal stroking. This study provides the first evidence that activation of MORs inhibits visceral afferent mechanosensitivity, showing reduced sensitivity of a select population of esophageal vagal afferents by DAMGO. The MOR agonist reduced the sensitivity of mucosal and tension receptors but not the sensitivity of TM receptors. MOR effects were reversed by the nonselective opioid antagonist naloxone. The DOR agonist SNC-80 had no substantial effect on any of the afferent types investigated in this study, indicating a lack of involvement of these receptors in esophageal vagal afferent function.

The effect of opioids are mediated by three distinct receptors: {kappa}-, µ-, and {delta}-opioid receptors. The µ- and {delta}-opioid receptor gene expression has been observed in rat nodose ganglia with a relatively high expression of MOR RNA compared with other ganglia (6). There is also evidence of axonal transport of MOR along the vagus nerve both toward the brain and toward the periphery (15). This expression of the MOR in nodose ganglia and transport to the periphery correlates strongly with our findings that the µ-receptor agonist DAMGO has an effect on the mechanosensitivity of mucosal and tension sensitive vagal afferent mechanoreceptors. However, it has been shown that morphine, the MOR agonist, has no effect on the response of rat gastric mechanoreceptors to gastric distension (20). What, then, is the function of MOR expressed in rat nodose ganglia? This discrepancy between studies may be a regional difference, because all afferents recorded in the present study were located in the esophagus or the LES and were therefore a totally different anatomical population than the gastric afferents previously reported (20). However, it should be noted that the esophageal tension receptors on which we observed effects of DAMGO are otherwise indistinguishable in their pharmacology from gastric tension receptors in ferret (21, 25, 26), suggesting a species variation.

Our data are in contrast to those obtained by Eastwood and Grundy (11), who showed direct excitation of rat small intestinal afferents by DAMGO in vivo. We would expect that the differences in findings are due to the release of other mediators by µ-opioids in the small intestinal mucosa, which has many cells that possess opioid receptors (14, 19). The esophagus, on the other hand, has a squamous epithelium with no enteroendocrine cell population, where opioid effects are more likely to be direct on the afferent ending, such as has been suggested from behavioral studies in skin (8, 37). In the skin, about one-third of unmyelinated cutaneous sensory axons are immunopositive for MORs and DORs (8). In addition, morphine has been shown to reduce the response of cutaneous afferents to mechanical, thermal, and chemical activation (41, 42). Further down the intestine, µ-opioids do not affect the mechanically evoked discharge of afferent fibers innervating the rat colon (35, 38). However, it appears from less specific models of chemically evoked visceral pain that µ-opioid analgesia may occur peripherally (9, 29). In our hands, the inhibitory effect of MOR agonists on mechanoreceptors is relatively selective for vagal esophageal mechanoreceptors, specifically mucosal receptors and tension receptors as opposed to TM receptors.

DOR expression in rat nodose ganglia is relatively low compared with other ganglia (6). In the present study, SNC-80, the DOR agonist, inhibited mucosal receptors only at the highest dose used and had no effect of the mechanosensitivity of tension receptors. This is in agreement with studies on gastric vagal mechanoreceptors in the rat, which were also unaffected by SNC-80 (20). It may be that the DOR detected within rat nodose ganglia (6) are associated with neurons other than those innervating the gastroesophageal region.

Systemic administration of KOR agonists attenuates responses to noxious colorectal distension (5). In addition, it has been shown that KOR agonists, but not MOR or DOR agonists, inhibit responses of mechanosensitive pelvic nerve afferent fibers to noxious colorectal or urinary bladder distension in the rat in vivo (34, 35, 39, 40). In the rat stomach it has been shown that KOR agonists reduce the response of gastric vagal afferents to distension (20). Our results confirm these findings in nonrodent species and further suggest that {kappa}-opioids reduce the mechanosensitivity of mucosal and TM receptors to mucosal stroking. However, ICI 199441 did not affect the response of TM receptors to circular tension. Selective pharmacological effects on different properties of TM receptors are also evident from our previous studies, such as with GABAB receptor agonists (21), suggesting that receptors may be trafficked preferentially or act differently on endings of these fibers in mucosal or muscular layers. Fedotozine, a KOR agonist, exhibits some clinical activity as it increases the threshold at which gastric distension causes discomfort in healthy volunteers (7), relieves some symptoms associated with functional dyspepsia (28), and enhances the threshold at which colonic distension gives rise to discomfort in irritable bowel syndrome patients (10). Our results indicate a mechanism whereby some of the symptoms of functional dyspepsia from the upper gastrointestinal tract, such as fullness, may be ameliorated clinically by KOR agonists.

MOR and KOR agonists have been shown to reduce the spontaneous discharge of afferent fibers innervating the inflamed knee joint of the cat (32) and also the spontaneous activity of saphenous afferent nerve fibers from injured tissue of rat hindpaw skin (2). In the absence of tissue injury, however, opioids do not depress the spontaneous discharge of nociceptors in skin and do not depress their responses to noxious stimuli (33, 36). In the present study none of the opioid receptor agonists studied significantly affected the spontaneous activity of the vagal afferents. However, the tissue used was noninflamed so there is still the possibility that the spontaneous activity could be altered by opioid receptor agonists in the inflamed tissue.

Our findings have potential relevance to several aspects of visceral afferent function in human disease. Peripheral actions of MOR may underlie their inhibition of triggering of transient LES relaxations by gastric distension (27), assuming that actions on esophageal tension receptors are mirrored by those in the stomach. The {kappa}-agonists remain to be investigated in this context. Peripherally restricted opioid agonists such as loperamide have been studied little in the context of effects on visceral afferent function. The results of the present study suggest this is a worthwhile area for further efforts in drug development, at least for disease in which the antisecretory and motor effects of µ-opioids are not contraindicated.

In conclusion, the present study provides direct evidence for the inhibitory modulation of primary afferent mechanotransduction by the G protein-coupled {kappa}- and µ-opioid receptors. The three types of esophageal vagal afferents we have identified show differential sensitivity to {kappa}- and µ-opioid receptor agonists.


   GRANTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. L. A. Blackshaw is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Research Fellowship.


   FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. J. Page, Nerve Gut Research Laboratory, Level 1 Hanson Institute, Frome Rd., Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia (e-mail: amanda.page{at}health.sa.gov.au)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Aicher SA, Goldberg A, Sharma S, Pickel VM. mu-Opioid receptors are present in vagal afferents and their dendritic targets in the medial nucleus tractus solitarius. J Comp Neurol 422: 181–190, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Andreev N, Urban L, Dray A. Opioids suppress spontaneous activity of polymodal nociceptors in rat paw skin induced by ultraviolet irradiation. Neuroscience 58: 793–798, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Barlow JJ, Blackburn TP, Costello GF, James R, Le Count DJ, Main BG, Pearce RJ, Russell K, Shaw JS. Structure/activity studies related to 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-[2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1-substituted-ethyl]acetamides: a novel series of potent and selective {kappa}-opioid agonists. J Med Chem 34: 3149–3158, 1991.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Bilsky EJ, Calderon SN, Wang T, Bernstein RN, Davis P, Hruby VJ, McNutt RW, Rothman RB, Rice KC, Porreca F. SNC-80, a selective, nonpeptidic and systemically active opioid delta agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 273: 359–366, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Burton MB, Gebhart GF. Effects of kappa-opioid receptor agonists on responses to colorectal distension in rats with and without acute colonic inflammation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 285: 707–715, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Buzas B, Cox BM. Quantitative analysis of mu and delta opioid receptor gene expression in rat brain and peripheral ganglia using competitive polymerase chain reaction. Neuroscience 76: 479–489, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Coffin B, Bouhassira D, Chollet R, Fraitag B, De Meynard C, Geneve J, Lemann M, Willer JC, Jian R. Effect of the kappa agonist fedotozine on perception of gastric distension in healthy humans. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 10: 919–925, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Coggeshall RE, Zhou S, Carlton SM. Opioid receptors on peripheral sensory axons. Brain Res 764: 126–132, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Craft RM, Henley SR, Haaseth RC, Hruby VJ, Porreca F. Opioid antinociception in a rat model of visceral pain: systemic versus local drug administration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 275: 1535–1542, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Delvaux M, Louvel D, Lagier E, Scherrer B, Abitbol JL, Frexinos J. The kappa agonist fedotozine relieves hypersensitivity to colonic distention in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 116: 38–45, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Eastwood C, Grundy D. Opioid-receptor-mediated excitation of rat mesenteric afferent fibres supplying the rat jejunum. Neurogastroenterol Motil 12: 517–522, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Hirning LD, Mosberg HI, Hurst R, Hruby VJ, Burks TF, Porreca F. Studies in vitro with ICI 174,864, [D-Pen2, D-Pen5]-enkephalin (DPDPE) and [D-Ala2, NMePhe4, Gly-ol]-enkephalin (DAGO). Neuropeptides 5: 383–386, 1985.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Ji RR, Zhang Q, Law PY, Low HH, Elde R, Hokfelt T. Expression of mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptor-like immunoreactivities in rat dorsal root ganglia after carrageenan-induced inflammation. J Neurosci 15: 8156–8166, 1995.[Abstract]
  14. Lang ME, Davison JS, Bates SL, Meddings JB. Opioid receptors on guinea-pig intestinal crypt epithelial cells. J Physiol 497: 161–174, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Li JL, Kaneko T, Mizuno N. Effects of peripheral nerve ligation on expression of mu-opioid receptor in sensory ganglion neurons: an immunohistochemical study in dorsal root and nodose ganglion neurons of the rat. Neurosci Lett 214: 91–94, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. McQuiston AR. Effects of mu-opioid receptor modulation on GABAB receptor synaptic function in hippocampal CA1. J Neurophysiol 97: 2301–2311, 2007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Minami M, Maekawa K, Yabuuchi K, Satoh M. Double in situ hybridization study on coexistence of mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptor mRNAs with preprotachykinin A mRNA in the rat dorsal root ganglia. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 30: 203–210, 1995.[Medline]
  18. Nakae Y, Fujita S, Namiki A. Modulation of myofilament Ca2+ sensitivity by {delta}- and {kappa}-opioid agonists in intact guinea pig hearts. Anesth Analg 96: 733–739, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Nishimura E, Buchan AM, McIntosh CH. Autoradiographic localization of mu- and delta-type opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract of the rat and guinea pig. Gastroenterology 91: 1084–1094, 1986.[Medline]
  20. Ozaki N, Sengupta JN, Gebhart GF. Differential effects of mu-, delta-, and kappa-opioid receptor agonists on mechanosensitive gastric vagal afferent fibers in the rat. J Neurophysiol 83: 2209–2216, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Page AJ, Blackshaw LA. GABA(B) receptors inhibit mechanosensitivity of primary afferent endings. J Neurosci 19: 8597–8602, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Page AJ, Blackshaw LA. An in vitro study of the properties of vagal afferent fibres innervating the ferret oesophagus and stomach. J Physiol 512: 907–916, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Page AJ, Martin CM, Blackshaw LA. Vagal mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors in mouse stomach and esophagus. J Neurophysiol 87: 2095–2103, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Page AJ, O'Donnell TA, Blackshaw LA. Inhibition of mechanosensitivity in visceral primary afferents by GABAB receptors involves calcium and potassium channels. Neuroscience 137: 627–636, 2006.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Page AJ, Slattery JA, O'Donnell TA, Cooper NJ, Young RL, Blackshaw LA. Modulation of gastro-oesophageal vagal afferents by galanin in mouse and ferret. J Physiol 563: 809–819, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Page AJ, Young RL, Martin CM, Umaerus M, O'Donnell TA, Cooper NJ, Coldwell JR, Hulander M, Mattsson JP, Lehmann A, Blackshaw LA. Metabotropic glutamate receptors inhibit mechanosensitivity in vagal sensory neurons. Gastroenterology 128: 402–410, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Penagini R, Allocca M, Cantu P, Mangano M, Savojardo D, Carmagnola S, Bianchi PA. Relationship between motor function of the proximal stomach and transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation after morphine. Gut 53: 1227–1231, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Read NW, Abitbol JL, Bardhan KD, Whorwell PJ, Fraitag B. Efficacy and safety of the peripheral kappa agonist fedotozine versus placebo in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Gut 41: 664–668, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Reichert JA, Daughters RS, Rivard R, Simone DA. Peripheral and preemptive opioid antinociception in a mouse visceral pain model. Pain 89: 221–227, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Remy C, Remy S, Beck H, Swandulla D, Hans M. Modulation of voltage-dependent sodium channels by the delta agonist SNC80 in acutely isolated rat hippocampal neurons. Neuropharmacology 47: 1102–1112, 2004.[Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Rusin KI, Moises HC. Mu-opioid and GABA(B) receptors modulate different types of Ca2+ currents in rat nodose ganglion neurons. Neuroscience 85: 939–956, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Russell NJ, Schaible HG, Schmidt RF. Opiates inhibit the discharges of fine afferent units from inflamed knee joint of the cat. Neurosci Lett 76: 107–112, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Senami M, Aoki M, Kitahata LM, Collins JG, Kumeta Y, Murata K. Lack of opiate effects on cat C polymodal nociceptive fibers. Pain 27: 81–90, 1986.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Sengupta JN, Snider A, Su X, Gebhart GF. Effects of {kappa}-opioids in the inflamed rat colon. Pain 79: 175–185, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Sengupta JN, Su X, Gebhart GF. Kappa, but not mu or delta, opioids attenuate responses to distention of afferent fibers innervating the rat colon. Gastroenterology 111: 968–980, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Shakhanbeh J, Lynn B. Morphine inhibits antidromic vasodilatation without affecting the excitability of C-polymodal nociceptors in the skin of the rat. Brain Res 607: 314–318, 1993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Stein C, Millan MJ, Shippenberg TS, Peter K, Herz A. Peripheral opioid receptors mediating antinociception in inflammation. Evidence for involvement of mu, delta, and kappa receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 248: 1269–1275, 1989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Su X, Julia V, Gebhart GF. Effects of intracolonic opioid receptor agonists on polymodal pelvic nerve afferent fibers in the rat. J Neurophysiol 83: 963–970, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Su X, Sengupta JN, Gebhart GF. Effects of {kappa}-opioid receptor-selective agonists on responses of pelvic nerve afferents to noxious colorectal distension. J Neurophysiol 78: 1003–1012, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Su X, Sengupta JN, Gebhart GF. Effects of opioids on mechanosensitive pelvic nerve afferent fibers innervating the urinary bladder of the bat. J Neurophysiol 77: 1566–1580, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Tian YL, Guo Y, Cao DY, Zhang Q, Wang HS, Zhao Y. Local application of morphine suppresses glutamate-evoked activities of C and A{delta} afferent fibers in rat hairy skin. Brain Res 1059: 28–34, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Wenk HN, Brederson JD, Honda CN. Morphine directly inhibits nociceptors in inflamed skin. J Neurophysiol 95: 2083–2097, 2006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GutHome page
P A Hughes, S M Brierley, C M Martin, T Liebregts, J Persson, B Adam, G Holtmann, and L A Blackshaw
TRPV1-expressing sensory fibres and IBS: links with immune function
Gut, March 1, 2009; 58(3): 465 - 466.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
294/4/G963    most recent
00562.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Page, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Blackshaw, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Page, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Blackshaw, L. A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the American Physiological Society.