IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0106108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Preclinical Physiological Assay to Test Modulation of Knee Joint Pain in the Spinal Cord: Effects of Oxycodone and Naproxen

Author

Listed:
  • Jason A Miranda
  • Phil Stanley
  • Katrina Gore
  • Jamie Turner
  • Rebecca Dias
  • Huw Rees

Abstract

Sensory processing in the spinal cord during disease states can reveal mechanisms for novel treatments, yet very little is known about pain processing at this level in the most commonly used animal models of articular pain. Here we report a test of the prediction that two clinically effective compounds, naproxen (an NSAID) and oxycodone (an opiate), are efficacious in reducing the response of spinal dorsal horn neurons to noxious knee joint rotation in the monosodium iodoacetate (MIA) sensitized rat. The overall objective for these experiments was to develop a high quality in vivo electrophysiology assay to confidently test novel compounds for efficacy against pain. Given the recent calls for improved preclinical experimental quality we also developed and implemented an Assay Capability Tool to determine the quality of our assay and ensure the quality of our results. Spinal dorsal horn neurons receiving input from the hind limb knee joint were recorded in anesthetized rats 14 days after they were sensitized with 1 mg of MIA. Intravenous administered oxycodone and naproxen were each tested separately for their effects on phasic, tonic, ongoing and afterdischarge action potential counts in response to innocuous and noxious knee joint rotation. Oxycodone reduced tonic spike counts more than the other measures, doing so by up to 85%. Tonic counts were therefore designated the primary endpoint when testing naproxen which reduced counts by up to 81%. Both reductions occurred at doses consistent with clinically effective doses for osteoarthritis. These results demonstrate that clinically effective doses of standard treatments for osteoarthritis reduce pain processing measured at the level of the spinal cord for two different mechanisms. The Assay Capability Tool helped to guide experimental design leading to a high quality and robust preclinical assay to use in discovering novel treatments for pain.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason A Miranda & Phil Stanley & Katrina Gore & Jamie Turner & Rebecca Dias & Huw Rees, 2014. "A Preclinical Physiological Assay to Test Modulation of Knee Joint Pain in the Spinal Cord: Effects of Oxycodone and Naproxen," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106108
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106108&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0106108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H Bart van der Worp & David W Howells & Emily S Sena & Michelle J Porritt & Sarah Rewell & Victoria O'Collins & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Story C. Landis & Susan G. Amara & Khusru Asadullah & Chris P. Austin & Robi Blumenstein & Eileen W. Bradley & Ronald G. Crystal & Robert B. Darnell & Robert J. Ferrante & Howard Fillit & Robert Finke, 2012. "A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 187-191, October.
    3. Emily S Sena & H Bart van der Worp & Philip M W Bath & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    4. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valerie C Henderson & Jonathan Kimmelman & Dean Fergusson & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Dan G Hackam, 2013. "Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Jonathan A Eisen & Emma Ganley & Catriona J MacCallum, 2014. "Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, January.
    3. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Jonathan Kimmelman & Alex John London, 2011. "Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-5, March.
    5. Malcolm R Macleod & Aaron Lawson McLean & Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou & Stylianos Serghiou & Arno de Wilde & Nicki Sherratt & Theo Hirst & Rachel Hemblade & Zsanett Bahor & Cristina Nunes-Fonseca & Aparn, 2015. "Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    7. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Lucile Vogt & Thomas S Reichlin & Christina Nathues & Hanno Würbel, 2016. "Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
    9. Jonathan Kimmelman & Jeffrey S Mogil & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2014. "Distinguishing between Exploratory and Confirmatory Preclinical Research Will Improve Translation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-4, May.
    10. Kimberley E Wever & Carlijn R Hooijmans & Niels P Riksen & Thomas B Sterenborg & Emily S Sena & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Michiel C Warlé, 2015. "Determinants of the Efficacy of Cardiac Ischemic Preconditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    12. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    13. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Olivia Hogue & Tucker Harvey & Dena Crozier & Claire Sonneborn & Abagail Postle & Hunter Block-Beach & Eashwar Somasundaram & Francis J May & Monica Snyder Braun & Felicia L Pasadyn & Khandi King & Ca, 2022. "Statistical practice and transparent reporting in the neurosciences: Preclinical motor behavioral experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    16. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    17. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.
    18. Ana Antonic & Emily S Sena & Jennifer S Lees & Taryn E Wills & Peta Skeers & Peter E Batchelor & Malcolm R Macleod & David W Howells, 2013. "Stem Cell Transplantation in Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Julie E. Goodman & Catherine Petito Boyce & Sonja N. Sax & Leslie A. Beyer & Robyn L. Prueitt, 2015. "Rethinking Meta‐Analysis: Applications for Air Pollution Data and Beyond," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1017-1039, June.
    20. Pandora Pound & Christine J Nicol, 2018. "Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-26, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.