2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.114087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermal antinociceptive responses to alcohol in DBA/2J and C57BL/6J inbred male and female mouse strains

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our behavioral examination of basal and post-ethanol hot plate latency revealed a significant antinociceptive effect of ethanol, congruent with rodent [16,18] and human [5] analgesia literature. There was no difference in hot plate latency between ethanol and control groups by Day 5 nociception testing, though, due to an increase in latency in vehicle-receiving mice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Our behavioral examination of basal and post-ethanol hot plate latency revealed a significant antinociceptive effect of ethanol, congruent with rodent [16,18] and human [5] analgesia literature. There was no difference in hot plate latency between ethanol and control groups by Day 5 nociception testing, though, due to an increase in latency in vehicle-receiving mice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Hot plate testing protocols were adapted from White et al (2020), which showed 1) 2.0 g/kg oral gavage ethanol produces maximum antinociception at 30 minutes post-administration 2) this dose of ethanol shows no locomotor effects in B6 mice and a small locomotor effect in D2 mice 3) baseline hot plate testing (as in the current design) does not interfere with post-gavage thermal nociception (i.e. post-saline Day 1 hot plate latency should be indistinguishable from Baseline)[18]. After acclimation the testing room overnight, mice were tested for baseline 55°C hot plate latency (Thermojust Apparatus, Columbus, OH) (Figure S1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Sex differences in AWH in these procedures are likely dependent on the method of alcohol exposure (voluntary vs. forced; continuous vs. intermittent), dose of alcohol, duration of exposure, and/or time points during which testing is conducted during withdrawal. The previous literature shows that male mice are more susceptible to the antinociceptive effects of alcohol than females (Bilbao et al., 2019; White et al., 2023). Sex differences have also been observed in pain processing (Mogil, 2020), and our observation of increased mechanical sensitivity after DID in males may be related to these differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Furthermore, we did not test enough doses to fit a dose–response curve for ED 50 calculation, such that the antinociceptive potency of EtOH cannot be compared between CTL and LBN females. The fact that the antinociceptive effect of EtOH did not reach significance in the CTL females, while it did under identical testing conditions and comparable baseline thresholds in C57BL/6J males (Okhuarobo, Kreifeldt, et al, 2020) suggests that C57BL/6J females may be less sensitive than males, which is consistent with a recent report (White et al, 2023).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%