ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Investigating Mechanically Activated Currents from Trigeminal Neurons of Non-Human Primates.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Pain sensation has predominantly mechanical modalities in many pain conditions. Mechanically activated (MA) ion channels on sensory neurons underly responsiveness to mechanical stimuli. The study aimed to address gaps in knowledge regarding MA current properties in higher order species such as non-human primates (NHP; common marmosets), and characterization of MA currents in trigeminal (TG) neuronal subtypes. Methods: We employed patch clamp electrophysiology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to associate MA current types to different marmoset TG neuronal groups. TG neurons were grouped according to presumed marker expression, action potential (AP) width, characteristic AP features, after-hyperpolarization parameters, presence/absence of AP trains and transient outward currents, and responses to mechanical stimuli. Results: Marmoset TG were clustered into 5 C-fiber and 5 A-fiber neuronal groups. The C1 group likely represent non-peptidergic C-nociceptors, the C2-C4 groups resembles peptidergic C-nociceptors, while the C5 group could be either cold-nociceptors or C-low-threshold-mechanoreceptors (C-LTMR). Among C-fiber neurons only C4 were mechanically responsive. The A1 and A2 groups are likely A-nociceptors, while the A3-A5 groups probably denote different subtypes of A-low-threshold-mechanoreceptors (A-LTMRs). Among A-fiber neurons only A1 was mechanically unresponsive. IHC data was correlated with electrophysiology results and estimates that NHP TG has ∼25% peptidergic C-nociceptors, ∼20% non-peptidergic C-nociceptors, ∼30% A-nociceptors, ∼5% C-LTMR, and ∼20% A-LTMR. Conclusion: Overall, marmoset TG neuronal subtypes and their associated MA currents have common and unique properties compared to previously reported data. Findings from this study could be the basis for investigation on MA current sensitizations and mechanical hypersensitivity during head and neck pain conditions.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.