Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Sensory and Motor Systems

Nociceptor Sensitization Depends on Age and Pain Chronicity

Andy D. Weyer, Katherine J. Zappia, Sheldon R. Garrison, Crystal L. O’Hara, Amanda K. Dodge and Cheryl L. Stucky
eNeuro 8 January 2016, 3 (1) ENEURO.0115-15.2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0115-15.2015
Andy D. Weyer
1Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andy D. Weyer
Katherine J. Zappia
1Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Katherine J. Zappia
Sheldon R. Garrison
2Promentis Pharmaceuticals, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sheldon R. Garrison
Crystal L. O’Hara
1Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Crystal L. O’Hara
Amanda K. Dodge
1Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cheryl L. Stucky
1Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cheryl L. Stucky
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Acute and chronic inflammation sensitizes behavioral responses to mechanical stimuli to different extents in young and aged mice. A, Paw withdrawal thresholds to a mechanical stimulus are lower in aged animals (2.35 mN) compared with young animals (3.23 mN) at baseline. B, C, Injection of CFA results in a dramatic reduction in paw withdrawal thresholds both acutely and chronically in young (B) and aged (C) mice compared with PBS injection. D, Young mice exhibit a greater reduction in paw withdrawal thresholds compared with aged mice. E, As a percentage of baseline, young mice exhibit a >90% reduction in paw withdrawal thresholds, while aged mice exhibit a 40-75% reduction in paw withdrawal thresholds. F, Baseline responses to a 3.61 mN suprathreshold stimulus are similar between young and aged mice. G, H, Injection of CFA results in a significant elevation in the percentage of response to a suprathreshold 3.61 mN stimulus in both young (G) and aged (H) mice. I, In response to the injection of CFA, aged mice respond with elevations in the percentage response to a suprathreshold stimulus on a different time course than young mice. J, Chronically inflamed mice continue to exhibit significant paw swelling at 8 weeks after inflammation induction. K, Top row, H&E-stained coronal sections through the entire paw at the metatarsophalangeal joint from young animals show significant inflammatory infiltrate present at both 2 days and 8 weeks after CFA injection. Bottom row, Increased magnification of the whole-paw sections demonstrate significant infiltration of neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages at both 2 days and 8 weeks of CFA-mediated inflammation.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Acute inflammation sensitizes C-fiber nociceptors to mechanical force only in young animals. A, Trace examples from young animals injected with either PBS (top left) or CFA (bottom left) and aged animals injected with either PBS (top right) or CFA (bottom right). B, C-fiber nociceptors from acutely inflamed (2 day) young animals respond with significantly higher action potential firing rates in response to increasing mechanical forces. C, C-fiber nociceptors from acutely inflamed aged animals trend toward responding with increased action potential firing in response to increasing mechanical forces, but this relationship is not significant. D, At baseline, C fibers from aged animals are more sensitive to mechanical stimuli than C fibers from young animals. E, von Frey thresholds for individual C fibers were not different between the four cohorts. Each point on the graph represents the von Frey threshold of an individual C fiber, and the black bars are indicative of the group mean. F, More C fibers from acutely inflamed animals tend to have ongoing, nonevoked activity (>0.05 Hz), although this relationship is not significant.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Chronic inflammation results in a desensitization of C fibers to mechanical force in young, but not aged animals. A, Trace examples from young animals injected with either PBS (top left) or CFA (bottom left) and aged animals injected with either PBS (top right) or CFA (bottom right). B, After 8 weeks of inflammation, C fibers from young animals respond with significantly lower action potential firing rates in response to increasing mechanical forces. C, After 8 weeks of inflammation, C fibers from aged animals trend toward lower firing rates in response to increasing mechanical forces. D, The firing rates of C fibers from inflamed young animals are significantly lower after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation compared with 2 days of acute inflammation. E, The firing rates of C fibers from inflamed aged animals are significantly lower after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation compared with 2 days of acute inflammation. F, G, Plots of the firing rates of individual C fibers at different forces for each cohort for young (F) and aged (G) animals. Note that after 2 days of acute inflammation the entire population of C fibers in both young and aged animals shifts toward elevated firing rates, rather than only a subpopulation of increased responders. H, von Frey thresholds for individual C fibers are elevated in both young and aged animals after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation. Each point on the graph represents the von Frey threshold of an individual C fiber, and the black bars are indicative of the group mean. I, Chronic inflammation results in an increased percentage of C fibers demonstrating ongoing, nonevoked activity in young animals, but not in aged animals.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    C-fiber action potential firing patterns do not explain the significant behavioral sensitization, but reduction in action potential firing rates during chronic inflammation. A–D, Grouped instantaneous firing rates over the 12 s mechanical stimulus binned into 200 ms intervals for fibers from young acutely inflamed animals (A), aged acutely inflamed animals (B), young chronically inflamed animals (C), and aged chronically inflamed animals (D). E, C fibers from acutely inflamed young and aged animals fired with a significantly higher percentage of interspike intervals between 0 and 99 ms. F, The CV2 for a 140 mN stimulus were significantly different for C fibers from acutely inflamed young and aged animals, and chronically inflamed young animals, but these relationships do not consistently demonstrate that variability may underlie the increased behavioral sensitization seen acutely and chronically. G, The time to first action potential after the onset of the mechanical stimulus is not different for any of the cohorts.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    C-fiber responses to capsaicin are reduced during chronic inflammation, while behavioral sensitization to capsaicin remains intact. A, C-fiber responses to capsaicin are similar under naïve and acutely inflamed conditions in young animals, but responses are strongly attenuated during chronic inflammation. B, The number of action potentials fired by capsaicin-sensitive C fibers is also reduced after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation in young animals (although this is not statistically significant). C, In aged animals, C-fiber responses to capsaicin are similar across the naïve, acute inflamed, and chronic inflamed states. Note the low numbers that are due to the lack of aged animal availability. D, Number of action potentials fired by aged C fibers in response to capsaicin. E, Young animals exhibit sensitized pain behaviors in response to capsaicin injection during both acute inflammatory and chronic inflammatory states, despite the reduced afferent responses to capsaicin at 8 weeks.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    AM fibers from young animals exhibit reduced mechanical firing rates following inflammation. A, Following both 2 day acute and 8 week chronic inflammation, AM fibers from young animals exhibit reduced firing rates in response to mechanical stimuli. B, Plots of the firing rates of individual AM fibers at different forces for each cohort of young animals. Note the loss of a population of high-responding AM fibers at the 2 day and 8 week time points. C, von Frey thresholds of individual AM fibers from young animals are elevated after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation compared with fibers from naïve animals.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Changes in gene expression of voltage-gated and mechanosensitive ion channels do not explain the reduced action potential firing after 8 weeks of chronic inflammation. A, Gene expression for voltage-gated sodium channels NaV1.7 (Scn9a), NaV1.8 (Scn10a), and NaV1.9 (Scn11a). Bars indicate the fold change of the CFA condition over the PBS condition for each cohort. The red dotted line indicates a fold change of 1, meaning no change in expression levels between CFA and PBS conditions. *Indicates significant fold changes for the CFA vs PBS condition; #indicates significant differences in the fold change between cohorts. B, Gene expression (shown as fold change compared with PBS controls) for Piezo2 (Fam38b) and TRP channels. C, Gene expression (shown as the fold change compared with PBS controls) for voltage-gated potassium channels KV1.1 (Kcna1), KV7.2 (Kcnq2), and KV7.3 (Kcnq3).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Context sequences for primers used for qRT-PCR

    GeneTaqMan assay IDContext sequence
    scn9aMm00450762_s1ACGAAAGCAGGAAATAGAGCTTCGG
    scn10aMm00501467_m1TCCACTCCTGGTTCTCCATATTTAT
    scn11aMm00449367_m1TCTGTAATCTCAGGTCTGAAGGTCA
    fam38bMm01265861_m1ACAAGAGCCTCTTGTGCAAGAGGAG
    trpa1Mm01227437_m1GAAGAAGGGAACACAGCACTCCACT
    trpv1Mm01246302_m1TACTTTTCTTTGTACAGTCACTGTT
    trpc3Mm00444690_m1CCTTGTAGCAGGCTGGGGAAGATTC
    trpc6Mm01176083_m1TACCCCAGCTTCCGGGGTAATGAAA
    kcna1Mm00439977_s1TGCGGCCGCACGCTCCCTGCCCCAC
    kcnq2Mm00440080_m1CCACGCCTACGTGTTCCTTTTAGTC
    kcnq3Mm00548884_m1TGTGCCCACAGCAAAGAACTCATCA
    tbpMm00446971_m1TCCCCACAGGGCGCCATGACTCCTG
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Statistical tests utilized in this manuscript

    Data StructureType of Test95% Confidence Interval
    aNon-normally distributedMann Whitney Test−1.982 to 0
    bNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−1.786 to 0.9921
    2 Days1.399 to 4.177
    2 Weeks1.116 to 3.894
    3 Week0.6599 to 3.438
    4 Weeks1.513 to 4.291
    6 Weeks1.053 to 3.831
    8 Weeks0.9196 to 3.698
    cNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−1.895 to 1.047
    2 Days−3.114 to −0.1722
    2 Weeks−3.073 to −0.1315
    3 Weeks−3.467 to −0.5257
    4 Weeks−3.824 to −0.8828
    6 Weeks−3.708 to −0.7663
    8 Weeks−3.797 to −0.8067
    dNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−2.017 to −0.6001
    2 Days−0.1975 to 1.219
    2 Weeks0.2870 to 1.704
    3 Weeks−0.1994 to 1.218
    4 Weeks−0.1833 to 1.234
    6 Weeks−0.2278 to 1.189
    8 Weeks−0.5649 to 0.8520
    eNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−6.579 to 70.27
    2 Days15.50 to 92.35
    2 Weeks−2.743 to 74.11
    3 Weeks−0.06598 to 76.78
    4 Weeks−0.1534 to 76.70
    6 Weeks−18.63 to 58.22
    8 Weeks−6.579 to 70.27
    fNormally DistributedStudent’s t-test−12.04 to 8.812
    gNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−19.12 to 9.119
    2 Days31.71 to 59.95
    2 Weeks27.96 to 56.20
    3 Weeks35.05 to 63.29
    4 Weeks31.30 to 59.54
    6 Weeks31.30 to 59.54
    8 Weeks31.30 to 59.54
    hNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−30.63 to 19.91
    2 Days−20.39 to 30.15
    2 Weeks−14.44 to 36.10
    3 Weeks7.705 to 58.25
    4 Weeks15.32 to 65.87
    6 Weeks11.63 to 62.18
    8 Weeks10.93 to 62.31
    iNormally Distributed2-way repeated measures ANOVABL−17.81 to 23.52
    2 Days1.122 to 42.45
    2 Weeks8.086 to 49.41
    3 Weeks−10.31 to 31.02
    4 Weeks−13.34 to 27.99
    6 Weeks−10.49 to 30.84
    8 Weeks−22.63 to 18.70
    jNormally Distributed1-way ANOVA0.8595 to 1.648 for Young height
    0.2179 to 1.028 for Aged height
    0.3473 to 1.482 for Young width
    0.4451 to 1.610 for Aged height
    kNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−2.979 to 1.547
    35.00 mN−2.442 to 2.084
    70.00 mN1.031 to 5.556
    140.0 mN3.124 to 7.650
    lNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−2.376 to 2.028
    35.00 mN−2.117 to 2.287
    70.00 mN−0.5504 to 3.854
    140.0 mN−0.3346 to 4.101
    mNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−1.645 to 2.507
    35.00 mN−1.791 to 2.361
    70.00 mN−3.398 to 0.7536
    140.0 mN−5.603 to −1.451
    nNon-Normally DistributedKruskal-Wallis TestAged CFA − 2 days vs Aged PBS − 2 days−0.3564 to 0.4208
    Aged CFA − 2 days vs Young CFA − 2 days−0.3346 to 0.4188
    Aged CFA − 2 days vs Young PBS − 2 days−0.2396 to 0.5376
    Aged PBS − 2 days vs Young CFA − 2 days−0.3906 to 0.4105
    Aged PBS − 2 days vs Young PBS − 2 days−0.2949 to 0.5285
    Young CFA − 2 days vs Young PBS − 2 days−0.2937 to 0.5074
    oNon-Normally DistributedContingency Table followed by Fisher’s Exact Test1.081 to 10.12 for Aged Odds Ratio
    0.9011 to 8.377 for Young Odds Ratio
    (95% CI cannot be calculated for Fisher’s Exact test alone)
    pNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−3.588 to 0.02884
    35.00 mN−3.934 to −0.3170
    70.00 mN−3.356 to 0.2608
    140.0 mN−1.688 to 2.081
    qNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−3.198 to 1.455
    35.00 mN−3.370 to 1.284
    70.00 mN−3.109 to 1.544
    140.0 mN−2.994 to 1.691
    rNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−1.302 to 2.701
    35.00 mN−0.3710 to 3.632
    70.00 mN2.282 to 6.286
    140.0 mN1.971 to 6.009
    sNormally Distributed2-way ANOVA15.00 mN−2.522 to 1.914
    35.00 mN−3.274 to 1.162
    70.00 mN−5.297 to −0.8607
    140.0 mN−5.677 to −1.170
    tNon-Normally DistributedKruskal-Wallis TestAging PBS vs CFA0.1826 to 1.322
    Young PBS vs CFA0.4658 to 1.511
    uNon-Normally DistributedContingency Table followed by Fisher’s Exact Test1.590 to 15.73 for Young Odds Ratio
    0.5893 to 5.284 for Aged Odds Ratio
    (95% CI cannot be calculated for Fisher’s Exact test alone)
    vNon-Normally DistributedContingency Table followed by Fisher’s Exact Test1.770 to 2.348 for Young 2-day CFA vs PBS Odds Ratio
    1.597 to 1.995 for Aged 2-day CFA vs PBS Odds Ratio
    (95% CI cannot be calculated for Fisher’s Exact test alone)
    wNormally DistributedOne-way ANOVACFA - 8 wk vs PBS - 8 wk0.05562 to 0.1652
    CFA 2 days vs PBS - 2 days−0.1246 to −0.01475
    Aged - 8 wk PBS vs Aged 8 wk CFA−0.06385 to 0.01858
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Aged 2 day PBS0.03960 to 0.1341
    xNormally DistributedOne-way ANOVAAged 8 Wk CFA vs Aged 8 Wk PBS−0.7127 to 0.9026
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Aged 2 day CFA−0.4550 to 1.054
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Aged 2 day PBS−0.7648 to 0.8323
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Young 8 week CFA−0.5910 to 0.9439
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Young 8 week PBS−1.376 to 0.2588
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Young 2 days CFA−0.4760 to 1.073
    Aged 8 Wk CFA vs Young 2 days PBS−0.6258 to 0.9712
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Aged 2 day CFA−0.6031 to 1.012
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Aged 2 day PBS−0.9101 to 0.7877
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Young 8 week CFA−0.7382 to 0.9013
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Young 8 week PBS−1.520 to 0.2131
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Young 2 days CFA−0.6228 to 1.030
    Aged 8 Wk PBS vs Young 2 days PBS−0.7712 to 0.9267
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Aged 2 day PBS−1.064 to 0.5327
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Young 8 week CFA−0.8905 to 0.6444
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Young 8 week PBS−1.676 to −0.04072
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Young 2 days CFA−0.7755 to 0.7735
    Aged 2 day CFA vs Young 2 days PBS−0.9253 to 0.6717
    Aged 2 day PBS vs Young 8 week CFA−0.6680 to 0.9535
    Aged 2 day PBS vs Young 8 week PBS−1.451 to 0.2658
    Aged 2 day PBS vs Young 2 days CFA−0.5526 to 1.082
    Aged 2 day PBS vs Young 2 days PBS−0.7013 to 0.9792
    Young 8 week CFA vs Young 8 week PBS−1.565 to 0.09424
    Young 8 week CFA vs Young 2 days CFA−0.6650 to 0.9091
    Young 8 week CFA vs Young 2 days PBS−0.8145 to 0.8069
    Young 8 week PBS vs Young 2 days CFA0.02128 to 1.693
    Young 8 week PBS vs Young 2 days PBS−0.1269 to 1.590
    Young 2 days CFA vs Young 2 days PBS−0.9432 to 0.6916
    yNormally DistributedChi Square followed by Fisher’s exact test1.342 to 24.34 for naive vs 8-week CFA Odds Ratio
    1.111 to 21.82 for 2-day CFA vs 8-week CFA Odds Ratio
    (95% CI cannot be calculated for Fisher’s Exact test alone)
    zNormally Distributed1-way ANOVANaive vs 2-day CFA−31.44 to 46.29
    Naive vs 8-week CFA−21.96 to 85.90
    2-day CFA vs 8-week CFA−30.92 to 80.01
    aaNormally DistributedChi Square0.2197 to 31.37 for naïve vs 2-day Odds Ratio
    0.03641 to 6.866 for 2-day vs 8-week Odds Ratio
    0.1677 to 10.27 for naïve vs 8-week Odds Ratio
    (95% CI cannot be calculated for Fisher’s Exact test alone)
    bbNormally Distributed1-way ANOVANaive vs 2-day−99.31 to 0.3113
    Naive vs 8-week−90.56 to 9.061
    2-day vs 8-week−41.06 to 58.56
    ccNormally Distributed2-way ANOVANaive vs 2-day
    Force
    15.00−8.125 to 1.035
    35.00−7.587 to 1.573
    70.00−7.013 to 2.147
    140.0−6.602 to 2.701
    Naive vs 8 week
    Force−7.934 to 2.113
    15.00−8.314 to 1.732
    35.00−8.317 to 1.729
    70.00−7.230 to 2.816
    140.0−7.934 to 2.113
    2-day vs 8 week
    Force
    15.00−4.665 to 5.935
    35.00−5.584 to 5.017
    70.00−6.161 to 4.440
    140.0−5.619 to 5.106
    ddNon-Normally DistributedKruskall Wallis TestNaïve2-day8-week
    Lower 95% CI0.44760.76170.9286
    Upper 95% CI0.87241.0831.929
    eeNormally DistributedStudent’s t-test for PBS vs CFA for each time point and gene−0.9854 to −0.1312 Young 2-day Nav1.7
    −1.848 to 0.07474 Young 2-day Nav1.8
    −1.643 to 0.4202 Young 2-day Nav1.9
    −1.886 to 0.2060 Young 2-day Piezo2
    −2.157 to −0.7731 Young 2-day TRPA1
    −1.294 to 0.06031 Young 2-day TRPV1
    −1.014 to 0.1110 Young 2-day TRPC3
    0.007134 to 1.246 Young 2-day TRPC6
    −1.581 to 0.6142 Young 2-day Kv1.1
    −1.399 to 0.07587 Young 2-day Kv7.2
    −1.710 to −0.06359 Young 2-day Kv7.3
    −0.6277 to 0.7177 Young 8-week Nav1.7
    −0.9606 to 0.4572 Young 8-week Nav1.8
    −0.8359 to 0.6292 Young 8-week Nav1.9
    −1.141 to 0.8441 Young 8-week Piezo2
    −0.7882 to 0.4815 Young 8-week TRPA1
    −0.9529 to 0.4529 Young 8-week TRPV1
    −1.469 to 0.8719 Young 8-week TRPC3
    −0.5417 to 1.498 Young 8-week TRPC6
    −0.7716 to 0.1383 Young 8-week Kv1.1
    −1.292 to 0.4155 Young 8-week Kv7.2
    −1.370 to 0.3438 Young 8-week Kv7.3
    −0.6742 to 0.5142 Aged 2-day Nav1.7
    −0.9797 to 0.9464 Aged 2-day Nav1.8
    −0.9318 to 1.192 Aged 2-day Nav1.9
    −0.8022 to 0.4022 Aged 2-day Piezo2
    −2.579 to −0.4873 Aged 2-day TRPA1
    −1.068 to 0.08780 Aged 2-day TRPV1
    0.02838 to 0.9250 Aged 2-day TRPC3
    −0.5024 to 1.082 Aged 2-day TRPC6
    −0.07159 to 0.5116 Aged 2-day Kv1.1
    −0.4090 to 0.6290 Aged 2-day Kv7.2
    −0.4557 to 0.5357 Aged 2-day Kv7.3
    −0.3108 to 0.5842 Aged 8-week Nav1.7
    −0.7250 to 0.02833 Aged 8-week Nav1.8
    −0.6878 to 0.1078 Aged 8-week Nav1.9
    −0.7805 to 0.3605 Aged 8-week Piezo2
    −1.981 to −0.4358 Aged 8-week TRPA1
    −0.7546 to −0.03539 Aged 8-week TRPV1
    −0.6783 to 0.8150 Aged 8-week TRPC3
    −1.052 to 0.8521 Aged 8-week TRPC6
    −0.1824 to 0.8290 Aged 8 week Kv1.1
    −0.5183 to 0.6183 Aged 8 week Kv7.2
    −0.4955 to 0.6255 Aged 8 week Kv7.3
    ffNormally DistributedOne-way ANOVANav1.7
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.2611 to 0.5441
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−0.8386 to −0.03346
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.3855 to 0.2719
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week0.1920 to 0.8494
    Nav1.8
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−1.284 to 0.7893
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−2.104 to −0.03105
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.7631 to 0.9298
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week0.05728 to 1.750
    Nav1.9
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−1.233 to 0.6500
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.694 to 0.1896
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.6290 to 0.9088
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.1685 to 1.369
    Piezo2
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−1.071 to 1.067
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.880 to 0.2578
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.8390 to 0.9063
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.03008 to 1.715
    TRPA1
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.8925 to 2.265
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.406 to 1.752
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.04212 to 2.536
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.4714 to 3.050
    TRPV1
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.6561 to 0.7992
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−0.9202 to 0.5352
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.4682 to 0.7201
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.2041 to 0.9841
    TRPC3
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−1.036 to 0.4285
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.465 to −0.0002279
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.8156 to 0.3804
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.3868 to 0.8092
    TRPC6
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.3808 to 0.8767
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−0.3464 to 0.9110
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−0.3308 to 0.6959
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.3651 to 0.6616
    Kv1.1
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.9476 to 1.019
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.693 to 0.2736
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−1.234 to 0.3716
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.4887 to 1.117
    Kv7.2
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−0.9518 to 0.8372
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−1.666 to 0.1225
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−1.099 to 0.3614
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.3847 to 1.076
    Kv7.3
    Aged 2-day vs Aged 8 weeks−1.049 to 1.010
    Aged 2-day vs Young 2-day−2.029 to 0.02973
    Aged 8 weeks vs Young 8 week−1.274 to 0.4071
    Young 2-day vs Young 8 week−0.2940 to 1.387
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (1)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 1
January/February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nociceptor Sensitization Depends on Age and Pain Chronicity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Nociceptor Sensitization Depends on Age and Pain Chronicity
Andy D. Weyer, Katherine J. Zappia, Sheldon R. Garrison, Crystal L. O’Hara, Amanda K. Dodge, Cheryl L. Stucky
eNeuro 8 January 2016, 3 (1) ENEURO.0115-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0115-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Nociceptor Sensitization Depends on Age and Pain Chronicity
Andy D. Weyer, Katherine J. Zappia, Sheldon R. Garrison, Crystal L. O’Hara, Amanda K. Dodge, Cheryl L. Stucky
eNeuro 8 January 2016, 3 (1) ENEURO.0115-15.2015; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0115-15.2015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • acute pain
  • Aging
  • chronic pain
  • mechanical
  • Sensitization
  • skin–nerve preparation

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Granule cells constitute one of the major neuronal subtypes in the molecular layer of the posterior cerebellum
  • AGING-ASSOCIATED COGNITIVE DECLINE IS REVERSED BY D-SERINE SUPPLEMENTATION
  • Histochemical characterization of the dorsal raphe-periaqueductal grey dopamine transporter neurons projecting to the extended amygdala
Show more New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Slow Inactivation of Sodium Channels Contributes to Short-Term Adaptation in Vomeronasal Sensory Neurons
  • High-Frequency Hearing Is Required to Compute a Topographic Map of Auditory Space in the Mouse Superior Colliculus
  • Speed Estimation for Visual Tracking Emerges Dynamically from Nonlinear Frequency Interactions
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.