Selected Gamma Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) Esters may Provide Analgesia for Some Central Pain Conditions.

Central pain is an enigmatic, intractable condition, related to destruction of thalamic areas, resulting in likely loss of inhibitory synaptic transmission mediated by GABA. It is proposed that treatment of central pain, a localized process, may be treated by GABA supplementation, like Parkinson's disease and depression. At physiologic pH, GABA exists as a zwitterion that is poorly permeable to the blood brain barrier (BBB). Because the pH of the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is acidic relative to the plasma, ion trapping may allow a GABA ester prodrug to accumulate and be hydrolyzed within the CSF. Previous investigations with ester local anesthetics may be applicable to some GABA esters since they are weak bases, hydrolyzed by esterases and cross the BBB. Potential non-toxic GABA esters are discussed. Many GABA esters were investigated in the 1980s and it is hoped that this paper may spark renewed interest in their development.

Inhibition-Induced Forgetting Results from Resource Competition between Response Inhibition and Memory Encoding Processes.

UNLABELLED: Response inhibition is a key component of executive control, but its relation to other cognitive processes is not well understood. We recently documented the "inhibition-induced forgetting effect": no-go cues are remembered more poorly than go cues. We attributed this effect to central-resource competition, whereby response inhibition saps attention away from memory encoding. However, this proposal is difficult to test with behavioral means alone. We therefore used fMRI in humans to test two neural predictions of the "common resource hypothesis": (1) brain regions associated with response inhibition should exhibit greater resource demands during encoding of subsequently forgotten than remembered no-go cues; and (2) this higher inhibitory resource demand should lead to memory encoding regions having less resources available during encoding of subsequently forgotten no-go cues. Participants categorized face stimuli by gender in a go/no-go task and, following a delay, performed a surprise recognition memory test for those faces. Replicating previous findings, memory was worse for no-go than for go stimuli. Crucially, forgetting of no-go cues was predicted by high inhibitory resource demand, as quantified by the trial-by-trial ratio of activity in neural "no-go" versus "go" networks. Moreover, this index of inhibitory demand exhibited an inverse trial-by-trial relationship with activity in brain regions responsible for the encoding of no-go cues into memory, notably the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. This seesaw pattern between the neural resource demand of response inhibition and activity related to memory encoding directly supports the hypothesis that response inhibition temporarily saps attentional resources away from stimulus processing. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Recent behavioral experiments showed that inhibiting a motor response to a stimulus (a "no-go cue") impairs subsequent memory for that cue. Here, we used fMRI to test whether this "inhibition-induced forgetting effect" is caused by competition for neural resources between the processes of response inhibition and memory encoding. We found that trial-by-trial variations in neural inhibitory resource demand predicted subsequent forgetting of no-go cues and that higher inhibitory demand was furthermore associated with lower concurrent activation in brain regions responsible for successful memory encoding of no-go cues. Thus, motor inhibition and stimulus encoding appear to compete with each other: when more resources have to be devoted to inhibiting action, less are available for encoding sensory stimuli.