Teleantagonism: A pharmacodynamic property of the primary nociceptive neuron

Previous work from our group showed that intrathecal (i.t.) administration of substances such as glutamate, NMDA, or PGE(2) induced sensitization of the primary nociceptive neuron (PNN hypernociception) that was inhibited by a distal intraplantar (i.pl.) injection of either morphine or dipyrone. This pharmacodynamic phenomenon is referred to in the present work as ""teleantagonism``. We previously observed that the antinociceptive effect of i.t. morphine could be blocked by injecting inhibitors of the NO signaling pathway in the paw (i.pl.), and this effect was used to explain the mechanism of opioid-induced peripheral analgesia by i.t. administration. The objective of the present investigation was to determine whether this teleantagonism phenomenon was specific to this biochemical pathway (NO) or was a general property of the PNNs. Teleantagonism was investigated by administering test substances to the two ends of the PNN (i.e., to distal and proximal terminals; i.pl. plus i.t. or i.t. plus i.pl. injections). We found teleantagonism when: (i) inhibitors of the NO signaling pathway were injected distally during the antinociception induced by opioid agonists; (ii) a nonselective COX inhibitor was tested against PNN sensitization by IL-1 beta; (iii) selective opioid-receptor antagonists tested against antinociception induced by corresponding selective agonists. Although the dorsal root ganglion seems to be an important site for drug interactions, the teleantagonism phenomenon suggests that, in PNNs, a local sensitization spreads to the entire cell and constitutes an intriguing and not yet completely understood pharmacodynamic property of this group of neurons.

Analysis of marine bivalve shellfish from the fish market in Santos city, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, for Toxoplasma gondii

The aim of this study was to determine if Toxoplasma gondii are present in oysters (Crassostrea rhizophorae) and mussels (Mytella guyanensis) under natural conditions using a bioassay in mice and molecular detection methods. We first compared two standard protocols for DNA extraction, phenol-chloroform (PC) and guanidine-thiocyanate (GT), for both molluscs. A total of 300 oysters and 300 mussels were then acquired from the fish market in Santos city, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, between March and August of 2008 and divided into 60 groups of 5 oysters and 20 groups of 15 mussels. To isolate the parasite, five mice were orally inoculated with sieved tissue homogenates from each group of oysters or mussels. For molecular detection of T. gondii, DNA from mussels was extracted using the PC method and DNA from oysters was extracted using the GT method. A nested-PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) based on the amplification of a 155 bp fragment from the B1 gene of T. gondii was then performed. Eleven PCR-RFLP (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism) markers, SAG1, SAG2, SAG3, BTUB, GRA6, c22-8, c29-2, L358, PK1, CS3 and Apico, were used to genotype positive samples. There was no isolation of the parasite by bioassay in mice. T. gondii was not detected in any of the groups of mussels by nested-PCR. DNA of T. gondii was apparently detected by nested-PCR in 2 groups of oysters (3.3%). Genotyping of these two positive samples was not successful. The results suggest that oysters of the species C. rhizophorae, the most common species from the coast of Sao Paulo, can filter and retain T. gondii oocysts from the marine environment. Ingestion of raw oysters as a potential transmission source of T. gondii to humans and marine mammals should be further investigated. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Bioeconomic analysis of aquaculture's impact on wild stocks and biodiversity

Anderson theorizes that development of the aquaculture of a species of fish (also captured in an open-access fishery) favours the conservation of its wild stocks, if competitive market conditions prevail. However, this theory is shown to be subject to significant limitations. While this is less so within his model, it is particularly so in an extended one outlined here. The extended model allows for the possibility that aquaculture development can impact negatively on wild stocks thereby shifting the supply curve of the capture fishery, or raise the demand for the fish species subject both to aquaculture and capture. Such development can threaten wild stocks and their biodiversity. While aquaculture development could in principle have no impact on the biodiversity of wild stocks or even raise aquatic biodiversity overall, its impact in the long-term probably will be one of reducing aquatic diversity both in the wild and overall.