The study of pain in awake animals raises ethical, philosophical, and technical problems. We review the ethical standards for studying pain in animals and emphasize that there are scientific as well as moral reasons for keeping to them. Philosophically, there is the problem that pain cannot be monitored directly in animals but can only be estimated by examining their responses to nociceptive stimuli; however, such responses do not necessarily mean that there is a concomitant sensation. The types of nociceptive stimuli (electrical, thermal, mechanical, or chemical) that have been used in different pain models are reviewed with the conclusion that none is ideal, although chemical stimuli probably most closely mimic acute clinical pain. The monitored reactions are almost always motor responses ranging from spinal reflexes to complex behaviors. Most have the weakness that they may be associated with, or modulated by, other physiological functions. The main tests are critically reviewed in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, and predictiveness. Weaknesses are highlighted, including 1) that in most tests responses are monitored around a nociceptive threshold, whereas clinical pain is almost always more severe; 2) differences in the fashion whereby responses are evoked from healthy and inflamed tissues; and 3) problems in assessing threshold responses to stimuli, which continue to increase in intensity. It is concluded that although the neural basis of the most used tests is poorly understood, their use will be more profitable if pain is considered within, rather than apart from, the body's homeostatic mechanisms.

Animal Models of Nociception

Wind-up of spinal cord neurones and pain sensation: much ado about something?

The lower limb flexion reflex in humans.

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) of synaptic strength are ubiquitous mechanisms of synaptic plasticity, but their functional relevance in humans remains obscure. Here we report that a long-term increase in perceived pain to electrical test stimuli was induced by high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) (5 x 1 sec at 100 Hz) of peptidergic cutaneous afferents (27% above baseline, undiminished for >3 hr). In contrast, a long-term decrease in perceived pain (27% below baseline, undiminished for 1 hr) was induced by low-frequency stimulation (LFS) (17 min at 1 Hz). Pain testing with punctate mechanical probes (200 microm diameter) in skin adjacent to the HFS-LFS conditioning skin site revealed a marked twofold to threefold increase in pain sensitivity (secondary hyperalgesia, undiminished for >3 hr) after HFS but also a moderate secondary hyperalgesia (30% above baseline) after strong LFS. Additionally, HFS but not LFS caused pain to light tactile stimuli in adjacent skin (allodynia). In summary, HFS and LFS stimulus protocols that induce LTP or LTD in spinal nociceptive pathways in animal experiments led to similar LTP- and LTD-like changes in human pain perception (long-term hyperalgesia or hypoalgesia) mediated by the conditioned pathway. Additionally, secondary hyperalgesia and allodynia in adjacent skin induced by the HFS protocol and, to a minor extent, also by the LFS protocol, suggested that these perceptual changes encompassed an LTP-like heterosynaptic facilitation of adjacent nociceptive pathways by a hitherto unknown mechanism.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/24/4/964.full.pdf

Perceptual correlates of nociceptive long-term potentiation and long-term depression in humans.

Wind-up and the NMDA receptor complex from a clinical perspective.

Gozariu, Manuela, Dominique Bragard, Jean-Claude Willer, and Daniel Le Bars. Temporal summation of C-fiber afferent inputs: competition between facilitatory and inhibitory effects on C-fiber reflex...

Dominique Bragard

Papers

Temporal Summation of C-Fiber Afferent Inputs: Competition Between Facilitatory and Inhibitory Effects on C-Fiber Reflex in the Rat