JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (26)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dong, X.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, T.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dong, X.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, T.-L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pharmacology

Anesth Analg 2002;95:907-914
© 2002 International Anesthesia Research Society

ANESTHETIC PHARMACOLOGY

The Actions of Propofol on {gamma}-Aminobutyric Acid-A and Glycine Receptors in Acutely Dissociated Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons of the Rat

Xian-Ping Dong, MS, and Tian-Le Xu, PhD MD

Laboratory of Receptor Pharmacology, Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Tian-Le Xu, PhD, MD, Laboratory of Receptor Pharmacology, Department of Neurobiology & Biophysics, School of Life Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, PO Box 4, Hefei 230027, People’s Republic of China. Address e-mail to xutianle{at}ustc.edu.cn


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The spinal cord plays an important role in modulating anesthetic-induced suppression of nociceptive transmission. To gain some insight into the anesthetic mechanisms of propofol at the spinal level, we investigated the direct action of propofol and its modulation on the {gamma}-aminobutyric acid-A receptor (GABAAR) and the glycine receptor (GlyR) in acutely dissociated rat spinal dorsal horn neurons by using whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology. Propofol induced Cl- currents (ICl), which were sensitive to bicuculline and, to a lesser extent, to strychnine. The activation, desensitization, and deactivation of propofol-induced ICl were slower than those of GABA- and glycine-induced ICl. In addition, this study revealed similar modulatory actions of propofol on GABAAR and GlyR. Propofol potentiated both GABA- and glycine-induced ICl at small con-centrations and inhibited both GABA- and glycine-induced ICl at large concentrations. The potentiation of propofol on ICl was caused by slowing current desensitization and deactivation, whereas the inhibition actions might be involved in the cross-desensitization between GABA- and propofol-induced ICl and the cross-inhibition between the GABAAR and GlyR. The results suggest that propofol facilitation of GABAAR and GlyR at the spinal level could contribute significantly to general anesthetic-induced analgesia and anesthesia.

IMPLICATIONS: The actions of propofol on the {gamma}-aminobutyric acid-A receptor (GABAAR) and the glycine receptor (GlyR) were investigated in acutely dissociated rat spinal dorsal horn neurons by using whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiology. Propofol was found to potentiate the functions of GABAAR and GlyR at the spinal level, which might contribute to propofol-induced analgesia and anesthesia.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is structurally unrelated to other anesthetics (1). In recent years, propofol has been used extensively in clinical anesthesia because of its clinical benefits of a rapid onset, clear emergence, and lack of side effects (1). Although considerable information is available on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of propofol, its cellular mechanism of actions on the central nervous system (CNS) has not yet been entirely elucidated.

Recently, considerable research has been directed toward the effects of general anesthetics on the inhibitory {gamma}-aminobutyric acid-A receptor (GABAAR) and the glycine receptor (GlyR) (2–4). Although GABAAR is generally considered to be the target of propofol action, the effect of propofol on the GlyR is currently controversial. Hara et al. (5,6) and Patten et al. (7) reported that propofol neither activates nor modulates the GlyR in acutely dissociated or cultured rat hippocampal neurons. In contrast, Hales and Lambert (8) found that propofol positively modulated not only GABAAR, but also GlyR, in cultured murine spinal neurons. Molecular biology has shown that GABAAR and GlyR belong to the same ligand-gated ion channel protein superfamily (9) and that mutation of the GlyR subunit renders the receptor responsive to GABA (10), indicating a close relationship between the two receptor systems. We, therefore, suppose that propofol might have actions on GlyR similar to those on GABAAR.

On the basis of the early theory of depression of the brainstem reticular formation, it is believed that general anesthetics act at different levels of the CNS. Recent evidence appears to provide more support for a spinal than a central control of anesthesia (11–13), because anesthetics could decrease the transmission of noxious information from the spinal cord to the brain and indirectly affect the end points of anesthesia (14,15). Therefore, the spinal cord is thought to play an important role in modulating anesthetic-induced suppression of nociceptive transmission (11,12,14).

Although the actions of propofol on GABAAR have been studied in the hippocampus (5,6,16), its effects on the inhibitory amino acid receptors at the spinal level remain to be addressed in detail. Because GABAAR and GlyR in the spinal cord play a crucial role in nociception (17,18) and because the antinociceptive actions of propofol were demonstrated to be involved in the spinal cord (19,20), in these experiments, we explored the effects of propofol on GABAAR and GlyR in acutely dissociated rat spinal dorsal horn neurons. The results indicated that propofol directly activated the GABAAR in a dose-dependent manner, potentiated the GABA-induced current (IGABA) and glycine-induced current (Igly) at small concentrations, and inhibited IGABA and Igly at larger concentrations.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The experimental protocol was approved by the institutional care and use committee of our university. Both male and female Wistar rats (2 wk old) were anesthetized with urethane (1 g/kg intraperitoneally). The dorsal horn neurons were mechanically dissociated as described previously (18,21). In brief, rats were then killed by decapitation, and the transverse slices (400 µm) of spinal cord were sectioned by using a vibrotome tissue slicer (Vt1000S; Leica instruments Ltd, Wetzlar, Germany). After being incubated at room temperature (22°C–25°C) for 50 min in an incubation solution aerated with 95% oxygen/5% CO2, the slices were transferred into standard external solution. A vibration-isolation system was then used to mechanically dissociate the dorsal horn neurons. Briefly, fire-polished glass pipette mounting on a vibrator touched lightly and vibrated horizontally at approximately 5–10 Hz on the surface of the slice under the control of a pulse generator. The vibration-dissoci-ation lasted for approximately 3 min, and then the slices were removed from the dish. Isolated neurons would attach to the bottom of the culture dish and be ready for electrophysiological experiments within 20 min.

The ionic composition of incubation solution was (mM) 124 NaCl, 24 NaHCO3, 5 KCl, 1.2 KH2PO4, 2.4 CaCl2, 1.3 MgSO4, and 10 glucose, aerated with 95% oxygen/5% CO2 to a final pH of 7.4. The standard external solution contained (mM) 150 NaCl, 5 KCl, 1 MgCl2, 2 CaCl2, 10 HEPES, and 10 glucose. The pH was adjusted to 7.4 with tris-hydroxymethyl aminomethane (tris-base). This bath solution contained 0.3 µM tetrodotoxin and 0.2 mM CdCl2 for recording propofol-induced current (Ipro), IGABA, and Igly. The osmolarity of all bath solutions was adjusted to 325–330 mOsm/L with sucrose (3300, Norwood, MA). The patch pipette solution for whole-cell patch recording was (mM) 120 CsCl, 20 tetraethylammonium-Cl, 2 MgCl2, 1 CaCl2, 10 EGTA, 2 Na2 adenosine triphosphate, and 10 HEPES. The internal solution was adjusted to a pH of 7.2 with tris-base.

Drugs used in these experiments were from Sigma (St. Louis, MO) except for propofol, which was prepared from Diprivan (Zeneca Limited, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK). Each milliliter of Diprivan contains 10 mg of propofol. The vehicle contains glycerol, soybean oil, purified egg phosphatide/egg lecithin, sodium hydroxide, and water. Intralipid, at concentrations equivalent to those used in our experiments, did not affect the actions of propofol (8,16). Other drugs were first dissolved in ion-free water and then diluted to the final concentrations in the standard external solution just before use or were dissolved directly in the standard external solution. Drugs were applied with a rapid application technique, termed the "Y-tube" method, throughout the experiments (18). This system allows a complete exchange of external solution surrounding a neuron within 20 ms.

The electrophysiological recordings were performed in the conventional whole-cell patch recording configurations under voltage-clamp conditions. Patch pipettes were pulled from glass capillaries with an outer diameter of 1.5 mm on a two-stage puller (PP-830; Narishige, Tokyo, Japan). The resistance between the recording electrode filled with pipette solution and the reference electrode was 4–6 M{Omega}. Membrane currents were measured with a patch-clamp amplifier (200 B; Axon Instruments, Foster City, CA), sampled, and analyzed with a DigiData 1320A interface and a computer with the pCLAMP system (Version 8.0; Axon Instruments). In most experiments, 70%–90% series resistance was compensated. The holding potential was -50 mV throughout the experiment. All the experiments were performed at room temperature (22°C–25°C). Clampfit software (Version 8.0; Axon Instruments) was used for data analysis. Difference in mean value was tested by Student’s t-test with P < 0.05 considered significant. All values represented the mean ± SEM.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Concentration-Response Relationship of Ipro in the Rat Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons
The neurons were mainly dissociated from the deep dorsal horn, including the sacral dorsal commissural nucleus. In keeping with previous observations, the neurons were morphologically heterogeneous (18,22). Most of the isolated neurons were medium sized (10–15 µm in diameter), with oval or triangular soma and one to three apical stem dendrites. Despite morphological heterogeneity, random recordings from these neurons were used for the experiments.

In the following experiments, Ipro was recorded at more than 200 s intervals, in which Ipro can completely recover from inactivation (desensitization). Propofol elicited inward currents in a concentration-dependent manner. The vehicle intralipid induced no noticeable currents. Application of propofol was also accompanied by increased baseline noise (Fig. 1Aa and Fig. 2A), suggesting that the membrane conductance was increased by propofol. At small concentrations, propofol elicited steady-state inward currents with slow onset and offset, whereas at large concentrations, propofol induced a peak and a successive steady-state inward current with faster onset and offset. The threshold concentration for Ipro was approximately 5 µM. The amplitude of Ipro was increased with increasing propofol concentrations in the range between 5 and 300 µM. A further increase in propofol concentration reduced the peak current, leading to a bell-shaped concentration-response curve (Fig. 1Ab). Fitting the data with the Michaelis-Menten equation produced a 50% effective concentration of 53.71 µM. The washout of propofol at all concentrations used induced no noticeable rebound currents, which often appear in many anesthetic-induced currents (2,3,18).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Propofol induced Cl- currents in a concentration-dependent manner. A, The concentration-response relationship of propofol-induced current (Ipro). Aa, Representative current traces induced by various concentrations of propofol at a holding potential of -50mV. The currents were recorded from the same neuron. Ab, Concentration-response curve for Ipro. The peak current normalized to the value obtained in response to 100 µM propofol (*) is plotted as a function of the propofol concentrations. The 50% effective concentration was 53.71 µM. Each point is the mean ± SEM (n = 5–7). B, Current-voltage (I-V) relationship of Ipro. a, A representative current trace obtained from the ramp voltage command. The experimental protocol is shown above the current trace. A pair of voltage ramps ranging from +30 to -80mV were applied. Propofol was applied to the cell and covered the second ramp of each pair. Traces obtained from the first ramp measured background or leakage currents. b, I-V curve for Ipro. ECl represents the theoretical Cl- equilibrium potential.

 


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Bicuculline- and strychnine-sensitive components in propofol-induced current (Ipro). A, Representative current traces obtained in the absence or presence of 1 µM strychnine, 10 µM bicuculline, or both. B, Bicuculline (10 µM) inhibited Ipro by 90.62% ± 2.24%, and strychnine (1 µM) inhibited Ipro by 12.41% ± 3.03%. The Ipro values in the presence of strychnine and bicuculline were significantly different from the current induced by propofol alone. Each column represents the mean ± SEM (n = 4). **P < 0.01.

 
The Reversal Potential of Ipro
The ionic basis of the Ipro was investigated by using the ramp voltage-clamp technique. A ramp-voltage command (from a depolarizing pulse of +30 mV to a hyperpolarizing pulse of -80 mV) was applied before and during the application of 100 µM propofol (Fig. 1Ba). The voltage-dependent Na+, K+, and Ca2+ channels were blocked by adding 0.3 µM tetrodotoxin and 0.2 mM Cd2+ in the external solution and by replacing K+ in the internal solution with Cs+ and tetraethylammonium, respectively. Under this condition, the intersection of current-voltage curves directly gave the reversal potential of Ipro (Epro). The measured Epro value was 0.75 ± 2.40 mV, which is close to the Cl- equilibrium potential calculated with the Nernst equation on the basis of the extra- and intracellular Cl- concentrations. The data suggested that Ipro was carried by Cl-.

Bicuculline and Strychnine Sensitivity of Ipro
The following experiments were performed to determine the bicuculline- and strychnine-sensitive components of the Ipro. It was observed that the current induced by 100 µM propofol was reversibly inhibited 90.62% ± 2.24% (n = 4) by 10 µM bicuculline, a selective antagonist of GABAAR, and 12.41% ± 3.03% (n = 4) by 1 µM strychnine, a selective antagonist of GlyR. Coapplication of 10 µM bicuculline and 1 µM strychnine completely inhibited the Ipro. These results suggested that Ipro was sensitive to bicuculline and, to a lesser extent, to strychnine.

Kinetics of Ipro
To further characterize the Ipro, activation (a process that opens ligand-gated channels after application of ligand), desensitization (a process that closes ligand-gated channels during application of ligand) and deactivation (a process that closes ligand-gated channels after removal of ligand) were analyzed by measuring the time constants of activation ({tau}on), desensitization ({tau}decay), and deactivation ({tau}off) via fitting the current traces monoexponentially. Figure 3A shows the original currents induced by 10 and 100 µM propofol and their normalized currents for a better comparison of the kinetics. The currents induced by 100 µM propofol had much shorter {tau}on (9.37 ± 1.07 s for 10 µM; 3.42 ± 0.69 s for 100 µM; n = 5; P < 0.01) and longer {tau}decay (10.42 ± 1.80 s for 10 µM; 15.90 ± 1.74 s for 100 µM; P < 0.05) than those by 10 µM propofol, whereas their {tau}off values (3.49 ± 0.76 s for 10 µM; 4.17 ± 0.79 s for 100 µM) were not significantly different (Fig. 3A).



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Kinetics of propofol-induced current (Ipro). A, Application of 10 and 100 µM propofol induced the Ipro with different kinetics. B, Comparing the amplitude and the kinetics of Ipro with {gamma}-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-induced current induced by the same agonist concentration (100 µM). The figure shows responses during propofol (Pro) relative to those of GABA. C, Comparing the amplitude and the kinetics of Ipro with glycine (Gly)-induced current induced by the same agonist concentration (100 µM). The figure shows responses during propofol relative to those of glycine. Note that the top panel in Aa, Ba, and Ca shows the original current traces, and the bottom panel shows the traces normalized to the traces with larger amplitude, so that the differences in kinetics become more evident. Each column represents the mean ± SEM (n = 5 or 6). NS = no significant difference. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. {tau}on = time constant of activation; {tau}decay = time constant of desensitization; and {tau}off = time constant of deactivation.

 
Considering that the Ipro was carried by Cl- (Fig. 1B) and was sensitive to both bicuculline and strychnine (Fig. 2), the kinetics of Ipro were compared with those of IGABA and Igly. The following values were obtained from the currents induced by the same agonist concentration (100 µM). Figure 3Ba and 3Ca shows the original and the normalized currents for a better comparison of the amplitude and the kinetics of Ipro with IGABA and Igly, respectively. The currents induced by 100 µM propofol had a much smaller amplitude and longer {tau}on, {tau}decay, and {tau}off than those induced by 100 µM GABA (Fig. 3B) and glycine (Fig. 3C), respectively. The amplitude and {tau}on, {tau}off, and {tau}decay induced by 100 µM propofol were also expressed as the relative values to those obtained with the same concentration of GABA and glycine (Fig. 3). The amplitude of Ipro was 44.79% ± 0.05% (n = 7; P < 0.01) of IGABA and 57.17% ± 0.04% (n = 6; P < 0.01) of Igly. The {tau}on was 10.47 ± 1.38-fold (n = 6; P < 0.01) of IGABA and 13.96 ± 2.96-fold (n = 5; P < 0.01) of Igly; the {tau}decay was 3.67 ± 0.77-fold (n = 6; P < 0.01) of IGABA and 3.60 ± 0.94-fold (n = 5; P < 0.01) of Igly; and the {tau}off was 9.65 ± 0.93-fold (n = 6; P < 0.01) of IGABA and 10.37 ± 2.35-fold (n = 5; P < 0.01) of Igly. These results indicated that responses evoked by propofol had a smaller amplitude and a slower rate of onset, decay, and offset compared with those evoked by the same concentrations of GABA and glycine.

Modulation of IGABA and Igly by Propofol
The vehicle control experiments were performed before testing the modulation of propofol on IGABA and Igly. In the presence of vehicle, 10 and 100 µM IGABA were 102.81% ± 2.39% and 97.62% ± 1.36% of control, respectively, and 30 and 100 µM Igly were 101.64% ± 1.08% and 99.48% ± 2.25% of control, respectively (n = 5; P > 0.05). The results indicated that the vehicle did not significantly modulate IGABA or Igly in these experiments.

To evaluate whether the facilitation of the GABA response and the glycine response by propofol was dependent on the agonist concentrations, propofol (5 µM) was coadministered with small (10 µM for GABA and 30 µM for glycine) and subsaturating (100 µM for GABA or glycine) concentrations of the agonists. Figure 4A shows representative current traces generated from the application of 10 and 100 µM GABA, as well as 30 and 100 µM glycine, in the presence of 5 µM propofol and their normalized current traces. The control values used to normalize the currents were induced by GABA and glycine alone. From Figure 4A and 4Ba, it was found that propofol produced a stronger facilitating effect on IGABA than on Igly, and the currents induced by smaller concentrations of agonists were more largely facilitated by propofol. The current induced by 10 µM GABA was increased 6.45 ± 1.58-fold (n = 6), whereas the current induced by 100 µM GABA was increased 1.50 ± 0.10-fold (n = 8). Similar to its effect on IGABA, propofol caused a 1.82 ± 0.20-fold (n = 5) enhancement of the current induced by 30 µM glycine, whereas it caused a 1.19 ± 0.10-fold (n = 8) enhancement of the current induced by 100 µM glycine.



View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Facilitating effects of propofol on {gamma}-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-induced current (IGABA) and glycine (Gly)-induced current (Igly). A, Representative current traces showing the effect of 5 µM propofol on IGABA and Igly. a, Original traces and normalized traces induced by 10 and 100 µM GABA in the presence of 5 µM propofol; b, original traces and normalized traces induced by 30 and 100 µM Gly in the presence of 5 µM propofol. Ba, Propofol (5 µM) produced a larger facilitation of IGABA than Igly, and the currents induced by smaller concentrations of agonists were more largely facilitated by propofol. The control value used to normalize the current was induced by GABA and Gly alone. Bb, Propofol significantly increased the desensitization and deactivation time constant of IGABA and the deactivation time constant of Igly, but it had little effect on the desensitization time constant of Igly. The control value used to normalize the current was induced by GABA and Gly alone. Each column represents the mean ± SEM (n = 11). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

 
Propofol facilitation of IGABA and Igly could result from the enhancement of receptor activation or the slowing of receptor desensitization and deactivation. To test this hypothesis, we studied the kinetics of IGABA (100 µM) and Igly (100 µM) in the absence or presence of propofol (5 µM). As shown in Figure 4Bb, 5 µM propofol increased {tau}off by 3.55 ± 0.74-fold for IGABA (P < 0.05; n = 5) and 1.62 ± 0.30-fold for Igly (P < 0.05; n = 10), and it increased {tau}decay by 1.87 ± 0.35-fold (P < 0.05; n = 6) for IGABA as compared with those of control but had few effects on the {tau}on of IGABA (P > 0.05; n = 9) or on the {tau}on and {tau}decay (P > 0.05; n = 9) of Igly. The control values used to normalize the currents were induced by GABA and glycine alone. The results, therefore, indicated that propofol might facilitate IGABA by slowing the GABAAR desensitization and deactivation and might facilitate Igly by slowing the GlyR deactivation. In addition, 100 µM propofol inhibited IGABA (100 µM) by 61.67% ± 9.45% (n = 6; P < 0.01) and Igly (100 µM) by 43.50% ± 6.78% (n = 6; P < 0.01). In the presence of 10 µM bicuculline, however, 100 µM propofol induced small currents, and Igly was 100.26% ± 0.76% (n = 8; P > 0.05) of control (Fig. 5).



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Inhibitory effects of large concentrations of propofol on {gamma}-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-induced current (IGABA) and glycine (Gly)-induced current (Igly). A, Representative current traces showing that 100 µM propofol inhibited IGABA (top) and Igly (bottom). Bicuculline (10 µM) eliminated the inhibitory action of propofol on Igly. B, Statistical results indicating that 100 µM propofol inhibited IGABA by 61.67% ± 9.45% (n = 6) and Igly by 43.50% ± 6.78% (n = 8), whereas it did not affect Igly in the presence of bicuculline. Each column represents the mean ± SEM. **P < 0.01.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The molecular action of propofol on central neuronal receptors and ion channels has received considerable attention over the past few years. Propofol has been reported to act on many kinds of receptors and ion channels in brain neurons (2–4). However, little information is available about the effect of propofol on the receptors and ion channels in spinal neurons. In this study we investigated the actions of propofol on inhibitory amino acid receptors, GABAAR and GlyR, in acutely dissociated rat spinal dorsal horn neurons.

Direct Activation of Cl- Current by Propofol
The experiments showed that propofol induced inward Cl- currents (Ipro). The concentration-response relationship of the Ipro was bell shaped. The Ipro was highly sensitive to bicuculline, indicating a GABA-mimic action of propofol. The involvement of GlyR could not be completely excluded in this study, because the Ipro was inhibited 12.41% by 1 µM strychnine (Fig. 2), a selective antagonist of GlyR. Although strychnine weakly blocks IGABA in the same preparation (18,23), the strychnine concentration used here was not large enough to inhibit the Ipro to such a degree. The strychnine-sensitive Ipro has been described in dissociated rat hippocampal neurons (5) and in Xenopus laevis oocytes (24).

The Ipro had a smaller amplitude and slower rates of onset, decay, and offset compared with the responses activated by the same concentrations of GABA and glycine, indicating that the affinity of propofol to GABAAR was less than that of GABA. The slow rate of onset might indicate that propofol first accumulates in the cell membrane before it binds to its receptor site. Another interpretation is that the slow onset of Ipro could result from the time required for the drug to partition from intralipid vehicle to the receptors. However, slow onset kinetics were also observed when dimethyl sulfoxide was used as the vehicle (5). Hence, it is more likely that the slow onset of Ipro reflects a slow rate of equilibration with GABAAR. These results indicated that although propofol bound to the GABAAR, it had distinct properties from GABA.

Modulation of GABAAR and GlyR by Propofol
Because propofol is highly lipophilic and binds tightly to serum proteins, the free concentration of propofol in the aqueous phase is much smaller than the total plasma concentration. It is the free concentration that is relevant for studying actions at receptors. The recommended concentration for propofol at physiological pH is 0.4 µM (clinically relevant concentrations) (25). However, in these experiments, 5 µM propofol was used to make the actions of propofol on GABA and glycine response more evident. This concentration was comparable to the concentration used in cultured murine spinal neurons (0.84–16.8 µM) (8), rat acutely dissociated hippocampal neurons (1 or 5 µM) (6), and rat cultured hippocampal neurons (1–10 µM) (7). Furthermore, propofol was evenly distributed in the brain and spinal cord during infusion (26).

Previous studies have indicated that propofol has multiple distinct modulating effects on GABAAR function (2–8,16,27), including potentiation and inhibition of IGABA. Our data demonstrate that propofol influenced GABAAR function in dissociated spinal dorsal horn neurons in similar ways. Moreover, not only IGABA, but also Igly, was modulated by propofol. A clinically relevant concentration of propofol (5 µM) potentiated both IGABA and Igly, whereas a large concentration of propofol (100 µM) inhibited IGABA and Igly. Moreover, 5 µM propofol slowed desensitization and deactivation of 100 µM IGABA. However, 5 µM propofol slowed only deactivation, without altering desensitization of 100 µM Igly. Propofol increased the amplitude of the peak IGABA and Igly, an effect that is consistent with propofol causing a decrease in current desensitization, a prolongation of current deactivation, or both. In summary, the prominent effect of propofol on IGABA and Igly was to slow current deactivation and desensitization, and it is plausible that this effect contributes to its ability to enhance GABAergic (27) and glycinergic neurotransmission (unpublished data) in the spinal cord.

Previous study indicated that the glycine response was not affected by 5 µM propofol in rat dissociated (6) and cultured (7) hippocampal neurons. The discrepancy in the effects on the glycine response between this study and previous ones may be attributable to the different types of {alpha} subunits in the GlyR. Three different {alpha}-subunit isoforms with different locations in the rat CNS have been identified. The expression of the {alpha}2 subunit, which is an embryonic form of GlyR, decreases after birth, whereas {alpha}1 and {alpha}3 expression increase. The {alpha}1 subunit is highly expressed in the spinal cord, whereas the {alpha}3 subunit is restricted to the hippocampus. The {alpha} subunit diversity may serve in assembling GlyR subtypes of different agonist response properties in different regions of the CNS (28–30). These findings suggest that the sensitivity of GlyR to propofol might not be uniform throughout the nervous system.

Inhibition of IGABA by large concentrations of propofol has been demonstrated in cultured hippocampal neurons (16), but the inhibition of Igly by propofol was reported here for the first time. Previous studies have indicated that the Ipro cross-desensitized with the IGABA, but no such interactions were observed with Igly (5,16). Our recent work has demonstrated that GABAAR and GlyR could cross-inhibit each other in rat hippocampal CA1 neurons (31). Because propofol exhibits GABA mimic activity at large concentrations and because the inhibition of Igly by propofol could be eliminated by 10 µM bicuculline (Fig. 5), the inhibitory actions of propofol on Igly might result from the cross-inhibition between GABAAR and GlyR in our preparation.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that propofol increased GABA and glycine responses in dissociated rat spinal dorsal horn neurons. As an important component of anesthesia, analgesia is involved in the spinal dorsal horn because it is a major site for fine primary afferent input associated with nociceptive transmission. Parallel spinal pathways might relay information to brain circuits that are relevant to either sensory or affective qualities of pain (13,14). Our results suggest that the propofol-induced potentiation of GABAAR and GlyR at the spinal level might contribute to its antinociceptive actions and general anesthesia (19,20).


   Acknowledgments
 
Supported by the Grant for Outstanding Young Researchers from the Ministry of Education of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants 30125015, 39970200, and 30170247), and the National Basic Research Program of China (G1999054000).


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Fulton B, Sorkin EM. Propofol: an overview of its pharmacology and a review of its clinical efficacy in intensive care sedation. Drugs 1995; 50: 636–57.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Belelli D, Pistis M, Peters JA, Lambert J. General anaesthetic action at transmitter-gated inhibitory amino acid receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1999; 20: 496–502.[Medline]
  3. Krasowski MD, Harrison NL. General anaesthetic actions on ligand-gated ion channels. Cell Mol Life Sci 1999; 55: 1278–303.[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Thompson SA, Wafford K. Mechanism of action of general anaesthetics: new information from molecular pharmacology. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2001; 1: 78–83.[Medline]
  5. Hara M, Kai Y, Ikemoto Y. Propofol activates GABAA receptor-chloride ionophore complex in dissociated hippocampal pyramidal neurons of the rat. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 781–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Hara M, Kai Y, Ikemoto Y. Enhancement by propofol of the gamma-aminobutyric acid A response in dissociated hippocampal pyramidal neurons of the rat. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 988–94.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Patten D, Foxon GR, Martin KF, Halliwell RF. An electrophysiological study of the effects of propofol on native neuronal ligand-gated ion channels. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2001; 28: 451–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Hales TG, Lambert JJ. The actions of propofol on inhibitory amino acid receptors of bovine adrenomedullary chromaffin cells and rodent central neurons. Br J Pharmacol 1991; 104: 619–28.[Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Betz H. Ligand-gated ion channels in the brain: the amino acid receptor family. Neuron 1990; 5: 383–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Schmieden V, Kuteki T, Betz H. Mutation of glycine receptor subunit creates ß-alanine receptor responsive to GABA. Science 1993; 262: 256–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Collins JG, Kendig JJ, Mason P. Anesthetic actions within the spinal cord: contributions to the state of general anesthesia. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18: 549–53.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Antognini JF, Carstens E, Tabo E, Buzin V. The effect of selective delivery of isoflurane to head and torso on lumbar dorsal horn activity. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1055–61.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Bester H, Chapman V, Besson JM, Bernard JF. Physiological properties of the lamina I spinoparabrachial neurons in the rat. J Neurophysiol 2000; 83: 2239–59.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Kendig JJ. Spinal cord as a site of anesthetic action. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 1161–2.[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Richards CD. What the actions of anaesthetics on fast synaptic transmission reveal about the molecular mechanism of anaesthesia. Toxicol Lett 1998; 100–101:41–50.
  16. Orser BA, Wand LY, Pennefather PS, MacDonald JF. Propofol modulates activation and desensitization of GABAA receptors in cultured murine hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci 1994; 14: 7747–60.[Abstract]
  17. Millan MJ. The induction of pain: an integrative review. Prog Neurobiol 1999; 57: 1–164.[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Xu TL. {gamma}-Aminobutyric acid-induced responses in acutely dissociated neurons from the rat sacral dorsal commissural nucleus. J Auton Nerv Syst 1999; 75: 156–63.[Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Jewett BA, Tarasiuk A, Gibbs L, Kendig JJ. Propofol and barbiturate depression of spinal nociceptive neurotransmission. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 1148–54.[Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Nadeson R, Goodchild CS. Antinociceptive properties of propofol: involvement of spinal cord gamma-aminobutyric acid (A) receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997; 282: 1181–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Wang ZM, Katsurabayashi S, Rhee JS, et al. Substance P abolishes the facilitatory effect of ATP on spontaneous glycine release in neurons of the trigeminal nucleus pars caudalis. J Neurosci 2001; 21: 2983–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Xu TL, Pang ZP, Kang JF, Li JS. Isolation of rat sacral dorsal commissural neurons. Zhongguo Yao Li Xue Bao 1998; 19: 227–32.[Medline]
  23. Wang DS, Xu TL, Li JS. 5-HT potentiates GABA- and glycine-activated chloride currents on the same neurons in rat spinal cord. J Brain Res 1999; 39: 531–7.
  24. Pistis M, Belelli D, Peters JA, Lambert JJ. The interaction of general anaesthetics with recombinant GABAA and glycine receptors expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes: a comparative study. Br J Pharmacol 1997; 122: 1707–19.[Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Franks NP, Lieb WR. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of general anesthesia. Nature 1994; 367: 607–14.[Medline]
  26. Shyr MH, Tsai TH, Tan PP, et al. Concentration and regional distribution of propofol in brain and spinal cord during propofol anesthesia in the rat. Neurosci Lett 1995; 184: 212–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Bai D, Pennefather PS, MacDonald JF, Orser BA. The general anesthetic propofol slows deactivation and desensitization of GABAA receptors. J Neurosci 1999; 19: 10635–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Akagi H, Hirai K, Hishinuma F. Cloning of a glycine receptor subtype expressed in rat brain and spinal cord during a specific period of neuronal development. FEBS Lett 1991; 281: 160–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Kuhse J, Schmieden V, Betz H. Identification and functional expression of a novel ligand binding subunit of the inhibitory glycine receptor. J Biol Chem 1990; 265: 22317–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Legendre P. The glycinergic inhibitory synapse. Cell Mol Life Sci 2001; 58: 760–93.[Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Li Y, Xu TL. State-dependent cross-inhibition between anionic GABAA and glycine ionotropic receptors in rat hippocampal CA1 neurons. Neuroreport 2002; 13: 223–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
Accepted for publication June 20, 2002.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Singler, A. Troster, N. Manering, J. Schuttler, and W. Koppert
Modulation of Remifentanil-Induced Postinfusion Hyperalgesia by Propofol
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1397 - 1403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
C.-X. Yang, H. Xu, K.-Q. Zhou, M.-Y. Wang, and T.-L. Xu
Modulation of Gamma-Aminobutyric AcidA Receptor Function by Thiopental in the Rat Spinal Dorsal Horn Neurons.
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2006; 102(4): 1114 - 1120.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Pharmacol.Home page
H.-J. Feng and R. L. Macdonald
Multiple Actions of Propofol on {alpha}{beta}{gamma} and {alpha}{beta}{delta} GABAA Receptors
Mol. Pharmacol., December 1, 2004; 66(6): 1517 - 1524.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. Ahrens, G. Haeseler, M. Leuwer, B. Mohammadi, K. Krampfl, R. Dengler, and J. Bufler
2,6 Di-tert-butylphenol, a Nonanesthetic Propofol Analog, Modulates {alpha}1{beta} Glycine Receptor Function in a Manner Distinct from Propofol
Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2004; 99(1): 91 - 96.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
T. Shirasaka, Y. Yoshimura, D.-L. Qiu, and M. Takasaki
The Effects of Propofol on Hypothalamic Paraventricular Nucleus Neurons in the Rat
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2004; 98(4): 1017 - 1023.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
H. G. Logginidou, B.-H. Li, D.-P. Li, J. S. Lohmann, H. G. Schuler, N. A. DiVittore, S. Kreiser, and A. J. Cronin
Propofol Suppresses the Cortical Somatosensory Evoked Potential in Rats
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2003; 97(6): 1784 - 1788.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (26)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dong, X.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, T.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dong, X.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, T.-L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pharmacology

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2002 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press