This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (106) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sonner, J. M. Articles by Eger, E. I Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sonner, J. M. Articles by Eger, E. I, II Related Collections Mechanisms Pharmacology

---

ANESTHETIC PHARMACOLOGY

Inhaled Anesthetics and Immobility: Mechanisms, Mysteries, and Minimum Alveolar Anesthetic Concentration

James M. Sonner, MD^*, Joseph F. Antognini, MD, Robert C. Dutton, MD^*, Pamela Flood, MD, Andrew T. Gray, MD PhD^*, R. Adron Harris, PhD, Gregg E. Homanics, PhD^||, Joan Kendig, PhD^¶, Beverley Orser, MD^#, Douglas E. Raines, MD^**, James Trudell, PhD^¶, Bryce Vissel, PhD, and Edmond I Eger, II, MD^* Section Editor

*Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, California; Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, Davis, California; Columbia University, New York, New York; University of Texas, Austin, Texas; ||University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ¶Stanford University, Palo Alto, California; #University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; **Department of Anaesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, Australia

Address correspondence and reprint requests to James M. Sonner, MD, Department of Anesthesia, S-455, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0464. Address e-mail to sonnerj{at}anesthesia ucsf.edu.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Studies using molecular modeling, genetic engineering, neurophysiology/pharmacology, and whole animals have advanced our understanding of where and how inhaled anesthetics act to produce immobility (minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration; MAC) by actions on the spinal cord. Numerous ligand- and voltage-gated channels might plausibly mediate MAC, and specific animo acid sites in certain receptors present likely candidates for mediation. However, in vivo studies to date suggest that several channels or receptors may not be mediators (e.g., -aminobutyric acid A, acetylcholine, potassium, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3, opioids, and ₂-adrenergic), whereas other receptors/channels (e.g., glycine, N-methyl-D-aspartate, and sodium) remain credible candidates.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
After decades of ignorance, we now know how some anesthetics (e.g., etomidate) act (1). This knowledge resulted from information revealed by multiple approaches to studies of anesthetic mechanisms, including studies in whole animals using old-fashioned pharmacologic techniques, in vivo and in vitro neurophysiological studies, and the application of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows the manipulation of receptors and their study in vitro. It allows the creation of animals (usually mice) with mutated receptors that do not respond to anesthetics and that, thereby, serve as tools to test the importance of a given receptor to a particular anesthetic effect. This review discusses how these approaches have increased understanding of the mechanisms by which a particular class of anesthetics, the inhaled anesthetics, acts. The review focuses on the mechanistic bases for one characteristic of inhaled anesthetics: their capacity to cause immobility. The standard measure of anesthetic potency, MAC (the minimum alveolar concentration of an inhaled anesthetic required to suppress movement in response to noxious stimulation in 50% of subjects), reflects this capacity (2). MAC is an anesthetic 50% effective dose (ED₅₀).

At the turn of the last century, Overton (3) and Meyer (4) reported that anesthetic potency correlated with lipophilicity, suggesting the importance of a lipid-like phase to anesthetic action. For conventional and many experimental inhaled anesthetics (5–9), the correlation is remarkable (Fig. 1). Over the ensuing 80 years, a few theories of narcosis evolved from the focus on lipids, particularly the membrane bilayer, but none of these theories withstood experimental scrutiny. For example, inhaled anesthetics increase membrane disorder (increase fluidity) (10–14), and this was proposed as a basis for anesthesia. However, increases in body temperature also increase this disorder, but increases in body temperature increase rather than decrease MAC (15). The discovery of inhaled compounds with potencies that do not correlate with lipophilicity called into question the Meyer-Overton hypothesis: alcohols are more potent than predicted from their lipophilicity, whereas some compounds are less potent (transitional compounds) (5). For example, ethanol has an oil/gas partition coefficient of 108 (16), similar to the value of 98 for isoflurane (17). However, the MAC of isoflurane in rats is 1.5% (18,19), more than 10 times larger than the MAC of 0.1% for ethanol (16). At an extreme are nonimmobilizer compounds, compounds that have no anesthetic effect, alone or in combination with known anesthetics, despite a lipophilicity that predicts an anesthetizing capacity (5). For example, 1,2-dichlorohexafluorobutane (also called F6 or 2N) has an oil/gas partition coefficient of 44 (5), similar to the value of 47 found for sevoflurane (20), which has a MAC of 2.4% (21,22). However, F6 is not anesthetic at any concentration, including concentrations exceeding 4% (5).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. The potencies (minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration; MAC) of conventional [nitrous oxide (7), halothane (6), isoflurane (6), sevoflurane (6), desflurane (6), and cyclopropane (6)] and several unconventional [xenon (9), 1A (1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluorocyclobutane) (5), benzene (8), and hexafluorobenzene (8)] inhaled anesthetics in rats correlate with their affinity to a lipid phase, as defined by the oil/gas partition coefficient. A caveat: although this relationship applies to all conventional inhaled anesthetics, several compounds (e.g., nonimmobilizers) do not conform to the relationship.

Antognini and Schwartz (28), Antognini et al. (29), Borges and Antognini (30), Rampil et al. (31), and Rampil (32) provided another key finding: that inhaled anesthetic-induced immobility largely results from an action on the spinal cord rather than an action on higher centers. Their results informed many subsequent studies, several of which are described in this review.

Finally, the increasing capacity to study and manipulate receptors through genetic engineering provides a powerful tool for studies of anesthetic mechanisms. Results of such work complement work from traditional pharmacology. For example, as will be discussed, the nonimmobilizer F6 blocks acetylcholine receptors in vitro, and thus the acetylcholine receptor is an unlikely target for the immobilizing effect of inhaled anesthetics. Consistent with this finding, in vivo blockade of acetylcholine receptors does not affect MAC.

	The Spinal Cord as the Primary Site Mediating Immobilization

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Several studies demonstrate that the spinal cord mediates most of the ability of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility. The observation a decade ago that immobility during noxious stimulation does not correlate with electroencephalographic (EEG) activity prompted the hypothesis that cortical electrical activity does not control motor responses to noxious stimulation (33). In rats, precollicular decerebration (31) (Fig. 2) or complete section of the upper thoracic spinal cord (32) minimally affects isoflurane’s capacity to suppress movement. In vivo electrophysiologic examination of the spinal cord suggests that anesthetics can suppress both sensory (34) and motor (35) neuron activity. In rats (36) and humans (37), suppression of movement in response to noxious stimulation correlates with suppression of motor neuron excitability (as determined by recurrent impulses known as F waves). In goats, MAC for isoflurane delivered to the whole body is 1.2%, but delivery to only the brain increases MAC to nearly 3% (28). The separation with halothane is still greater (29). Control halothane MAC is 0.9%, but delivery confined to the head requires 3.4% to abolish movement. Some goats move during EEG silence and move at the largest cerebral halothane concentrations tested. These results indicate that inhaled anesthetics act primarily on the spinal cord to produce immobility and that only a minor component of this immobility results from cerebral effects. The common results from different species and experimental methods increase the compelling nature of these conclusions.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Decerebration does not change the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of isoflurane in rats (31). These data and similar data gathered in Rampil’s laboratory (32) and Antognini’s laboratory (28,30) demonstrate that the spinal cord mediates much or most of the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility. That is, effects on the spinal cord determine MAC.

	What Has Been Learned from In Vitro Spinal Cord Studies?

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Because motor neurons integrate all input and signal muscles to move, anesthetic effects on motor neurons may be important to the production of immobility. Other spinal cord components (primary afferent terminals and interneurons) likely also play a role. The effect of anesthetics on motor neurons has been examined in the intact isolated neonatal rat spinal cord. Volatile anesthetics (38,39) and ethanol (40) depress motor neuron output evoked by dorsal root stimulation.

Volatile anesthetics enhance the currents through gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)_A and glycine inhibitory chloride channels that are produced by the application of GABA or glycine. This action reduces the excitability of neurons and might contribute to anesthetic depressant actions. If this is the case, then blockade of these channels should oppose the depressant effects of anesthetics. In intact spinal cord, blockade of GABA_A and glycine inhibitory chloride channels does, in fact, decrease the depressant effects of anesthetics (41). However, whether blockade is only partial reduction or is complete cannot be determined experimentally in this preparation because of uncoordinated fluctuations in the baseline brought about by the convulsant effects of these blocking drugs.

Acetylcholine receptors are also affected by volatile anesthetics and alcohols, but in opposite directions. Although acetylcholine receptors can profoundly affect spinal neuronal transmission, block of nicotinic or muscarinic receptors does not modify anesthetic potency, either in vivo (42,43) or in vitro (44). Thus, inhibitory chloride channels, but not acetylcholine receptors, may be implicated in anesthetic-induced immobility.

Spinal cord slice preparations allow isolation of postsynaptic actions on motor neurons from actions on primary afferents and interneurons. In slices, ethanol (44) and volatile anesthetics (45) depress currents evoked by glutamate application, proving that these agents can directly depress motor neuron excitability. Furthermore, ethanol (44) and volatile anesthetics (45) depress both -amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) and N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) recep-tor-mediated currents by actions independent of GABA_A and glycine receptors, suggesting that anesthetic reduction of motor output can result from depression of excitation as well as enhancement of inhibition.

Anesthetic effects on the cord are diverse and complex, and the ultimate effect on MAC is incompletely understood. Spontaneous miniature current frequency (presynaptically determined), amplitude, and kinetics (postsynaptically determined) reveal pre- and post-synaptic anesthetic actions on motor neurons. Halothane, isoflurane, and enflurane prolong glycinergic current duration but do not increase amplitude (46), in contrast to nonneuronal expression systems, in which both amplitude and duration are increased. The three anesthetics also increase the frequency of spontaneous transmitter release, but only when sodium channels are blocked (46). With intact sodium channels, halothane and isoflurane do not affect frequency, and enflurane decreases frequency. Changes in charge transfer parallel these effects: increases in presynaptically mediated frequency plus postsynaptically mediated prolongation increase the total charge transfer, but only during sodium channel blockade. That is, in normal intact preparations, anesthetics do not produce an absolute increase in inhibition. Thus, for glycinergic transmission, anesthetics affect the timing rather than the magnitude of inhibition, increasing the period during which inhibition is effective.

When glutamate AMPA currents are compared with glycinergic currents, a contrasting picture emerges. Enflurane decreases miniature current frequency regardless of sodium channel blockade (47) and depresses current amplitude without changing kinetics. Thus, volatile anesthetics tend to increase glycinergic inhibition by two effects: a presynaptic enhancement of transmitter release and a postsynaptic prolongation of current duration. A depressant action on release, probably via sodium channels, counterbalances these inhibitory actions. Enflurane’s actions on glutamate transmission are purely depressant, both pre- and postsynaptically. Immobility may result from a shift toward inhibition in the balance between excitation and inhibition, rather than from an absolute increase in inhibition.

In summary, results from studies in the isolated spinal cord suggest that actions involving both excitatory (AMPA and NMDA) and inhibitory (glycine and GABA_A) transmission might produce immobility. Actions on sodium channels and on other channels, including those that determine resting membrane potential, also may be important. Cholinergic receptors play little or no role.

	What Do In Vitro Studies of Isolated Inhibitory and Excitatory Receptors Reveal?

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Which multiple neuronal signaling systems govern crucial components of anesthesia, such as immobility? Drugs that produce anesthesia by acting on a single signaling system offer powerful clues to the site of anesthetic action. Propofol, alfaxalone, and etomidate primarily produce anesthesia by enhancing GABA_A receptor function (i.e., by increasing the effect of a given concentration of GABA) (48). Ketamine may produce anesthesia primarily by inhibiting NMDA receptor function, although it also acts on acetylcholine receptors (49). However, blockade of NMDA alone does not appear to cause immobility (50), so ketamine probably causes immobility by more than simply blocking NMDA receptors. Emerging, detailed molecular analyses of anesthetic actions on GABA_A and glycine receptors and the potential importance of NMDA receptors prompt the following discussion focused on these three ion channels (Table 1).

Ionotropic GABA receptors include GABA_A and GABA_C classes. (A metabotropic GABA_B receptor coupled through guanosine triphosphate-binding proteins is not a ligand-gated ion channel.) GABA_A receptors mediate much of the inhibitory neurotransmission in the central nervous system (CNS) (52). GABA_A and GABA_C receptors are formed from combinations of , ß, , and subunits, each of which may have multiple types (_1–6, ß_1–3, and _1–3). Although and subunits also exist, their function remains obscure. GABA_C receptors likely form from _1–3 subunits. Homomeric (all subunits the same) ₁ receptors are functional (53,54). Most CNS GABA_A receptors have , ß, and subunits. GABA binding to extracellular sites on the receptor opens a chloride channel through the receptor. A response to GABA requires both and ß subunits; benzodiazepine enhancement of GABA function requires , ß, and subunits (55).

Two types of subunits ( and ß) form glycine receptors. Only one ß subunit has been identified, and ₁ is the major subunit in adults. Homomeric ₁ or ₂ receptors are functional (56–58). As discussed below, homomeric (e.g., ₁ or glycine ₁) receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes have advanced studies of molecular sites of anesthetic action.

Several observations suggest the potential importance of these receptors to the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Neuronal and several nonneuronal expression systems reveal that relevant (1 MAC) concentrations of volatile anesthetics and n-alcohols potentiate GABA_A and glycine receptor function (52,59–63). Most IV anesthetics also potentiate GABA_A receptor function, and some potentiate glycine receptor function (61–63). Nonimmobilizing congeners of several fluorinated anesthetics do not affect these receptors (52,59–61,64).

Comparison of the effects of anesthetics versus nonimmobilizers can be used as one test of the relevance of a particular ion channel. Although the anesthetic 1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluorocyclobutane (called 1A or F3) and the structurally similar nonimmobilizer 2N, or F6, have lipid solubilities consistent with an anesthetic capacity, only F3 affects the function of GABA_A, glycine, AMPA, kainate, and 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)₃ receptors (59), and thus these receptors pass the test. The nonimmobilizer 2,3-dichlorooctafluorobutane (F8) also does not affect the function of several ligand-gated ion channels. In contrast, both F3 and F6 inhibit neuronal nicotinic receptors and several metabotropic receptors (5-HT_2C, muscarinic-1, mGluR5) (65,66), and thus these receptors do not pass the test.

How do inhaled anesthetics change the function of inhibitory neurotransmitter receptors? The differential actions of anesthetics on two homologous ligand-gated ion channels allow an exploration of the molecular sites of anesthetic action. In vitro, homomeric glycine ₁ and GABA ₁ receptors respond oppositely to volatile anesthetics, which enhance function in the former (61) and inhibit function in the latter (67). A genetic approach (one that combines various parts of homomeric glycine ₁ and GABA ₁ receptors to produce new receptors) allows identification of amino acids in transmembrane segment 2 and in transmembrane segment 3 of glycine and GABA_A receptors that permit ethanol enhancement of receptor function (68). These amino acids lie near the extracellular surface of the membrane. Results from independent studies suggest the importance of a site near the extracellular surface (69–72).

The possibility that propanethiol, an anesthetic in animals (73), could irreversibly react with cysteines engineered at those critical positions provided more direct evidence for binding of anesthetics to these amino acids in glycine and GABA_A receptors (74). Propanethiol and the related sulfhydryl-specific reagent, propyl methanethiosulfonate (PMTS), covalently bind to the mutated cysteines and permanently enhance receptor function (i.e., they produce irreversible anesthetic-like effects.) Competition experiments performed before and after irreversible binding of PMTS to the cysteine mutations in the GABA_A receptor suggested competition for a single binding site among PMTS and the inhaled anesthetics or octanol, but not between PMTS and alfaxalone. This is consistent with the binding of inhaled anesthetics and n-alcohols to the same site but the binding of alfaxalone to a different site (75). Similar conclusions apply to the glycine receptor.

As noted above, the NMDA receptor also holds promise as a site of anesthetic action. NMDA receptors constitute one glutamate receptor subtype, and they require the coagonists glycine and glutamate for activation (76). The subunits NR1, NR2 (A-D), and NR3 (A-B) form NMDA receptors (77–79). The NR1 subunit confers essential function to the NMDA receptor and is expressed throughout the CNS. In adult mouse brain, NR1, NR2A, and NR2B subunits are widely expressed, whereas NR2C occurs predominantly in the cerebellum, and small levels of NR2D exist only in the thalamus, brainstem, and spinal cord (80). Most NR3B subunits are on motor neurons (79), whereas NR3A has wide distribution (81,82).

The Xenopus oocyte expression system allows study of receptors with pharmacologic properties that may mimic those of native neuronal receptors (59). NMDA receptors expressed from cloned receptors also provide evidence that inhaled anesthetics depress NMDA receptors. Clinically relevant concentrations of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane inhibit recombinant NR1/NR2A and NR1/NR2B NMDA receptors in a reversible, dose-dependent, and voltage-insensitive manner (83). Similarly, enflurane, urethane, nitrous oxide, xenon, cyclopropane, and butane inhibit NMDA-stimulated currents in oocytes expressing NMDA receptors (84–87). Thus, considerable evidence shows that a wide range of volatile anesthetics inhibit NMDA receptor function.

These results indicate that inhaled anesthetic actions on ligand-gated ion channels may explain the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility; they point to candidate proteins that might mediate immobility. Whether the associated receptors contribute to anesthetic-induced immobility can be determined only from studies in intact organisms. A definitive test of the importance of anesthetic influence on these channels could, in principle, be achieved by designing mutant receptors that provide normal synaptic transmission but resist any anesthetic effect and expressing these receptors in animals. The molecular understanding needed to produce these mutants is emerging for the GABA_A and glycine receptors but is lacking for most other ligand-gated ion channels. As discussed elsewhere in this review, the introduction of drug-resistant receptors into animals (knockin mice) has provided remarkable insights regarding the actions of benzodiazepines (88,89) and etomidate and propofol (90) and will likely prove important for understanding inhaled anesthetic action.

	Genetic Engineering: Definitions and Implications for Studies of Anesthetic Mechanisms

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Present technologies allow the creation of animals with genetic modifications that allow tests of specific receptor targets of anesthetics: transgenic, knockout (global or conditional), and knockin animals (Table 2). Transgenic animals overexpress or misexpress an added gene (referred to as a transgene). They are created by microinjection of DNA into the pronucleus of a recently fertilized embryo. Several disadvantages limit the usefulness of this older, fast, widely available technique. Because the added gene inserts randomly into the genome, expression can be variable, and, more importantly, the transgene must be dominant because the animals also have the endogenous gene. Mating transgenic animals to animals lacking the gene of interest (not always available) can circumvent this problem, but this is time consuming.

Conditional knockouts in which specific endogenous genes are inactivated in specific cells or tissues and/or at specific animal ages circumvent some of these limitations. This complex approach requires crossing two different lines of genetically engineered mice. Making mutations in specific cells or neuronal pathways after key developmental events have occurred minimizes compensation and simplifies the assignment of phenotype to neuroanatomic substrates. Although this approach has successfully dissected aspects of learning and memory (92), it has not been applied to studies of anesthetic mechanisms.

The gene knockin animal differs from a knockout animal (in which a gene of interest is inactivated) in that a knockin animal expresses a mutation in the gene of interest. For example, the gene might now produce a protein changed by a single amino acid. Because the normal endogenous promoter controls expression of the mutant gene, a knockin animal expresses the mutant gene in the same amount, at the same time, and in the same tissues as expressed by the normal gene. This approach allowed dissection of the contribution of individual GABA_A-receptor subunits to behavioral responses induced by benzodiazepines (93). Most importantly, it allowed the construction of mice resistant to anesthesia from propofol and etomidate (1). It also may allow the dissection of inhaled anesthetic mechanisms. Single amino acid substitutions in individual GABA_A-receptor subunit genes can change the response of the receptors in expression systems to alcohol and volatile anesthetics without changing the response to GABA (68), and mice harboring these mutations may allow for unambiguous testing of the contribution of specific receptor subunits to MAC. Such genetically engineered mice are currently being tested (94). However, the inhaled anesthetics may present a challenge not offered by anesthetics such as propofol or etomidate. Probably only one receptor (GABA_A) mediates the effects of propofol and etomidate, but multiple receptors may mediate the effects of inhaled anesthetics. Thus, results from a knockin involving a single receptor may elucidate only one aspect of inhaled anesthetic actions.

	What Do In Vivo Studies Reveal Concerning the Ion Channels Mediating MAC?

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Pharmacologic approaches can complement the previously described genetic approaches to reveal the relevance of candidate receptors to MAC. Both assume that altering the function of a relevant receptor will change MAC. The genetic approach determines the effect of receptor mutations (e.g., elimination or modification of a specific receptor) on MAC. The pharmacologic approach determines the effect of agonists or antagonists of specific ion channels on MAC.

Genetic manipulations and pharmacologic treatments can change MAC directly or indirectly. For example, consider the action of two drugs on heart rate. Epinephrine acts directly on the sympathetic nerve terminals to increase heart rate. Atropine also increases heart rate but does so indirectly by blocking the action of acetylcholine on the parasympathetic nervous system. Similar considerations apply to MAC. Although opioids decrease MAC, inhaled anesthetics do not act via opioid receptors (see below). Opioid receptors can play an indirect (modulating) role but not a direct (mediating) role. This critical distinction will become apparent in the discussion of the role of the GABA_A receptor in MAC. A direct effect reflects a mediating role for an ion channel (the terms "direct effect" and "mediating role" are interchangeable; see Fig. 3).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. This drawing illustrates the difference between the site (or sites) that directly mediates the actions of inhaled anesthetics versus sites that may influence inhaled anesthetic potency indirectly by modulating the function of the true (directly affected) site (or sites) of action. Modulation may occur through an action on the mediating site or by affecting the input to or output from that site. For example, a tonic release of -aminobutyric acid (GABA) from an indirect site might affect the measured minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of all inhaled anesthetics by inhibiting activity in the anesthetic site of action. Blocking this input would increase MAC, but this increase would not mean that GABAA receptors mediate inhaled anesthetic actions.

Pharmacologic approaches can also be used to distinguish between direct and indirect effects of receptor systems on MAC. If the administration of a receptor antagonist produces no measurable effect on MAC, then that receptor neither directly nor indirectly affects MAC and is not relevant. But suppose an antagonist has an effect? Because the spinal cord mediates MAC, an intrathecal (spinal) dose of antagonist should change MAC more than the same or larger dose given IV. If it does not, then the antagonist effect is probably supraspinal and not directly relevant to MAC.

However, perhaps an antagonist affects MAC, and the systemic dose required for a given change exceeds the intrathecal dose. To be relevant, the receptor must pass one more test. To be a relevant receptor (one directly acted on to produce the anesthetic effect), the injection of an antagonist should change MAC in proportion to the in vitro capacity of each anesthetic to affect the receptor. The power of this approach is suggested in the "proof-of-principle" experiment shown in Figure 4. In rats, the noncompetitive GABA_A antagonist picrotoxin increases the immobilizing ED₅₀ of the non-GABAergic anesthetic ketamine to a ceiling of approximately 60% (reflecting an indirect antagonism of the effect of naturally occurring tonic GABA release) but increases the ED₅₀ of the GABAergic anesthetic propofol by approximately 400% and shows no ceiling effect (primarily reflecting a direct antagonism) (49,95). In this study, isoflurane acts like ketamine, the non-GABAergic anesthetic. Gabazine (a competitive antagonist at GABA_A receptors) has the same effect as picrotoxin.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. In rats, IV infusion of the noncompetitive -aminobutyric acid (GABA)A antagonist picrotoxin increases the immobilizing 50% effective dose (ED50) of the non-GABAergic anesthetic ketamine to a ceiling of approximately 60%. Because ketamine is not known to materially influence GABAA receptors, this effect of picrotoxin probably reflects an indirect antagonism of the effect of naturally occurring tonic GABA release. Picrotoxin similarly increases the immobilizing ED50 (minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration; MAC) of isoflurane. In contrast, picrotoxin increases the ED50 of the GABAergic anesthetic propofol by approximately 400% and shows no ceiling effect (primarily reflecting a direct antagonism) (49,95). The reader will note that 0.5 MAC isoflurane was added in both the ketamine and the propofol studies. This was done because the administration of picrotoxin in the absence of isoflurane was lethal in animals anesthetized with ketamine. The administration of isoflurane prevented death. Similar results were obtained when the isoflurane concentration was 0.25 MAC.

Inhibitory Ionotropic Ligand-Gated and Voltage-Gated Channels
Glycine.
Glycine receptors are major mediators of inhibitory neurotransmission in the spinal cord. Their spinal localization and their potentiation by clinically important volatile anesthetics make them prime candidates as mediators of MAC. Evidence in animals supports this conjecture. IV and intrathecal administration of strychnine, a glycine receptor antagonist, increases MAC (96,97). The MAC increase for cyclopropane, isoflurane, and halothane produced by intrathecal strychnine administration correlates with the in vitro enhancing effect of these anesthetics on the glycine receptors (97) (Fig. 5) (98), a result expected if the enhancing action on the glycine receptor mediates part of the immobilizing effect of these anesthetics.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Administration of strychnine, a glycine receptor antagonist, increases minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) for rats (96). The MAC increase for cyclopropane, isoflurane, and halothane produced by intrathecal strychnine administration correlates with the in vitro capacity of these anesthetics (at a concentration equal to MAC) to enhance (increase) the response of glycine receptors to glycine (97). Each point is the measured increase in MAC of a rat at the corresponding enhanced receptor activity calculated from pooled in vitro results (85,97). In contrast, although administration of picrotoxin, a -aminobutyric acid (GABA)A antagonist, also increases MAC for cyclopropane, xenon, and isoflurane, the increase in MAC does not correlate with the in vitro enhancing effect of these anesthetics (98) (data for xenon and halothane were not available, respectively, for glycine and GABAA receptors).

GABA_A.
Although they mediate the immobility produced by injectable anesthetics (propofol and etomidate), GABA_A receptors may not mediate the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. The proof-of-principle experiment illustrated in Figure 4 indicates that isoflurane resembles the non-GABAergic anesthetic ketamine, but not the GABAergic anesthetic propofol. This suggests that isoflurane’s immobilizing effect is not directly mediated by GABA_A receptors.

Similar conclusions follow from results of studies applying intrathecal picrotoxin to rats inhaling isoflurane versus xenon or cyclopropane, anesthetics with minimal effects on GABA_A receptors (Zhang Y, unpublished data) (Fig. 5). If inhaled anesthetic enhancement of the response of GABA_A receptors directly mediates the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to suppress movement in response to noxious stimuli, then blockade of GABA_A receptors should increase the MAC of isoflurane more than the MAC of xenon or cyclopropane. However, MAC increases equally for all three anesthetics, indicating that GABA_A receptors are no more important to the immobilizing action of isoflurane than for anesthetics with minimal effects on GABA_A receptors. It may be argued that the in vitro data for the effective concentration of anesthetics may be influenced by many variables (e.g., agonist concentration, use of peak current, or current decay) and that the studies of Zhang selected inappropriate in vitro concentrations. However, that argument ignores the finding that the dose-response relationship in Figure 5 is flat (i.e., it almost does not matter where the in vitro data lie on the abscissa).

Other evidence supports the conclusion that the enhancing effect of volatile anesthetics on GABA_A receptors minimally influences MAC. Knockout of the ß₃ subunit of GABA_A increases enflurane MAC by 26% but increases halothane MAC by only 9% (102), and even these small increases may be attributable to compensation for lack of the subunit (41). Such results for inhaled anesthetics quantitatively agree with those found by Jurd et al. (1) for ß₃ N265M knockin mice unresponsive to the anesthetic effects of propofol: enflurane MAC increased by 15% and halothane MAC by 21%. The mutation knocked into the mice had normal in vitro sensitivity to enflurane and halothane. The MAC for a series of fluorinated alkanols (103) bears no consistent relationship to their capacity to enhance the effect of GABA on GABA_A receptors (104). Enflurane and halothane enhance GABA-mediated chloride conductance in rat hippocampal neurons (105), but a given MAC multiple of enflurane has twice the effect of halothane (i.e., the result is not quantitatively consistent across anesthetics.)

In summary, anesthetizing concentrations of many inhaled anesthetics enhance the in vitro action of GABA as much as do etomidate and propofol, anesthetics thought to produce immobility solely by enhancing the action of GABA on GABA_A receptors. Also, studies of ß₃ knockout and knockin mice indicate that GABA_A receptors may have a mediating role, albeit a minor one, in immobility. These findings suggest that enhancement of GABA actions should underlie at least part of the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. However, drugs that block GABA_A receptor function in vivo do not markedly increase MAC for inhaled anesthetics; the increase parallels that for ketamine, an anesthetic not thought to act by enhancement of GABA_A receptors; the increase in MAC is the same for inhaled anesthetics that do and do not enhance the effect of GABA in vitro; and, similarly, the capacity of fluorinated alcohols to enhance the effect of GABA does not predict their potency. Thus, in vivo results suggest a minor or no role for GABA_A receptors as mediators of immobility, whereas in vitro receptor studies and parallels with anesthetics such as propofol support a role. Although GABA_A receptors are unlikely mediator candidates, a conclusive determination may require the development of knockin mice with GABA_A receptors that respond normally to GABA but are not potentiated by inhaled anesthetics.

Potassium Channels.
Because potassium channels are numerous and diverse and because an increase in potassium conductance can decrease the excitability of the nervous system, potassium channels are plausible candidates as mediators of the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Franks and Lieb (106) found that inhaled anesthetics potentiate potassium leak channels, and therefore reduce neuronal excitability, in the pond snail genus Lymnaea. Mammalian potassium channel subunits of the KCNK (K is potassium, CN is channel, and K is the subfamily of potassium channels) subfamily of leak channels (channels whose currents are not strongly gated by voltage) have properties similar to the properties of the Lymnaea channel, including activation by inhaled anesthetics (107–110). Although the KCNK subfamily provides a plausible anesthetic target, are there any holes in this leak theory?

No present evidence demonstrates that potassium channels directly mediate immobility. Only one (negative) study of inhaled anesthetic potency in potassium channel knockout mice has been reported (111). One study of the nonspecific KCNK activator riluzole supports the hypothesis that, although this drug has anesthetic properties, this action occurs in the brain and not the spinal cord (Gray A, Zhang Y, unpublished data). That is, IV and intrathecal infusions of riluzole that do not produce permanent injury or death do not decrease isoflurane MAC, indicating that KCNK channels do not mediate MAC. In summary, present evidence does not indicate that a specific potassium channel (or channels) mediates the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics, but the large number and diversity of potassium channels precludes a conclusion that they play no role.

Excitatory Ionotropic Ligand-Gated and Voltage-Gated Channels
5-HT₃ Receptors.
Although most 5-HT receptors couple to second-messenger systems, potentially leading to various downstream effects, the 5-HT₃ receptor is a cationic ionophore with considerable sequence homology to GABA_A, glycine, and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Thus, not surprisingly, some inhaled anesthetics potentiate the ionophoric response of the 5-HT₃ receptor (112,113). This in vitro proexcitatory effect of some anesthetics suggests that the 5-HT₃ receptor cannot mediate immobility. Consistent with this conclusion, in rats, blockade of the 5-HT₃ receptor by systemic (114) (Fig. 6) or intrathecal (Flood, unpublished data) administration of ondansetron does not affect the MAC of isoflurane.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. In rats, blockade of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor by systemic (114) (Fig. 6) or intrathecal (Flood, unpublished data) administration of ondansetron does not affect the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of isoflurane, even at doses of ondansetron modestly below the lethal dose. These findings indicate that this receptor does not directly mediate the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics.

If antagonism of nicotinic receptors by volatile anesthetics decreases motor responses to noxious stimulation, the administration of a nicotinic antagonist (mecamylamine) to rats should, but does not (Fig. 7), decrease the volatile anesthetic concentrations required to produce immobility (42,43). Similarly, the administration of the classic agonist nicotine (at concentrations known to have behavioral affects attributed to nicotinic modulation) (117) does not alter the MAC of isoflurane (42). Finally, nonimmobilizers (inhaled compounds predicted from their hydrophobicity to have anesthetic activity that do not cause immobility alone or add to the anesthesia provided by known anesthetics) (5) inhibit nAChRs (118). Such observations suggest that nAChRs do not mediate inhaled anesthetic-induced immobility.

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Administration of nicotinic (mecamylamine) or muscarinic (atropine or scopolamine) antagonists to rats does not decrease the isoflurane concentrations required to produce immobility (42,43). These and other data indicate that cholinergic inhibition by volatile compounds does not mediate anesthetic-induced immobility. MAC = minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration.

Numerous results suggest the potential importance of NMDA receptors as mediators of the immobilizing capacity of inhaled anesthetics. Diethyl ether, chloroform, methoxyflurane, halothane, enflurane, and isoflurane decrease glutamate-stimulated binding of MK-801 to the NMDA receptor (MK-801 [also called dizocilpine] is a standard blocker of NMDA receptors). Application of glutamate normally increases binding of MK-801, which thereby serves as an indication of NMDA receptor activity. Thus, a decrease of binding produced by the volatile anesthetics indicates decreased NMDA receptor activity (121). Inhaled anesthetics inhibit NMDA receptors in receptor expression systems (87). Nitrous oxide and xenon have greater in vitro effects than potent inhaled anesthetics on NMDA receptors (122), and their actions on NMDA receptors and/or sodium channels may contribute more to their immobilizing capacity than is the case with anesthetics such as isoflurane. As discussed above, both enflurane (45) and ethanol (44) can decrease NMDA-mediated glutamate currents in motor neurons in the spinal cord slice, an effect independent of effects on GABA_A and glycine receptors.

Masaki et al. (123) applied the NMDA antagonist D (-)-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5) intracerebroventricularly and noted a sevoflurane MAC-sparing effect, suggesting a supraspinal effect. Ishizaki et al. (124,125) found a maximal decrease of 30% in isoflurane MAC in rats given intrathecal bolus doses of the NMDA antagonists AP5, MK-801, CPP, and 7CKA. McFarlane et al. (126) reported an 80% decrease in MAC of halothane from IV application of the competitive NMDA receptor antagonist CGS 19755.

MK-801 administration to rats decreases isoflurane MAC, and the decrease primarily correlates with MK-801 concentrations in the spinal cord, rather than whole brain or cerebral cortex concentrations, a finding consistent with mediation of the decreased MAC by the cord (50). Do inhaled anesthetics produce effects similar to MK-801: do they block NMDA receptors so as to produce immobility (i.e., do NMDA receptors in the spinal cord directly mediate MAC)?

Temporal summation is the cumulative effect of a succession of repeated stimuli presented at sufficiently close intervals (127). Phrased another way, a shortening of the intervals between stimuli increases the collective stimulation and is more likely to provoke a response. In vitro, blocking NMDA receptors blocks temporal summation, indicating that NMDA receptors lie in the pathway that mediates temporal summation (128). These observations suggest that persistence of temporal summation during anesthetic administration reflects intact NMDA receptor function. Studies with isoflurane suggest that approximately 40% of the generation of movement evoked by noxious stimulation (MAC) depends on the interstimulus interval, suggesting the persistence of temporal summation and transmission via NMDA pathways (Fig. 8). Strengthening this interpretation, if temporal summation persists, then the administration of the NMDA blocker MK-801 should abolish summation, and that is what appears to occur (Fig. 8). Also consistent with the interpretation that isoflurane does not block temporal summation, electrophysiologic studies of neuronal windup show that temporal summation can occur during anesthesia (129). However, another interpretation is possible: perhaps isoflurane causes suppression of NMDA receptor transmission, and blockade with MK-801 simply substitutes for the blockade produced by isoflurane.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 8. Isoflurane concentrations (mean ± SD) required to produce immobility in response to noxious stimulation (intermittent 50-V, 0.5-ms square-wave pulses) increase with decreasing interstimulus interval (ISI) (127). The concentration required to suppress movement at an ISI of 0.1 s does not differ from the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC). MK-801 (an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist that impairs temporal summation) administration added to isoflurane administration prevents shorter ISIs from provoking movement at larger isoflurane concentrations.

In summary, evidence suggesting the importance of NMDA receptors to MAC include the observations that (1) in vitro, inhaled anesthetics can block NMDA receptors; (2) blockade of NMDA receptors (e.g., with MK-801) decreases MAC; and (3) this decrease in MAC correlates with the concentration of MK-801 in the lower part of the spinal cord. However, studies indicating that temporal summation persists during isoflurane anesthesia and that MK-801 blocks such summation argue against a role for NMDA receptors as mediators of isoflurane MAC. Conversely, the contrasting data for xenon and isoflurane suggest the possibility that NMDA receptors might mediate a portion of the capacity of some anesthetics (xenon), but not others (isoflurane), to produce immobility. None of these results excludes a role for NMDA receptors in the mediation of other aspects of anesthesia, including the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to impair learning and memory (i.e., produce amnesia).

AMPA Receptors.
AMPA receptors mediate the fast (initial) component of excitatory postsynaptic transmission and provide plausible targets for volatile anesthetics. Such fast transmission contrasts with the slower (later) excitatory transmission mediated by NMDA receptors. Competitive antagonists for AMPA receptors, administered IV (130) or intrathecally (124), markedly decrease the concentration of halothane that causes immobility, findings consistent with the mediation of anesthetic-induced immobility by AMPA receptors. However, although showing that movement requires AMPA receptor function, these results do not prove or disprove that anesthetics impair AMPA receptor function. Indeed, one study found that intrathecal antagonists fail to affect isoflurane MAC (131), but this study used smaller doses of antagonist than in the study that did show a decrease.

In vitro electrophysiologic studies demonstrate that volatile anesthetics inhibit AMPA-mediated excitatory postsynaptic currents, that enflurane inhibits the postsynaptic action of glutamate on AMPA receptors in mouse spinal cord (45), and that halothane similarly affects the hippocampus at larger MAC values (25). Also, clinically relevant concentrations of volatile anesthetics partially inhibit native and recombinant AMPA receptors activated by exogenous agonists (45,87,132–134). Whether minor inhibition of AMPA receptors materially influences neuronal network activity remains unclear.

Genetically modified mice provide insights into the importance of inhibition of AMPA receptors to volatile anesthetic actions. GluR1–4 subunit combinations form AMPA receptors. Mice lacking the GluR2 subunit have inconsistent phenotypic responses to inhaled anesthetics. They show a greater sensitivity to halothane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane than wild-type littermates for loss of the righting reflex and antinociception but no difference in MAC (133). In electrophysiologic studies, clinical concentrations of isoflurane and halothane minimally inhibit AMPA receptors (both GluR2-containing and -deficient) (133). Therefore, blockade of AMPA receptors cannot underlie enhanced sensitivity (for righting reflex and antinociception) in GluR2 knockout mice. Other evidence suggests that decreased excitatory neurotransmission due to altered AMPA receptor kinetics renders GluR2-deficient neurons more sensitive to anesthetics acting on other target receptors (135).

Thus, studies using GluR2 knockout mice support the postulate that different neuronal circuits mediate MAC versus antinociception and loss of the righting reflex (133). Motor neurons in the ventral spinal cord (i.e., that might mediate MAC) lack GluR2 subunits (136–138), but neurons that mediate the righting reflex and nociception do express GluR2-containing AMPA receptors. Thus, knockout of the GluR2-containing receptors should not change MAC but might change the righting reflex and antinociception. Furthermore, neuronal circuits in the spinal cord that mediate MAC do not appear to require the GluR2 subunit. In summary, although in vivo data suggest that ablation of the GluR2 subunit does not affect MAC, this cannot exclude the possibility that other subunits of AMPA receptors contribute to MAC.

Kainate Receptors.
Combinations of GluR5–7, KA1, and KA2 subunits form the kainate subtype of ionotropic glutamate receptors (139). In vitro, inhaled anesthetics enhance currents mediated by kainate receptors containing GluR6 (51). However, GluR6 knockout mice have a normal isoflurane MAC (Sonner, unpublished data). These findings are difficult to interpret because kainate receptors can be assembled from other kainate subunits, even in the absence of the GluR6 subunit. Perhaps other forms of GluR6 mutation, such as GluR6 editing mutant mice (140), will provide insights that a knockout may not. Presently, the importance of kainate receptors to MAC remains speculative.

Sodium Channels.
A lingering dogma asserts that clinical concentrations of inhaled anesthetics do not block axonal conduction and, thus, voltage-dependent sodium channels. However, more recent data show that anesthetics can inhibit presynaptic terminal release of neurotransmitters, particularly glutamate (141). Inhibition of these presynaptic sodium channels could produce this action. A tantalizing finding is that systemic injection of lidocaine decreases MAC in animals (142,143) and humans (144). The effect has a floor (a maximum decrease of 40%–50%) (143) and thus cannot simply result from blockade of all nerve conduction.

Molecular cloning provides a basis for reconciling old ideas about axon conduction with anesthetic inhibition of sodium channel function. Cloning reveals nine different sodium channel subunits and three ß subunits differentially localized in the brain and the periphery. Different members of this family may vary in their anesthetic sensitivity. Several volatile anesthetics, including 1A, or F3, may inhibit synaptosomal sodium channels (141,145–156), but the nonimmobilizer 2N, or F6, does not inhibit (157). Thus, sodium channels pass this test of anesthetic relevance. Studies of volatile anesthetic action on cloned sodium channels show somewhat divergent results that, in part, may be due to differences in the origin (neural versus nonneural origin of the channel) (148,158,159).

Thus, consistent with the notion that sodium channels directly mediate anesthesia, several inhaled anesthetics, but not the nonimmobilizer F6, inhibit sodium channels. Key questions remain: which sodium channel subunits exhibit sensitivity or resistance to anesthetics, and what is the neuroanatomical localization of the sensitive channels? Finally, what is the mechanism of channel inhibition—do anesthetics act directly on the protein or act through protein kinase C (PKC) or other modulators?

Metabotropic Receptors
Much of the preceding discussion focused on ion channels because so much is known about inhaled anesthetic effects on these receptors. In contrast to ion channels, metabotropic receptors act through second messengers released by an intracellular component such as the G-protein coupled to the receptor (160). Often, these effects are prolonged, lasting seconds to minutes. They influence the electrophysiologic properties of a neuron, including membrane resting potentials (160). As noted below, changes in some of these receptors (e.g., 5-HT₂, opioid, and ₂ adrenoreceptors) can significantly decrease MAC. However, of these examples, only the 5-HT₂ receptor might directly mediate the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility.

Neuronal Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors.
Isoflurane inhibits muscarinic receptors through the activation of PKC (117). If muscarinic antagonism by volatile anesthetics decreases motor responses to noxious stimulation, muscarinic antagonists (e.g., atropine or scopolamine) given to rats should, but do not (Fig. 7), decrease the volatile anesthetic concentrations required to produce immobility (43), and intrathecal administration of atropine does not alter the MAC of isoflurane (43). Even the combination of muscarinic and nicotinic blocking drugs does not change MAC (Fig. 7). Thus, the hypothesis that cholinergic inhibition by volatile compounds mediates anesthetic-induced immobility cannot be correct.

Opioid Receptors.
Analgesia constitutes a nominal, albeit sometimes contested, feature of the anesthesia provided by inhaled anesthetics. Thus, it would be reasonable to suppose that inhaled anesthetics enhance the release of endogenous opioids and that this release contributes to the anesthetic state. However, inhaled anesthetics do not appear to increase endogenous opioids in cerebrospinal fluid (161), and they do not suppress autonomic or ventilatory responses to surgical stimulation at concentrations that suppress movement (162). Also, small doses of opioids markedly decrease inhaled anesthetic concentrations that prevent movement (163). That is, the opioids supply something (analgesia) that inhaled anesthetics do not. Finally, the administration of enormous doses of naloxone, a drug that blocks the effect of opioids, has no effect on the MAC of halothane (Fig. 9) (164) or nitrous oxide (165) in rodents.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 9. In rats, the administration of enormous doses of naloxone, a drug that blocks the effect of opioids, does not increase (or decrease) the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of halothane (164). If opioid receptors mediated the effect of inhaled anesthetics, administration of naloxone would be expected to increase MAC. Parallel findings of lack of an effect of naloxone have been found for nitrous oxide (165).

₂ Adrenoreceptors.

However, depletion of ₂ adrenoreceptors by N-ethoxycarbonyl-2-ethoxy-1,2-dihydroquinoline does not change halothane MAC in rats (167). Also, the -adrenoreceptor-blocking drug tolazoline at a single dose of 5 mg/kg does not affect halothane MAC in dogs (168). Yohimbine 0.8–1.0 mg/kg and atipamezole (-adrenoreceptor-blocking drugs) increase the MAC of isoflurane in rats by approximately 10%, but still larger doses do not increase MAC (177) (Fig. 10). The small (10%) increase in MAC probably results from suppression of the effect of normal tonic stimulation of ₂ adrenoreceptors. Thus, -adrenoreceptors do not mediate the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility in the face of noxious stimulation.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 10. Administration of yohimbine 0.8–1.0 mg/kg and atipamezole (-adrenoreceptor-blocking drugs) increases the minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) of isoflurane in rats by approximately 10%. However, still greater doses do not increase MAC (177). The small (10%) increase in MAC probably results from suppression of the effect of normal tonic stimulation of 2 adrenoreceptors. The absence of a material increase in MAC argues against a role of -adrenoreceptors as mediators of MAC.

Although Dringenberg (188) found no anesthetic effect after intraperitoneal administration of ketanserin 700 µg/kg in sheep, Doherty et al. (189) found that the antagonist R51703 decreased halothane MAC in dogs. Similarly, Zhang et al. (190) found maximum decreases in isoflurane MAC in rats of approximately 60%. Larger doses were lethal. Intrathecal administration of ketanserin produced smaller (20%–25%), but significant, maximum decreases in MAC. These data are consistent with the idea, but do not prove, that 5-HT_2A receptors may directly mediate a small portion of the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility. However, in vitro studies find that the 5-HT₂ receptor is equally affected by the nonimmobilizer F6 and by halothane at concentrations predicted to equal 1 MAC (65).

Other Metabotropic Receptors.
Little is known concerning the capacity of other metabotropic receptors (e.g., GABA_B and neurokinin receptors) (191) to mediate immobility. GABA_B receptor activation can hyperpolarize dorsal horn neurons, produce antinociception, and decrease motor neuron activity (192–195). Although such effects suggest that enhanced GABA_B activity might decrease MAC, the only reported effect is that a GABA_B antagonist did not significantly alter a measure related to MAC (196). However, the dose of antagonist was carefully chosen to avoid touch-evoked allodynia in the awake rat and thus may have been too small to provide an adequate test. The neurokinin-1 receptor and its chief ligand, substance P, mediate nociception. Genetic deletion of this receptor impairs windup of dorsal horn neurons (197). Windup may be defined as an increase in the number of action potentials elicited by each stimulus as a train of stimuli progresses. Impairment of windup may result from suppression of processes involved in temporal summation, an effect that could also decrease MAC (127,198,199). Metabotropic glutamate receptors are less likely to be involved in immobility because the Class I receptors (types 1 and 5), the forms most frequently found in the spinal cord, are equally affected by the nonimmobilizer F6, whereas anesthetics only indirectly affect type 5 and do not affect type 1 (66,191).

	The Place of Molecular Modeling in Future Studies

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
How do anesthetics interact with ion channels? Molecular modeling contributes to theories of anesthesia at three atomic levels: modeling of site-directed mutations, molecular dynamics simulations of anesthetics in membranes, and modeling of the structure of ligand-gated ion channels.

Single amino acid mutations in ligand-gated ion channels can profoundly affect anesthetic potency (68,70,74,200). Although the lack of radiograph structures of ion channels presently thwarts visualization of anesthetic-induced structural changes, three-dimensional models of single amino acid mutations in putative anesthetic targets allow a mechanistic interpretation of the effects of these changes and suggest new mutations (70,201–205). These models allow visualization of complex interactions, such as those of widely separated double mutations (68,70,205), and thereby suggest far more efficient tests than the production of random double mutations.

Secondary structure prediction algorithms indicate that bundles of four helices form the subunits of the transmembrane segment of homopentameric GABA_A receptor ₁ and glycine receptor ₁ ion channels (206). The helical nature of transmembrane segment 2 in these ligand-gated ion channels is consistent with observations of electron density in cryoelectron micrographs of acetylcholine receptors by Unwin et al. (207), with the crystal structures of a four- helical bundle found in a bacterial cytochrome (208) and of a bacterial mechanosensitive ion channel (209). Such considerations led to models of these channels (and others in the "Cys-loop" superfamily) (201,204,208). Cavities in the central axis of these bundles share many properties, including volume and polarity, with binding sites in four-helical bundles engineered by Johansson et al. (210) and Tanner et al. (211). The latter binding sites bind halothane with K_d values close to MAC. Combining five of the four -helix subunits allows formation of a homopentameric ion channel (Fig. 11). The second transmembrane segments of each of the five helices form a central pore with a right-hand supertwist and a funnel shape that is most narrow at the intracellular face (212).

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 11. A molecular model of a transmembrane (TM) segment of a -aminobutyric acid (GABA)A 1 receptor was built by threading the primary sequence of a GABA receptor onto a template of a four-helical bundle found in the three-dimensional structure of cytochrome oxidase (208). The five subunits each are composed of four helices. Four subunit helices are rendered as red cylinders connected by green interhelical loops. Helices show discontinuities at proline residues. The fifth subunit shows the amino acid backbone trace as a yellow ribbon and shows the three amino acid residues most important for modulation of anesthetic potency: L232, S270, and A291 (rendered with a space-filling surface in which the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms are colored green, red, and white, respectively). (a) The transmembrane segment of the receptor from the side in the plane of the membrane and (b) the ion pore of the receptor looking down the fivefold symmetry axis from the extracellular side are shown.

Molecular modeling, combined with x-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) structure determination, can reveal atomic details of ion channel structure and function. The structure of a bacterial mechanosensitive channel provides a template for pentameric ion channels (209) that underlies molecular modeling predictions of the mechanism of channel opening and open state structure (218). By using NMR structures of helices in solution (219,220), several studies modeled the structure of the five helices surrounding the pore in the acetylcholine receptor (220,221). The radiograph structure of the potassium channel (222) permits detailed molecular models of the ion selectivity filter (223,224).

Convergence of the three applications described above may indicate whether single amino acid mutations change alcohol-/anesthetic-binding sites or whether they alter protein stability in a way that allows anesthetic molecules to act remotely by nonspecific mechanisms. At present, considerable evidence indicates that site-directed mutations modify the volume and polarity of specific anesthetic binding sites. Thus, at the level of atomic detail, the binding site in a GABA_{A 1}ß₂₂ receptor will have a different volume and polarity than a similar site in a GABA_{A 1}ß₃₂ receptor. Given sufficient information about the pharmacophores that determine anesthetic binding in a particular cavity, it may be possible to design anesthetic molecules that bind to the former site, but not to the latter. Such a "designer" molecule could offer increased selectivity of regions of the nervous system affected by anesthetics. For example, it might be possible to target receptors present in the spinal cord, but not in the hippocampus.

	The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Results of studies of partially fluorinated series of n-alkanes and alcohols suggest that inhaled anesthetics may produce immobility by concurrent actions on two sites separated by 5 angstroms (225). Five angstroms (fortuitously?) approximates the distance that separates adjacent loops of an helix (226), or the distance between some sites on adjacent transmembrane segments, or the effective pore diameter of glycine and GABA_A receptors (227). The ultimate significance of this finding remains unclear.

	Nonspecific Mechanisms

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
The preceding observations could be interpreted to indicate that actions on ion channels cannot entirely explain the capacity of inhaled anesthetics to produce immobility—although changes in transmission governed by such channels ultimately must underlie this capacity. Several lines of evidence support this minority view. In vitro studies of specific receptors usually demonstrate wide variations in the potencies of different anesthetics: in vitro potencies do not always correlate with MAC (e.g., Fig. 5), and, for a given receptor, different anesthetics may produce opposing effects (stimulation by some and depression by others) (113). Present data support a role for glycine and a few other receptors, but for the most part, such roles are limited. No inhaled anesthetic action on a single receptor can explain immobility, and immobility as a result of concurrent actions on many receptors is unlikely (228), particularly because several proposed candidates now seem less likely (e.g., acetylcholine and GABA_A).

The importance of effects on receptors versus some nonspecific effect may be gauged from Figure 1. Affinity to a lipid phase is a measure of a nonspecific effect. If receptors play a role as mediators, then differences in receptor effects (as determined in vitro) might be reflected in deviations from the correlation with lipophilicity. However, the data illustrated in Figure 1 do not demonstrate marked deviations. The values for cyclopropane and halothane lie equally close to the line, but these anesthetics differ considerably in their in vitro enhancement of glycine receptors. Similarly, benzene and hexafluorobenzene differ in their in vitro capacities to block NMDA receptors (Raines D, unpublished data) but are approximately equidistant from the line of correlation.

If immobility does not result from direct actions on one or many channels, how might it be produced? Have we prematurely discarded nonspecific mechanisms, particularly those involving the membrane bilayer? Cantor (229–231) suggested that there are enormous counterbalancing pressures (averaging approximately 300 atm) within the hydrophobic core of the lipid bilayer of the plasma membrane. These pressures compensate for the attractive interfacial tensions at the aqueous interfaces of the membrane. Variations in the distribution of such pressures, as would accompany the incorporation of gaseous or vapor molecules, are predicted to strongly influence the activity of transmembrane proteins (e.g., ion channels). The changes in activity might produce anesthesia or other CNS effects, such as the convulsions seen with nonimmobilizers. Although Cantor’s predictions have not been adequately tested experimentally, there is some accord with experimental results. The theories predict sigmoidal ion channel dose-response curves, suggesting marked allosteric effects in the absence of protein binding (232). Also, a redistribution of lateral pressures within the membrane in response to a solution of volatile compounds within the membrane can predict the low potency of some compounds that disobey the Meyer-Overton rule (229). Reexamination of observations cited as evidence against indirect mechanisms does not exclude Cantor’s theory. For example, his theory does not predict that increasing temperature should cause anesthesia (229), and small stereoselective effects of anesthetics may be seen with either a protein- or membrane-based mechanism because both proteins and lipids have chiral centers.

Using molecular dynamics simulation, Tang and Xu (233) found that halothane probably does not act on a hydrophobic protein pocket. They suggested that global, rather than local, effects underlie the actions of halothane. Thus, a few investigators still believe that variants of Meyer’s (4) and Overton’s (3) hypothesis may be correct.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 
Our view and knowledge of the mechanisms by which inhaled anesthetics act to produce immobility have expanded in the past two decades. Actions on one or a few spinal cord receptors may underlie immobility. Afferent (sensory) pathways, efferent (motor) pathways, or interneurons might mediate immobility. Because they provide the final common pathway for pain-evoked movement, depression of motor neuron receptors (by pre- and postsynaptic effects on excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission) has received particular study.

Although results from in vitro studies show that relevant concentrations of inhaled anesthetics can modulate ion channels in ways that could cause immobility, only a few plausible candidates may be relevant (Table 3). These include some neurotransmitter-gated ion channels. Molecular, neurophysiologic, and behavioral investigations support a role for glycine receptors (e.g., Fig. 5), but glycinergic effects do not explain most of the immobilizing action of any inhaled anesthetic. The putative binding site underlying the enhancement of glycine receptors by inhaled anesthetics lies near the extracellular membrane interface.

NMDA receptors may be candidate targets of volatile anesthetic action. Kainate receptors probably are not targets because in vitro effects require large anesthetic concentrations. The same may be said of AMPA receptors. The lack of effect of a knockout of an AMPA receptor GluR2 subunit on MAC adds to this conclusion, but, of itself, such a lack may not be sufficiently defining, because ventral horn (but not dorsal horn) neurons lack GluR2.

Blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels by inhaled anesthetics may produce presynaptic effects that underlie MAC. Enhancement of potassium channel function also has not been excluded as a possible mechanism, although negative studies in one knockout animal and with a nonspecific KCNK channel activator call into question the relevance of these channels. However, characterization of anesthetic effects on K channels has been performed for only a few members of this large family.

Combined pharmacologic and genetic approaches allow a determination of the likely relevance of specific ion channels as mediators of MAC. Several receptors and ion channels previously thought to be likely candidates (acetylcholine, GABA_A, 5-HT₃, ₂-adrenergic, and opioid receptors and potassium channels) now seem less likely (but some may be crucial to other aspects of anesthesia, such as amnesia); glycine and NMDA receptors and sodium channels seem more likely candidates. Developments in the next few years should lead to a definitive understanding of how inhaled anesthetics produce immobility.

	Acknowledgments

 
This work was supported by National Institute of General Medical Sciences Grant 1P01GM47818.

	Footnotes

 
Dr. Eger is a paid consultant to Baxter Healthcare Corp.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction The Spinal Cord as... What Has Been Learned... What Do In Vitro... Genetic Engineering: Definitions... What Do In Vivo... The Place of Molecular... The 5-Angstrom Hypothesis Nonspecific Mechanisms Conclusions References

 

1. Jurd R, Arras M, Lambert S, et al. General anesthetic actions in vivo strongly attenuated by a point mutation in the GABA(A) receptor beta3 subunit. FASEB J 2003; 17: 250–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Merkel G, Eger EI II. A comparative study of halothane and halopropane anesthesia: including a method for determining equipotency. Anesthesiology 1963; 24: 346–57.[Web of Science][Medline]
3. Overton E. Studien über die Narkose, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Pharmakologie. Jena, Germany: Gustav Fischer, 1901: 1–195.
4. Meyer HH. Theorie der Alkoholnarkose. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 1899; 42: 109–18.
5. Koblin DD, Chortkoff BS, Laster MJ, et al. Polyhalogenated and perfluorinated compounds that disobey the Meyer-Overton hypothesis. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 1043–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Taheri S, Halsey MJ, Liu J, et al. What solvent best represents the site of action of inhaled anesthetics in humans, rats and dogs? Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 627–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Gonsowski CT, Eger EI II. Nitrous oxide minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration in rats is greater than previously reported. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 710–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Fang Z, Sonner J, Laster MJ, et al. Anesthetic and convulsant properties of aromatic compounds and cycloalkanes: implications for mechanisms of narcosis. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 1097–104.[Abstract]
9. Koblin DD, Fang Z, Eger EI II, et al. Minimum alveolar concentrations (MACs) of noble gases, nitrogen, and sulfur hexafluoride in rats: helium and neon as nonimmobilizers (nonanesthetics). Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 419–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Trudell JR. A unitary theory of anesthesia based on lateral phase separations in nerve membranes. Anesthesiology 1977; 46: 5–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. Rosenberg PH, Jansson SE, Gripenberg J. Effects of halothane, thiopental, and lidocaine on fluidity of synaptic plasma membranes and artificial phospholipid membranes. Anesthesiology 1977; 46: 322–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. Ueda I, Shieh DD, Eyring H. Anesthetic interaction with a model cell membrane: expansion, phase transition, and melting of the lecithin monolayer. Anesthesiology 1974; 41: 217–25.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Trudell JR, Hubbell WL, Cohen EN. The effect of two inhalation anesthetics on the order of spin-labeled phospholipid vesicles. Biochim Biophys Acta 1973; 291: 321–7.[Medline]
14. Miller KW, Pang K-YY. General anaesthetics can selectively perturb lipid bilayer membranes. Nature 1976; 263: 253–5.[Medline]
15. Eger EI II, Saidman LJ, Brandstater B. Temperature dependence of halothane and cyclopropane anesthesia in dogs: correlation with some theories of anesthetic action. Anesthesiology 1965; 26: 764–70.[Web of Science][Medline]
16. Fang ZX, Ionescu P, Chortkoff BS, et al. Anesthetic potencies of n-alkanols: results of additivity studies suggest a mechanism of action similar to that for conventional inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 1042–8.[Abstract]
17. Cromwell TH, Eger EI II, Stevens WC, Dolan WM. Forane uptake, excretion and blood solubility in man. Anesthesiology 1971; 35: 401–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
18. White PF, Johnston RR, Eger EI II. Determination of anesthetic requirement in rats. Anesthesiology 1974; 40: 52–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Vitez TS, White PF, Eger EI II. Effects of hypothermia on halothane MAC and isoflurane MAC in the rat. Anesthesiology 1974; 41: 80–1.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Strum DP, Eger EI II. Partition coefficients for sevoflurane in human blood, saline, and olive oil. Anesth Analg 1987; 66: 654–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Kashimoto S, Furuya A, Nonaka A, et al. The minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane in rats. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997; 14: 359–61.[Web of Science][Medline]
22. Crawford M, Lerman J, Saldivia V, Carmichael F. Hemodynamic and organ blood flow responses to halothane and sevoflurane anesthesia during spontaneous ventilation. Anesth Analg 1992; 75: 1000–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Franks NP, Lieb WR. Do general anaesthetics act by competitive binding to specific receptors? Nature 1984; 310: 599–601.[Medline]
24. Perouansky M, Kirson ED, Yaari Y. Presynaptic and postsynaptic actions of halothane at glutamatergic synapses in the mouse hippocampus. Br J Pharmacol 1996; 124: 1607–14.
25. Perouansky M, Kirson ED, Yaari Y. Mechanism of action of volatile anesthetics: effects of halothane on glutamate receptors in vitro. Toxicol Lett 1998; 100–1: 65–9.
26. MacIver MB. General anesthetic actions on transmission at glutamate and GABA synapses. In: Biebuyck JF, Lynch C III, Maze M, et al., eds. Anesthesia: biological foundations. New York: Lippincott-Raven, 1997: 277–86.
27. Pashkov VN, Westphalen RI, Hemmings HC Jr. General anesthetics do not affect release of the neuropeptide cholecystokinin from isolated rat cortical nerve terminals. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1500–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
28. Antognini JF, Schwartz K. Exaggerated anesthetic requirements in the preferentially anesthetized brain. Anesthesiology 1993; 79: 1244–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
29. Antognini JF, Carstens E, Atherley R. Does the immobilizing effect of thiopental in brain exceed that of halothane? Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 980–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
30. Borges M, Antognini JF. Does the brain influence somatic responses to noxious stimuli during isoflurane anesthesia? Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 1511–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Rampil IJ, Mason P, Singh H. Anesthetic potency (MAC) is independent of forebrain structures in the rat. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 707–12.[Web of Science][Medline]
32. Rampil IJ. Anesthetic potency is not altered after hypothermic spinal cord transection in rats. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 606–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Rampil IJ, Laster MJ. No correlation between quantitative electroencephalographic measurements and movement response to noxious stimuli during isoflurane anesthesia in rats. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 920–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. Jinks SL, Martin JT, Carstens E, et al. Peri-MAC depression of a nociceptive withdrawal reflex is accompanied by reduced dorsal horn activity with halothane but not isoflurane. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 1128–38.[Web of Science][Medline]
35. King BS, Rampil IJ. Anesthetic depression of spinal motor neurons may contribute to lack of movement in response to noxious stimuli. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 1484–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
36. Rampil IJ, King BS. Volatile anesthetics depress spinal motor neurons. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 129–34.[Web of Science][Medline]
37. Zhou HH, Jin TT, Qin B, Turndorf H. Suppression of spinal cord motoneuron excitability correlates with surgical immobility during isoflurane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 955–61.[Web of Science][Medline]
38. Kendig JJ, Kodde A, Gibbs LM, et al. Correlates of anesthetic properties in isolated spinal cord: cyclobutanes. Eur J Pharmacol 1994; 264: 427–36.[Web of Science][Medline]
39. Savola MK, Woodley SJ, Maze M, Kendig JJ. Isoflurane and an alpha2-adrenoceptor agonist suppress nociceptive neurotransmission in neonatal rat spinal cord. Anesthesiology 1991; 75: 489–98.[Web of Science][Medline]
40. Wong SME, Fong E, Tauck DL, Kendig JJ. Ethanol as a general anesthetic: actions in spinal cord. Eur J Pharmacol 1997; 329: 121–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
41. Wong SME, Cheng G, Homanics G, Kendig JJ. Enflurane actions on spinal cords from mice that lack the beta3 subunit of the GABA(A) receptor. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 154–64.[Web of Science][Medline]
42. Flood P, Sonner JM, Gong D, Coates KM. Heteromeric nicotinic inhibition by isoflurane does not mediate MAC or loss of righting reflex. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 902–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
43. Eger EI II, Zhang Y, Laster MJ, et al. Acetylcholine receptors do not mediate the immobilization produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 1500–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Wang MY, Rampil IJ, Kendig JJ. Ethanol directly depresses AMPA and NMDA glutamate currents in spinal cord motor neurons independent of actions on GABA_A or glycine receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999; 290: 362–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Cheng G, Kendig JJ. Enflurane directly depresses glutamate AMPA and NMDA currents in mouse spinal cord motor neurons independent of actions on GABA_A or glycine receptors. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1075–84.[Web of Science][Medline]
46. Cheng G, Kendig JJ. Pre- and postsynaptic volatile anaesthetic actions on glycinergic transmission to spinal cord motor neurons. Br J Pharmacol 2002; 136: 673–84.[Web of Science][Medline]
47. Cheng G, Kendig JJ. Enflurane decreases glutamate neurotransmission to spinal cord motor neurons by both pre- and postsynaptic actions. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1354–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Krasowski M, Jenkins A, Flood P, et al. General anesthetic potencies of a series of propofol analogs correlate with potency for potentiation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) current at the GABA(A) receptor but not with lipid solubility. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2001; 297: 338–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
49. Flood P, Krasowski MD. Intravenous anesthetics differentially modulate ligand-gated ion channels. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 1418–25.[Web of Science][Medline]
50. Stabernack C, Sonner JM, Laster M, et al. Spinal NMDA receptors may contribute to the immobilizing action of isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 102–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Minami K, Wick MJ, Stern-Bach Y, et al. Sites of volatile anesthetic action on kainate (glutamate receptor 6) receptors. J Biol Chem 1998; 273: 8248–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Tanelian DL, Kosek P, Mody I, MacIver MB. The role of the GABA_A receptor/chloride channel complex in anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 757–76.[Web of Science][Medline]
53. Whiting PJ, McKernan RM, Wafford KA. Structure and pharmacology of vertebrate GABA_A receptor subtypes. In: Bradley RJ, Harris RA, eds. International review of neurobiology. San Diego: Academic Press, 1995: 95.
54. McKernan RM, Whiting PJ. Which GABAa-receptor subtypes really occur in the brain? Trends Neurosci 1996; 19: 139–43.[Web of Science][Medline]
55. Sieghart W. Structure and pharmacology of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor subtypes. Pharmacol Rev 1995; 47: 181–234.[Web of Science][Medline]
56. Rajendra S, Schofield PR. Molecular mechanisms of inherited startle syndromes. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18: 80–2.[Web of Science][Medline]
57. Betz H. Glycine receptors: heterogenous and widespread in the mammalian brain. Trends Neurosci 1991; 14: 458–61.[Web of Science][Medline]
58. Betz H. Ligand-gated ion channels in the brain: the amino acid receptor superfamily. Neuron 1990; 5: 383–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
59. Harris RA, Mihic SJ, Dildy-Mayfield JE, Machu TK. Actions of anesthetics on ligand-gated ion channels: role of receptor subunit composition. FASEB J 1995; 9: 1454–62.[Abstract]
60. Downie DL, Hall AC, Lieb WR, Franks NP. Effects of inhalational general anaesthetics on native glycine receptors in rat medullary neurones and recombinant glycine receptors in Xenopus oocytes. Br J Pharmacol 1996; 118: 493–502.[Web of Science][Medline]
61. Mascia MP, Machu TK, Harris RA. Enhancement of homomeric glycine receptor function by long-chain alcohols and anaesthetics. Br J Pharmacol 1996; 119: 1331–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
62. Harrison NL, Kugler JL, Jones MV, et al. Positive modulation of human gamma-aminobutyric acid type A and glycine receptors by the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane. Mol Pharmacol 1993; 44: 628–32.[Abstract]
63. Zimmerman SA, Jones MV, Harrison NL. Potentiation of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor Cl^- current correlates with in vivo anesthetic potency. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 270: 987–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Mihic SJ, McQuilkin SJ, Eger EI II, et al. Potentiation of gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor-mediated chloride currents by novel halogenated compounds correlates with their abilities to induce general anesthesia. Mol Pharmacol 1994; 46: 851–7.[Abstract]
65. Minami K, Minami M, Harris RA. Inhibition of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 2A receptor-induced currents by n-alcohols and anesthetics. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997; 281: 1136–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
66. Minami K, Gereau RW, Minami M, et al. Effects of ethanol and anesthetics on type 1 and 5 metabotropic glutamate receptors expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Mol Pharmacol 1998; 53: 148–56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Mihic SJ, Harris RA. Inhibition of r1 receptor GABAergic currents by alcohol and volatile anesthetics. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996; 277: 411–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. Mihic SJ, Ye Q, Wick MJ, et al. Sites of alcohol and volatile anaesthetic action on GABA_A and glycine receptors. Nature 1997; 389: 385–9.[Medline]
69. Jenkins A, Andreasen A, Trudell JR, Harrison NL. Tryptophan scanning mutagenesis in TM4 of the GABAa receptor alpha1 subunit: implications for modulation by inhaled anesthetics and ion channel structure. Neuropharmacology 2002; 43: 669–78.[Web of Science][Medline]
70. Jenkins A, Greenblatt EP, Faulkner HJ, et al. Evidence for a common binding cavity for three general anesthetics within the GABA_A receptor. J Neurosci 2001; 21: RC136.
71. Pohorille A, Cieplak P, Wilson MA. Interactions of anesthetics with the membrane-water interface. Chem Phys 1996; 204: 337–45.[Web of Science][Medline]
72. Pohorille A, Wilson MA, Cieplak P. Interaction of alcohols and anesthetics with the water-hexane interface: a molecular dynamics study. Prog Colloid Polym Sci 1997; 103: 29–40.
73. Mascia MP, Gong D, Eger EI II, Harris RA. The anesthetic potency of propanol and butanol versus propanethiol and butanethiol in alpha1 wild type and alpha1(S267Q) glycine receptors. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1289–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
74. Mascia MP, Trudell JR, Harris RA. Specific binding sites for alcohols and anesthetics on ligand-gated ion channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97: 9305–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
75. Sanna E, Murgia A, Casula A, Biggio G. Differential subunit dependence of the actions of the general anesthetics alphaxalone and etomidate at gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptors expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes. Mol Pharmacol 1997; 51: 484–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
76. Johnson JW, Ascher P. Glycine potentiates the NMDA response in cultured mouse brain neurons. Nature 1987; 325: 529–31.[Medline]
77. Meguro H, Mori H, Araki K, et al. Functional characterization of a heteromeric NMDA receptor channel expressed from cloned cDNAs. Nature 1992; 357: 70–4.[Medline]
78. Monyer H, Sprengel R, Schoepfer R, et al. Heteromeric NMDA receptors: molecular and functional distinction of subtypes. Science 1992; 256: 1217–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
79. Chatterton J, Awobuluyi M, Premkumar LS, et al. Excitatory glycine receptors containing the NR3 family of NMDA receptor subunits. Nature 2002; 415: 793–8.[Medline]
80. Mori H, Mishina M. Structure and function of the NMDA receptor channel. Neuropharmacology 1995; 34: 1219–37.[Web of Science][Medline]
81. Ciabarra AM, Sullivan JM, Gahn LG, et al. Cloning and characterization of chi-1: a developmentally regulated member of a novel class of the ionotropic glutamate receptor family. J Neurosci 1995; 15: 6498–508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
82. Sucher NJ, Akbarian S, Chi CL, et al. Developmental and regional expression pattern of a novel NMDA receptor-like subunit (NMDAR-L) in the rodent brain. J Neurosci 1995; 15: 6509–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
83. Hollmann MW, Liu HT, Hoenemann CW, et al. Modulation of NMDA receptor function by ketamine and magnesium. II. Interactions with volatile anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 1182–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
84. Lin LH, Chen LL, Harris RA. Enflurane inhibits NMDA, AMPA, and kainate-induced currents in Xenopus oocytes expressing mouse and human brain mRNA. FASEB J 1993; 7: 479–85.[Abstract]
85. Hara K, Eger EI II, Laster MJ, Harris RA. Nonhalogenated alkanes cyclopropane and butane affect neurotransmitter-gated ion channel and G-protein-coupled receptors: differential actions on GABA(A) and glycine receptors. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1512–20.[Web of Science][Medline]
86. Hara K, Harris RA. The anesthetic mechanism of urethane: the effects on neurotransmitter-gated ion channels. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 313–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
87. Yamakura T, Harris RA. Effects of gaseous anesthetics nitrous oxide and xenon on ligand-gated ion channels: comparison with isoflurane and ethanol. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1095–101.[Web of Science][Medline]
88. McKernan RM, Rosahl TW, Reynolds DS, et al. Sedative but not anxiolytic properties of benzodiazepines are mediated by the GABA(A) receptor alpha1 subtype. Nat Neurosci 2000; 3: 587–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
89. Rudolph U, Crestani F, Benke D, et al. Benzodiazepine actions mediated by specific gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) receptor subtypes. Nature 1999; 401: 796–800.[Medline]
90. Jurd R, Arras M, Lambert S, et al. General anesthetic actions in vivo strongly attenuated by a point mutation in the GABA_A receptor beta3 subunit. FASEB J 2003; 17: 250–2.
91. Homanics GE. Knockout and knockin mice. In: Liu Y, Lovinger DM, eds. Methods for alcohol-related neuroscience research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002: 31–60.
92. Tsein JZ, Huerta PT, Tonegawa S. The essential role of hippocampal CA1 NMDA receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity in spatial memory. Cell 1996; 87: 1327–38.[Web of Science][Medline]
93. Rudolph U, Crestani F, Mohler H. GABA(A) receptor subtypes: dissecting their pharmacological functions. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2001; 22: 188–94.[Medline]
94. Harrison NL, Homanics GE. Production and characterization of knockin mice containing a serine to histidine mutation at position 270 of the alpha 1 subunit of the GABAa receptor [abstract]. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2001; 25: A38.
95. Sonner JM, Zhang Y, Stabernack C, et al. GABA(A) receptor blockade antagonizes the immobilizing action of propofol but not ketamine or isoflurane in a dose-related manner. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 706–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
96. Zhang Y, Wu S, Eger EI II, Sonner JM. Neither GABA(A) nor strychnine-sensitive glycine receptors are the sole mediators of MAC for isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 123–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
97. Zhang Y, Laster MJ, Hara K, et al. Glycine receptors may mediate part of the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 97–101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
98. Zhang Y, Sonner JM, Eger EI II, et al. GABAA receptors do not mediate the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg. In press.
99. Kingsmore S, Giros B, Suh D, et al. Glycine receptor beta-subunit gene mutation in spastic mouse associated with LINE-1 element insertion. Nat Genet 1994; 7: 136–41.[Web of Science][Medline]
100. Quinlan JJ, Ferguson C, Jester K, et al. Mice with glycine receptor subunit mutations are both sensitive and resistant to volatile anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 578–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
101. Ryan SG, Buckwalter MS, Lynch JW, et al. A missense mutation in the gene encoding the alpha 1 subunit of the inhibitory glycine receptor in the spasmodic mouse. Nat Genet 1994; 7: 131–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
102. Quinlan JJ, Homanics GE, Firestone LL. Anesthesia sensitivity in mice that lack the beta3 subunit of the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 775–80.[Web of Science][Medline]
103. Eger EI II, Ionescu P, Laster MJ, et al. MAC of fluorinated alkanols in rats: relevance to theories of narcosis. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 867–76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
104. Ueno S, Trudell JR, Eger EI II, Harris RA. Actions of fluorinated alkanols on GABAA receptors: relevance to theories of narcosis. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 877–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
105. Jones MV, Brooks PA, Harrison NL. Enhancement of gamma-aminobutyric acid-activated Cl^- currents in cultured rat hippocampal neurones by three volatile anaesthetics. J Physiol (Lond) 1992; 449: 279–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
106. Franks NP, Lieb WR. Volatile general anaesthetics activate a novel neuronal K⁺ current. Nature 1988; 333: 662–4.[Medline]
107. Gray AT, Winegar BD, Leonoudakis DJ, et al. TOK1 is a volatile anesthetic stimulated K⁺ channel. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1076–84.[Web of Science][Medline]
108. Patel AJ, Honore E, Lesage F, et al. Inhalational anesthetics activate two-pore-domain background K⁺ channels. Nat Neurosci 1999; 2: 422–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
109. Sirois JE, Lynch C III, Bayliss DA. Convergent and reciprocal modulation of a leak K(+) current and I(h) by an inhalational anaesthetic and neurotransmitters in rat brainstem motoneurones. J Physiol 2002; 541: 717–29.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
110. Yost CS. Tandem pore domain K channels: an important site of volatile anesthetic action? Curr Drug Targets 2000; 1: 207–17.[Medline]
111. Gerstin KM, Gong DH, Abdallah M, et al. Mutation of KCNK5 or Kir3.2 potassium channels in mice does not change minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1345–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
112. Machu TK, Harris RA. Alcohols and anesthetics enhance the function of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptors expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 271: 898–905.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
113. Suzuki T, Koyama H, Sugimoto M, et al. The diverse actions of volatile and gaseous anesthetics on human-cloned 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 699–704.[Web of Science][Medline]
114. Rampil IJ, Laster MJ, Eger EI II. Ondansetron does not alter isoflurane MAC in rats. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 562–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
115. Lysko GS, Robinson JL, Casto R, Ferrone RA. The stereospecific effects of isoflurane isomers in vivo. Eur J Pharmacol 1994; 263: 25–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
116. Franks NP, Lieb WR. Stereospecific effects of inhalational general anesthetic optical isomers on nerve ion channels. Science 1991; 254: 427–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
117. Do SH, Kamatachi GL, Durieux ME. The effects of isoflurane on native and chimeric muscarinic acetylcholine receptors: the role of protein kinase C. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 375–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
118. Raines DE, Claycomb RJ, Forman SA. Nonhalogenated anesthetic alkanes and perhalogenated nonimmobilizing alkanes inhibit alpha4beta2 neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 573–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
119. Boulter J, Hollmann M, O’Shea-Greenfield A, et al. Molecular cloning and functional expression of glutamate receptor subunit genes. Science 1990; 31: 1033–7.
120. Hollmann M, Heinemann S. Cloned glutamate receptors. Annu Rev Neurosci 1994; 17: 31–108.[Web of Science][Medline]
121. Martin DC, Plagenhoef M, Abraham J, et al. Volatile anesthetics and glutamate activation of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. Biochem Pharmacol 1995; 49: 809–17.[Web of Science][Medline]
122. de Sousa LM, Dickinson R, Lieb WR, Franks NP. Contrasting synaptic actions of the inhalational general anesthetics isoflurane and xenon. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 1055–66.[Web of Science][Medline]
123. Masaki E, Yamazaki K, Ohno Y, et al. The anesthetic interaction between adenosine triphosphate and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists in the rat. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 134–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
124. Ishizaki K, Yoon DM, Yoshida N, et al. Intrathecal administration of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist reduces the minimum alveolar anaesthetic concentration of isoflurane in rats. Br J Anaesth 1995; 75: 636–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
125. Ishizaki K, Yoshida N, Yoon DM, et al. Intrathecally administered NMDA receptor antagonists reduce the MAC of isoflurane in rats. Can J Anaesth 1996; 43: 724–30.[Web of Science][Medline]
126. McFarlane C, Warner DS, Dexter F. Interactions between NMDA and AMPA glutamate receptor antagonists during halothane anesthesia in the rat. Neuropharmacology 1995; 34: 659–63.[Web of Science][Medline]
127. Dutton RC, Zhang Y, Stabernack CR, et al. Temporal summation governs part of the minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 1372–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
128. Woolf CJ, Thompson SWN. The induction and maintenance of central sensitization is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor activation: implications for the treatment of post-injury pain hypersensitivity states. Pain 1991; 44: 293–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
129. Dickenson AH, Sullivan AF. Electrophysiologic studies on the effects of intrathecal morphine on nociceptive neurons in the rat dorsal horn. Pain 1986; 24: 211–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
130. McFarlane C, Warner DS, Todd MM, Nordholm L. AMPA receptor competitive antagonism reduces halothane MAC in rats. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 1165–70.[Web of Science][Medline]
131. Ishizaki K, Sasaki M, Karasawa S, et al. Intrathecal co-administration of NMDA antagonist and NK-1 antagonist reduces MAC of isoflurane in rats. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999; 43: 753–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
132. Carla V, Moroni F. General anaesthetics inhibit the responses induced by glutamate receptor agonists in the mouse cortex. Neurosci Lett 1992; 146: 21–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
133. Joo DT, Gong D, Sonner JM, et al. Blockade of AMPA receptors and volatile anesthetics: reduced anesthetic requirements in GluR2 null mutant mice for loss of the righting reflex and antinociception but not minimum alveolar concentration. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 478–88.[Web of Science][Medline]
134. Nishikawa K, MacIver MB. Excitatory synaptic transmission mediated by NMDA receptors is more sensitive to isoflurane than are non-NMDA receptor-mediated responses. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 228–36.[Web of Science][Medline]
135. Orser BA, Joo DT, Zhu G, et al. Increased desensitization of AMPA receptors may cause hypersensitivity to anesthetics in GluT2 null mutant mice. In: Urban BW, Barann M, eds. Molecular and basic mechanisms of anesthetics. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers. In press.
136. Bar-Peled O, O’Brien RJ, Morrison JH, Rothstein JD. Cultured motor neurons possess calcium-permeable AMPA/kainate receptors. Neuroreport 1999; 10: 855–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
137. Van Damme P, Van Den Bosch L, Van Houtte E, et al. GluR2-dependent properties of AMPA receptors determine the selective vulnerability of motor neurons to excitotoxicity. J Neurophysiol 2002; 88: 1279–87.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
138. Petralia RS, Wang YX, Mayat E, Wenthold RJ. Glutamate receptor subunit 2-selective antibody shows a differential distribution of calcium-impermeable AMPA receptors among populations of neurons. J Comp Neurol 1997; 385: 456–76.[Web of Science][Medline]
139. Dingledine R, Borges K, Bowie D, Traynelis SF. The glutamate receptor ion channels. Pharmacol Rev 1999; 51: 7–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
140. Vissel B, Royle GA, Christie BR, et al. The role of RNA editing of kainate receptors in synaptic plasticity and seizures. Neuron 2001; 29: 217–27.[Web of Science][Medline]
141. Lingamaneni R, Birch ML, Hemmings HC Jr. Widespread inhibition of sodium channel-dependent glutamate release from isolated nerve terminals by isoflurane and propofol. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 1460–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
142. Himes RS Jr, DiFazio CA, Burney RG. Effects of lidocaine on the anesthetic requirements for nitrous oxide and halothane. Anesthesiology 1977; 47: 437–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
143. DiFazio CA, Neiderlehner JR, Burney RG. The anesthetic potency of lidocaine in the rat. Anesth Analg 1976; 55: 818–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
144. Himes RS Jr, Munson ES, Embro WJ. Enflurane requirement and ventilatory response to carbon dioxide during lidocaine infusion in dogs. Anesthesiology 1979; 51: 131–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
145. Weigt HU, Kwok WM, Rehmert GC, Bosnjak ZJ. Modulation of the cardiac sodium current by inhalational anesthetics in the absence and presence of beta-stimulation. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 114–24.[Web of Science][Medline]
146. Irnaten M, Wang J, Chang KS, et al. Ketamine inhibits sodium currents in identified cardiac parasympathetic neurons in nucleus ambiguus. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 659–66.[Web of Science][Medline]
147. Asai T, Kusudo K, Ikeda H, et al. Effect of halothane on neuronal excitation in the superficial dorsal horn of rat spinal cord slices: evidence for a presynaptic action. Eur J Neurosci 2002; 15: 1278–90.[Web of Science][Medline]
148. Stadnicka A, Kwok WM, Hartmann HA, Bosnjak ZJ. Effects of halothane and isoflurane on fast and slow inactivation of human heart hH1a sodium channels. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1671–83.[Web of Science][Medline]
149. Scholz A, Appel N, Vogel W. Two types of TTX-resistant and one TTX-sensitive Na⁺ channel in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons and their blockade by halothane. Eur J Neurosci 1998; 10: 2547–56.[Web of Science][Medline]
150. Ratnakumari L, Hemmings HC Jr. Inhibition of presynaptic sodium channels by halothane. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1043–54.[Web of Science][Medline]
151. Weigt H, Kwok WM, Rehmert GC, et al. Modulation of cardiac sodium current by alpha1-stimulation and volatile anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1997; 87: 1507–16.[Web of Science][Medline]
152. Weigt HU, Rehmert GC, Bosnjak ZJ, Kwok WM. Conformational state-dependent effects of halothane on cardiac Na⁺ current. Anesthesiology 1997; 87: 1494–506.[Web of Science][Medline]
153. Weigt HU, Kwok WM, Rehmert GC, et al. Voltage-dependent effects of volatile anesthetics on cardiac sodium current. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 285–93.[Abstract]
154. Ries CR, Puil E. Mechanism of anesthesia revealed by shunting actions of isoflurane on thalamocortical neurons. J Neurophysiol 1999; 81: 1795–801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
155. Schwarz DW, Tennigkeit F, Adam T, et al. Membrane properties that shape the auditory code in three nuclei of the central nervous system. J Otolaryngol 1998; 27: 311–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
156. Rehberg B, Xiao YH, Duch DS. Central nervous system sodium channels are significantly suppressed at clinical concentrations of volatile anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1996; 84: 1223–33.[Web of Science][Medline]
157. Ratnakumari L, Vysotskaya TN, Duch DS, Hemmings HC Jr. Differential effects of anesthetic and nonanesthetic cyclobutanes on neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 529–41.[Web of Science][Medline]
158. Mounsey JP, Patel MK, Mistry D, et al. Protein kinase C co-expression and the effects of halothane on rat skeletal muscle sodium channels. Br J Pharmacol 1999; 128: 989–98.[Web of Science][Medline]
159. Patel MK, Mistry D, John JE III, Mounsey JP. Sodium channel isoform-specific effects of halothane: protein kinase C co-expression and slow inactivation gating. Br J Pharmacol 2000; 130: 1785–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
160. Siegelbaum SA, Schwartz JH, Kandel ER. Modulation of synaptic transmission: second messengers. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, eds. Principles of neural science. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
161. Way WL, Hosobuchi Y, Johnson BH, Eger EI II. Anesthesia does not increase opioid peptides in cerebrospinal fluid of humans. Anesthesiology 1984; 60: 43–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
162. France CJ, Plumer HM, Eger EI II, Wahrenbrock EA. Ventilatory effects of isoflurane (Forane) or halothane when combined with morphine, nitrous oxide and surgery. Br J Anaesth 1974; 46: 117–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
163. Katoh T, Ikeda K. The effects of fentanyl on sevoflurane requirements for loss of consciousness and skin incision. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 18–24.[Web of Science][Medline]
164. Harper MH, Winter PM, Johnson BH, Eger EI II. Naloxone does not antagonize general anesthesia in the rat. Anesthesiology 1978; 49: 3–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
165. Smith RA, Wilson M, Miller KW. Naloxone has no effect on nitrous oxide anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1978; 49: 6–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
166. Segal IS, Vickery RG, Walton JK, et al. Dexmedetomidine diminishes halothane anesthetic requirements in rats through a postsynaptic alpha-2 adrenergic receptor. Anesthesiology 1988; 69: 818–23.[Web of Science][Medline]
167. Rabin BC, Reid K, Guo TZ, et al. Sympatholytic and minimum anesthetic concentration-sparing responses are preserved in rats rendered tolerant to the hypnotic and analgesic action of dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonist. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 565–73.[Web of Science][Medline]
168. Bloor BC, Flacke WE. Reduction in halothane anesthetic requirement by clonidine, an alpha-adrenergic agonist. Anesth Analg 1982; 61: 741–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
169. Vickery RG, Maze M. Action of the stereoisomers of medetomidine in halothane-anesthetized dogs. Acta Vet Scand Suppl 1989; 85: 71–6.[Medline]
170. Ghinone M, Calvillo O, Quintin L. Anesthesia and hypertension: the effect of clonidine on perioperative hemodynamics and isoflurane requirements. Anesthesiology 1987; 67: 3–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
171. Lawrence CJ, De Lange S. Effects of a single pre-operative dexmedetomidine dose on isoflurane requirements and peri-operative haemodynamic stability. Anaesthesia 1997; 52: 736–44.[Web of Science][Medline]
172. Aantaa R, Jaakola ML, Kallio A, Kanto J. Reduction of the minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane by dexmedetomidine. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 1055–60.[Web of Science][Medline]
173. Kendig JJ, Savola MKT, Woodley SJ, Maze M. Alpha-2 adrenoceptors inhibit a nociceptive response in neonatal rat spinal cord. Eur J Pharmacol 1991; 192: 293–300.[Web of Science][Medline]
174. Grabow TS, Hurley RW, Banfor PN, Hammond DL. Supraspinal and spinal delta(2) opioid receptor-mediated antinociceptive synergy is mediated by spinal alpha(2) adrenoceptors. Pain 1999; 83: 47–55.[Web of Science][Medline]
175. Sabbe MB, Penning JP, Ozaki GT, Yaksh TL. Spinal and systemic action of the alpha 2 receptor agonist dexmedetomidine in dogs: antinociception and carbon dioxide response. Anesthesiology 1994; 80: 1057–72.[Web of Science][Medline]
176. Sullivan AF, Kalso EA, McQuay HJ, Dickenson AH. The antinociceptive actions of dexmedetomidine on dorsal horn neuronal responses in the anaesthetized rat. Eur J Pharmacol 1992; 215: 127–33.[Web of Science][Medline]
177. Eger EI II, Xing Y, Laster MJ, Sonner JM. Alpha-2 adrenoreceptors probably do not mediate the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1661–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
178. Vonvoigtlander P, Lewis RA, Neff GL. Kappa opioid analgesia is dependent on serotonergic mechanisms. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1984; 231: 270–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
179. Kellstein DE, Malseed RT, Goldstein FJ. Opioid-monamine interactions in spinal antinociception: evidence for serotonin but not norepinephrine reciprocity. Pain 1988; 34: 85–92.[Web of Science][Medline]
180. Paul D, Mana MJ, Pfaus JG, Pinel JP. Attenuation of morphine analgesia by the S2 antagonists, pirenperone and ketanserin. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1988; 31: 641–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
181. Kiefel JM, Paul D, Bodnar RJ. Reduction in opioid and non-opioid forms of swim analgesia by 5-HT2 receptor antagonists. Brain Res 1989; 500: 231–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
182. Giordano J. Analgesic profile of centrally administered 2-methylserotonin against acute pain in rats. Eur J Pharmacol 1991; 199: 233–6.[Web of Science][Medline]
183. Coimbra NC, Brandao ML. Effects of 5-HT2 receptors blockade on fear-induced analgesia elicited by electrical stimulation of the deep layers of the superior colliculus and dorsal periaqueductal gray. Behav Brain Res 1997; 87: 97–103.[Web of Science][Medline]
184. Yamazake N, Umeno H, Kuraishi Y. Involvement of brain serotonergic terminals in the antinociceptive action of peripherally applied calcitonin. Jpn J Pharmacol 1999; 81: 367–74.[Medline]
185. Bardin L, Lavarenne J, Eschalier A. Serotonin receptor subtypes involved in the spinal antinociceptive effect of 5-HT in rats. Pain 2000; 86: 11–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
186. Hentall ID, Andresen MJ, Taguchi K. Serotonergic, cholinergic and nociceptive inhibition or excitation of raphe magnus neurons in barbiturate-anesthetized rats. Neuroscience 1993; 52: 303–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
187. Zhang L. Effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine on cat spinal motoneurons. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1991; 69: 154–63.[Web of Science][Medline]
188. Dringenberg HC. Serotonergic receptor antagonists alter responses to general anaesthetics in rats. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 904–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
189. Doherty TJ, McDonell WN, Dyson DH, et al. The effect of a 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist (R51703) on halothane MAC in the dog. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1995; 18: 153–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
190. Zhang Y, Laster MJ, Eger EI II, et al. Blockade of 5-HT2A receptors may mediate or modulate part of the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg. In press.
191. Coggeshall RE, Carlton SM. Receptor localization in the mammalian dorsal horn and primary afferent neurons. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 1997; 24: 28–66.[Medline]
192. Knangrga I, Jiang MC, Randic M. Actions of (-)-baclofen on rat dorsal horn neurons. Brain Res 1991; 562: 265–75.[Web of Science][Medline]
193. Dirig DM, Yaksh TL. Intrathecal baclofen and muscimol, but not midazolam, are antinociceptive using the rat-formalin model. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1995; 275: 219–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
194. Dickenson AH, Brewer CM, Hayes NA. Effects of topical baclofen on C fiber-evoked neuronal activity in the rat dorsal horn. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1985; 14: 557–62.
195. Albright AL, Cervi A, Singletary J. Intrathecal baclofen for spasticity in cerebral palsy. JAMA 1991; 265: 1418–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
196. Mason P, Owens CA, Hammond DL. Antagonism of the antinocifensive action of halothane by intrathecal administration of GABAA receptor antagonists. Anesthesiology 1996; 84: 1205–14.[Web of Science][Medline]
197. Weng HR, Mansikka H, Winchurch R, et al. Sensory processing in the deep spinal dorsal horn of neurokinin-1 receptor knockout mice. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 1105–12.[Web of Science][Medline]
198. Sivilotti LG, Thompson SW, Woolf SJ. Rate of rise of the cumulative depolarization evoked by repetitive stimulation of small-caliber afferents is a predictor of action potential windup in rat spinal neurons in vitro. J Neurophysiol 1993; 69: 1621–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
199. Ishizaki K, Karasawa S, Takahashi K, et al. Intrathecal neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist reduces isoflurane MAC in rats. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44: 543–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
200. Beckstead MJ, Phelan R, Trudell JR, et al. Anesthetic and ethanol effects on spontaneously opening glycine receptor channels. J Neurochem 2002; 82: 1343–51.[Web of Science][Medline]
201. Yamakura T, Bertaccini E, Trudell JR, Harris RA. Anesthetics and ion channels: molecular models and sites of anesthetic action. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001; 41: 23–51.[Web of Science][Medline]
202. Scheller M, Forman SA. The gamma subunit determines whether anesthetic-induced leftward shift is altered by a mutation at alpha1S270 in alpha1beta2gamma2L GABA(A) receptors. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 123–31.[Web of Science][Medline]
203. Raines DE, Claycomb RJ, Scheller M, Forman A. Nonhalogenated alkane anesthetics fail to potentiate agonist actions on two ligand-gated channels. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 470–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
204. Trudell JR. Unique assignment of inter-subunit association in GABAa alpha1 beta3 gamma2 receptors determined by molecular modeling. Biochim Biophys Acta 2002; 1565: 91–6.[Medline]
205. Kash TL, Jenkins A, Trudell JR, Harrison NL. Electrostatic interactions couple agonist binding to channel gating in the GABA_A receptor. Nature 2003; 421: 421–5.[Medline]
206. Bertaccini E, Trudell JR. Predicting the transmembrane secondary structure of ligand-gated ion channels. Protein Eng 2002; 15: 443–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
207. Unwin N, Miyazawa A, Li J, Fujiyoshi Y. Activation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor involves a switch in conformation of the alpha subunits. J Mol Biol 2002; 319: 1165–76.[Web of Science][Medline]
208. Trudell JR, Bertaccini E. Molecular modelling of specific and non-specific anaesthetic interactions. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 32–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
209. Chang G, Spencer RH, Lee AT, et al. Structure of the MscL homolog from mycobacterium tuberculosis: a gated mechanosensitive ion channel. Science 1998; 282: 2220–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
210. Johansson JS, Scharf D, Davies LA, et al. A designed four-alpha-helix bundle that binds the volatile general anesthetic halothane with high affinity. Biophys J 2000; 78: 982–93.[Web of Science][Medline]
211. Tanner JW, Johansson JS, Liebman PA, Eckenhoff RG. Predictability of weak binding from X-ray crystallography: inhaled anesthetics and myoglobin. Biochemistry 2001; 40: 5075–80.[Medline]
212. Wilson GG, Pascual JM, Brooijmans N, et al. The intrinsic electrostatic potential and the intermediate ring of charge in the acetylcholine receptor channel. J Gen Physiol 2000; 115: 93–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
213. Scheller M, Forman SA. Coupled and uncoupled gating and desensitization effects by pore domain mutations in GABA(A) receptors. J Neurosci 2002; 22: 8411–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
214. Ionescu P, Eger EI II, Trudell J. Direct determination of oil/saline partition coefficients. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 1056–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
215. Karplus M, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 2002; 9: 646–52.[Web of Science][Medline]
216. Koubi L, Tarek M, Bandyopadhyay S, et al. Effects of the nonimmobilizer hexafluroethane on the model mem-brane dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 848–55.[Web of Science][Medline]
217. Johansson JS, Scharf D. Towards an understanding of how general anesthetics alter central nervous system protein function. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 267–70.[Web of Science][Medline]
218. Sukharev S, Durell SR, Guy HR. Structural models of the MscL gating mechanism. Biophys J 2001; 81: 917–36.[Web of Science][Medline]
219. Tang P, Mandal PK, Xu Y. NMR structures of the second transmembrane domain of the human glycine receptor alpha(1) subunit: model of pore architecture and channel gating. Biophys J 2002; 83: 252–62.[Web of Science][Medline]
220. Law RJ, Forrest LR, Ranatunga KM, et al. Structure and dynamics of the pore-lining helix of the nicotinic receptor: MD simulations in water, lipid bilayers, and transbilayer bundles. Proteins 2000; 39: 47–55.[Web of Science][Medline]
221. Opella SJ, Marassi FM, Gesell JJ, et al. Structures of the M2 channel-lining segments from nicotinic acetylcholine and NMDA receptors by NMR spectroscopy. Nat Struct Biol 1999; 6: 374–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
222. Doyle DA, Cabral JM, Pfuetzner RA, et al. The structure of the potassium channel: molecular basis of K⁺ conduction and selectivity. Science 1998; 280: 69–77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
223. Roux B, MacKinnon R. The cavity and pore helices in the KcsA K⁺ channel: electrostatic stabilization of monovalent cations. Science 1999; 285: 100–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
224. Aqvist J, Luzhkov V. Ion permeation mechanism of the potassium channel. Nature 2000; 404: 881–4.[Medline]
225. Eger EI II, Halsey MJ, Harris RA, et al. Hypothesis: volatile anesthetics produce immobility by acting on two sites approximately five carbons apart. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 1395–400.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
226. Pauling L. The nature of the chemical bond. 3rd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1960: 499.
227. Bormann J, Hamill OP, Sakmann B. Mechanism of anion permeation through channels gated by glycine and gamma-aminobutyric acid in mouse cultured spinal neurons. J Physiol 1987; 385: 243–86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
228. Eger EI II, Fisher DM, Dilger JP, et al. Relevant concentrations of inhaled anesthetics for in vitro studies of anesthetic mechanisms. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 915–21.[Web of Science][Medline]
229. Cantor RS. Breaking the Meyer-Overton rule: predicted effects of varying stiffness and interfacial activity on the intrinsic potency of anesthetics. Biophys J 2001; 80: 2284–97.[Web of Science][Medline]
230. Cantor RS. The lateral pressure profile in membranes: a physical mechanism of general anesthesia. Biochemistry 1997; 36: 2339–44.[Medline]
231. Cantor RS. Lateral pressures in cell membranes: a mechanism for modulation of protein function. J Phys Chem B 1997; 101: 1723–5.
232. Cantor RS. Solute modulation of conformational equilibria in intrinsic membrane proteins: apparent "cooperativity" without binding. Biophys J 1999; 77: 2643–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
233. Tang P, Xu Y. Large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of general anesthetic effects on the ion channel in the fully hydrated membrane: the implication of molecular mechanisms of general anesthesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99: 16035–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. C. Hemmings Jr. Sodium channels and the synaptic mechanisms of inhaled anaesthetics Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2009; 103(1): 61 - 69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. I. Westphalen, R. S. Gomez, and H. C. Hemmings Jr Nicotinic receptor-evoked hippocampal norepinephrine release is highly sensitive to inhibition by isoflurane Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2009; 102(3): 355 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Chen, S. Shu, D. P. Kennedy, S. C. Willcox, and D. A. Bayliss Subunit-Specific Effects of Isoflurane on Neuronal Ih in HCN1 Knockout Mice J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2009; 101(1): 129 - 140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Brosnan and T. L. Pham Carbon dioxide negatively modulates N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2008; 101(5): 673 - 679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Seto, H. Isogai, M. Ozaki, and S. Nosaka Noble Gas Binding to Human Serum Albumin Using Docking Simulation: Nonimmobilizers and Anesthetics Bind to Different Sites Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2008; 107(4): 1223 - 1228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. I. Eger II, D. E. Raines, S. L. Shafer, H. C. Hemmings Jr, and J. M. Sonner Is a New Paradigm Needed to Explain How Inhaled Anesthetics Produce Immobility? Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2008; 107(3): 832 - 848. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Yang and J. M. Sonner Anesthetic-Like Modulation of Receptor Function by Surfactants: A Test of the Interfacial Theory of Anesthesia Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2008; 107(3): 868 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. I. Eger II, M. Tang, M. Liao, M. J. Laster, K. Solt, P. Flood, A. Jenkins, D. Raines, J. F. Hendrickx, S. L. Shafer, et al. Inhaled Anesthetics Do Not Combine to Produce Synergistic Effects Regarding Minimum Alveolar Anesthetic Concentration in Rats Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 479 - 485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. G. Sommers, N.-K. Nguyen, J. G. Veening, K. C. Vissers, M. Ritskes-Hoitinga, and J. van Egmond Suppression of Noxious-Induced C-Fos Expression in the Rat Lumbar Spinal Cord by Isoflurane Alone or Combined with Fentanyl Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2008; 106(4): 1303 - 1308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Duarte, A. McNeill, G. Drummond, and B. Tiplady Comparison of the sedative, cognitive, and analgesic effects of nitrous oxide, sevoflurane, and ethanol Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2008; 100(2): 203 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A.-M. Linden, C. Sandu, M. I. Aller, O. Y. Vekovischeva, P. H. Rosenberg, W. Wisden, and E. R. Korpi TASK-3 Knockout Mice Exhibit Exaggerated Nocturnal Activity, Impairments in Cognitive Functions, and Reduced Sensitivity to Inhalation Anesthetics J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., December 1, 2007; 323(3): 924 - 934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. W. Buffington, M. J. Laster, K. Jankowska, and E. I. Eger II Concentrations of Isoflurane Exceeding Those Used Clinically Slightly Increase the Affinity of Methane, but Not Toluene, for Water Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1675 - 1680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Bovill Anesthetic Pharmacology: Reflections of a Section Editor Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1186 - 1190. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Engelhardt, M. K. Chan, A. J. McCheyne, C. Karsli, I. Luginbuehl, and B. Bissonnette The Effect of Varying Continuous Propofol Infusions on Plasma Cyclic Guanosine 3',5'-Monophosphate Concentrations in Anesthetized Children Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2007; 105(3): 616 - 619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Ramani, M. Qiu, and R. T. Constable Sevoflurane 0.25 MAC Preferentially Affects Higher Order Association Areas: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study in Volunteers Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2007; 105(3): 648 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Cascio, Y. Xing, D. Gong, J. Popovich, E. I. Eger II, S. Sen, G. Peltz, and J. M. Sonner Mouse Chromosome 7 Harbors a Quantitative Trait Locus for Isoflurane Minimum Alveolar Concentration Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2007; 105(2): 381 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Andres-Enguix, A. Caley, R. Yustos, M. A. Schumacher, P. D. Spanu, R. Dickinson, M. Maze, and N. P. Franks Determinants of the Anesthetic Sensitivity of Two-pore Domain Acid-sensitive Potassium Channels: MOLECULAR CLONING OF AN ANESTHETIC-ACTIVATED POTASSIUM CHANNEL FROM LYMNAEA STAGNALIS J. Biol. Chem., July 20, 2007; 282(29): 20977 - 20990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Irifune, N. Kikuchi, T. Saida, T. Takarada, Y. Shimizu, C. Endo, K. Morita, T. Dohi, T. Sato, and M. Kawahara Riluzole, a Glutamate Release Inhibitor, Induces Loss of Righting Reflex, Antinociception, and Immobility in Response to Noxious Stimulation in Mice Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1415 - 1421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Katayama, M. Irifune, N. Kikuchi, T. Takarada, Y. Shimizu, C. Endo, T. Takata, T. Dohi, T. Sato, and M. Kawahara Increased {gamma}-Aminobutyric Acid Levels in Mouse Brain Induce Loss of Righting Reflex, but Not Immobility, in Response to Noxious Stimulation Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1422 - 1429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Vahle-Hinz, O. Detsch, C. Hackner, and E. Kochs Corresponding minimum alveolar concentrations of isoflurane and isoflurane/nitrous oxide have divergent effects on thalamic nociceptive signalling Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2007; 98(2): 228 - 235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Huang, X. Feng, J. J. Sando, and Z. Zuo Critical Role of Serine 465 in Isoflurane-induced Increase of Cell-surface Redistribution and Activity of Glutamate Transporter Type 3 J. Biol. Chem., December 15, 2006; 281(50): 38133 - 38138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Grasshoff and B. Antkowiak Effects of isoflurane and enflurane on GABAA and glycine receptors contribute equally to depressant actions on spinal ventral horn neurones in rats Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2006; 97(5): 687 - 694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Cechova and Z. Zuo Inhibition of glutamate transporters increases the minimum alveolar concentration for isoflurane in rats Br. J. Anaesth., August 1, 2006; 97(2): 192 - 195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Brosnan, D. Gong, J. Cotten, B. Keshavaprasad, C. S. Yost, E. I. Eger II, and J. M. Sonner Chirality in Anesthesia II: Stereoselective Modulation of Ion Channel Function by Secondary Alcohol Enantiomers. Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2006; 103(1): 86 - 91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Whittington and L. Virag Isoflurane decreases extracellular serotonin in the mouse hippocampus. Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2006; 103(1): 92 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A.-M. Linden, M. I. Aller, E. Leppa, O. Vekovischeva, T. Aitta-aho, E. L. Veale, A. Mathie, P. Rosenberg, W. Wisden, and E. R. Korpi The in Vivo Contributions of TASK-1-Containing Channels to the Actions of Inhalation Anesthetics, the {alpha}2 Adrenergic Sedative Dexmedetomidine, and Cannabinoid Agonists J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., May 1, 2006; 317(2): 615 - 626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Dutton, M. J. Laster, Y. Xing, J. M. Sonner, D. E. Raines, K. Solt, and E. I. Eger II Do N-Methyl-d-Aspartate Receptors Mediate the Capacity of Inhaled Anesthetics to Suppress the Temporal Summation that Contributes to Minimum Alveolar Concentration? Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2006; 102(5): 1412 - 1418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Won, I. Oh, M. Liao, J. M. Sonner, R. A. Harris, M. J. Laster, R. Brosnan, J. R. Trudell, and E. I. Eger II The minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of 2-, 3-, and 4-alcohols and ketones in rats: relevance to anesthetic mechanisms. Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2006; 102(5): 1419 - 1426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Stachnik Inhaled anesthetic agents Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., April 1, 2006; 63(7): 623 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Engelhardt, P. R. Lowe, H. F. Galley, and N. R. Webster Inhibition of neuronal nitric oxide synthase reduces isoflurane MAC and motor activity even in nNOS knockout mice Br. J. Anaesth., March 1, 2006; 96(3): 361 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Chen, S. Shu, and D. A. Bayliss Suppression of Ih Contributes to Propofol-Induced Inhibition of Mouse Cortical Pyramidal Neurons J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2005; 94(6): 3872 - 3883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Keshavaprasad, C. Liu, J. D. Au, C. H. Kindler, J. F. Cotten, and C. S. Yost Species-Specific Differences in Response to Anesthetics and Other Modulators by the K2P Channel TRESK Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2005; 101(4): 1042 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Engelhardt, J. MacDonald, H. F. Galley, and N. R. Webster Selective Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibition Does Not Reduce Propofol Sedation Requirements but Affects Speed of Recovery and Plasma Cyclic Guanosine 3',5'-Monophosphate Concentrations in Healthy Volunteers Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2005; 101(4): 1050 - 1053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Salmi, J. W. Langsjo, S. Aalto, K. Nagren, L. Metsahonkala, K. K. Kaisti, E. R. Korpi, J. Hietala, and H. Scheinin Subanesthetic Ketamine Does Not Affect 11C-Flumazenil Binding in Humans Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2005; 101(3): 722 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Liao, J. M. Sonner, R. Jurd, U. Rudolph, C. M. Borghese, R. A. Harris, M. J. Laster, and E. I. Eger II {beta}3-Containing Gamma-Aminobutyric AcidA Receptors Are Not Major Targets for the Amnesic and Immobilizing Actions of Isoflurane Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2005; 101(2): 412 - 418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M Joksovic, D. A Bayliss, and S. M Todorovic Different kinetic properties of two T-type Ca2+ currents of rat reticular thalamic neurones and their modulation by enflurane J. Physiol., July 1, 2005; 566(1): 125 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Chen, J. E. Sirois, Q. Lei, E. M. Talley, C. Lynch III, and D. A. Bayliss HCN Subunit-Specific and cAMP-Modulated Effects of Anesthetics on Neuronal Pacemaker Currents J. Neurosci., June 15, 2005; 25(24): 5803 - 5814. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Yamakura, A. R. Askalany, A. B. Petrenko, T. Kohno, H. Baba, and K. Sakimura The NR3B Subunit Does Not Alter the Anesthetic Sensitivities of Recombinant N-Methyl-d-Aspartate Receptors Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2005; 100(6): 1687 - 1692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Dinse, K. J. Fohr, M. Georgieff, C. Beyer, A. Bulling, and H. U. Weigt Xenon reduces glutamate-, AMPA-, and kainate-induced membrane currents in cortical neurones Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2005; 94(4): 479 - 485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Ouyang and H. C. Hemmings Jr. Depression by Isoflurane of the Action Potential and Underlying Voltage-Gated Ion Currents in Isolated Rat Neurohypophysial Nerve Terminals J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., February 1, 2005; 312(2): 801 - 808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Liu, J. D. Au, H. L. Zou, J. F. Cotten, and C. S. Yost Potent Activation of the Human Tandem Pore Domain K Channel TRESK with Clinical Concentrations of Volatile Anesthetics Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2004; 99(6): 1715 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Salmi, K. K. Kaisti, L. Metsahonkala, V. Oikonen, S. Aalto, K. Nagren, S. Hinkka, J. Hietala, E. R. Korpi, and H. Scheinin Sevoflurane and Propofol Increase 11C-Flumazenil Binding to Gamma-Aminobutyric AcidA Receptors in Humans Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1420 - 1426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Sewell and J. W. Sear Derivation of Preliminary Three-Dimensional Pharmacophores for Nonhalogenated Volatile Anesthetics Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2004; 99(3): 744 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. A. Lobo, M. P. Mascia, J. R. Trudell, and R. A. Harris Channel Gating of the Glycine Receptor Changes Accessibility to Residues Implicated in Receptor Potentiation by Alcohols and Anesthetics J. Biol. Chem., August 6, 2004; 279(32): 33919 - 33927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Sandstrom Isoflurane depresses glutamate release by reducing neuronal excitability at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction J. Physiol., July 15, 2004; 558(2): 489 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Shiraishi and R. A. Harris Effects of Alcohols and Anesthetics on Recombinant Voltage-Gated Na+ Channels J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., June 1, 2004; 309(3): 987 - 994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. L. Harrison Knockin' on the Door of General Anesthetic Mechanisms: But Will U.S. Researchers Be Shut Out? Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2003; 97(3): 616 - 618. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (106) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sonner, J. M. Articles by Eger, E. I Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sonner, J. M. Articles by Eger, E. I, II Related Collections Mechanisms Pharmacology