, 2003). Nonlinear regression analysis of these data yielded IC50 values of 13 nm (96% CI = 2–73 nm) for AM251 and 6 nm (96% CI = 2–16 nm) for AM281, corresponding to the curves shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, both antagonists potently inhibited substance P release. Two-way anova for AM251 showed significant effects of ‘concentration’ (F7 = 4.8, P = 0.0004) and stimulus (F1 = 148, P < 0.0001), and a significant interaction between EPZ-6438 concentration them (F7 = 4.1, P = 0.0014). Two-way anova for AM281 revealed significant effects of concentration (F5 = 18, P < 0.0001) and stimulus (F1 = 518, P < 0.0001), and a significant interaction between them (F5 = 17, P < 0.0001). AM251 and AM281 produced a partial
inhibition of the evoked NK1R internalization, with their effects reaching plateaus at 21 ± 5 and 27 ± 3%, respectively, as determined by nonlinear regression (Fig. 4). To confirm that the inhibition was indeed partial, we used an F-test (Motulsky & Christopoulos, 2003) to compare two alternative nonlinear regression fittings: one with the ‘bottom’ parameter unconstrained (i.e.,
partial inhibition) and the other with ‘bottom’ constrained to the value obtained in the contralateral dorsal horn (i.e., complete inhibition). The null hypothesis was that the value of ‘bottom’ was equal to the averaged contralateral values: 4.0% for AM251 (Fig. 4A) and 7.4% for AM281 (Fig. 4B). The statistically preferred model in the F-test was partial inhibition for both AM251 (F1,28 = 7.47, P = 0.0107) and AM281 (F1,17 = 28.69, P < 0.0001). Therefore, these CB1 receptor antagonists decreased substance P release with high potencies, find more but did not completely abolish it. We did not obtain concentration–response curves for rimonabant
because at 100 nm its inhibition was smaller than the inhibition produced by AM251 and AM281 (Fig. 2) and at higher doses it became even less clear. Thus, rimonabant at 10 μm produced a marginal, not significant, decrease in NK1R internalization induced by root Silibinin stimulation at 1 Hz (control, 44 ± 4%, n = 6; rimonabant 10 μm, 27 ± 11, n = 3; two-way anova, ‘rimonabant’, F1 = 4.2, P = 0.059, ‘stimulus’, F1 = 56, P < 0.0001, interaction, F1 = 3.3, P = 0.09). Likewise, rimonabant at 5 μm did not significantly decrease NK1R internalization induced by root stimulation at 100 Hz (control, 60 ± 3%, n = 5; rimonabant 5 μm, 43 ± 17%, n = 6; two-way anova: ‘rimonabant’, F1 = 0.70, P = 0.42, ‘stimulus’, F1 = 27, P < 0.0001, interaction, F1 = 0.86, P = 0.37). Similarly, we studied the concentration–response of the facilitatory effect of the CB1 agonist ACEA. As facilitation by ACEA was more pronounced when stimulating the dorsal root at 1 Hz (Fig. 2), we used this stimulation frequency. ACEA failed to increase the evoked NK1R internalization at 3, 10 or 30 nm (Fig. 5). It produced a significant effect at 100 nm but NK1R internalization was back at control levels at 300 nm ACEA.