The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine.
Abstract
As part of an effort to examine gender-related differences in the abuse liability of morphine, the present parametric study was undertaken to systematically establish whether there are gender-related differences in the antinociceptive activity of morphine in rats. Our results showed that male rats were uniformly more sensitive to the antinociceptive properties of morphine than were females in three different assays, i.e., the hot-plate, tail-flick and abdominal-constriction tests. This enhanced sensitivity to morphine was reflected in the peak antinociceptive effect, the magnitude of antinociception (i.e., area under the time-action curve), the duration of the antinociceptive response and the 50% effective dose. These differences appear to reflect markedly enhanced central nervous system sensitivity to morphine in males, compared with females, because we observed no gender-linked differences in serum levels of morphine after its injection, at the time when peak antinociceptive effects were observed. Furthermore, these gender-related differences appear to be reflected in antinociception thought to be mediated by both spinal and supraspinal mechanisms. Finally, our results suggest that the acute effects of steroids play little role in the gender-related differences observed, because short-term castration did not alter the gender-related differences we observed. Rather, it appears more probable that the organizational effects of steroids during critical periods in development, which determine gender-related distinctions, may be significant in the male-female differences we have observed. In view of a great deal of largely anecdotal data for humans that suggest that there may be gender-related differences in the abuse liability of psychoactive substances, the model described in this paper may provide a means to examine this important issue.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sex-related hormonal influences on pain and analgesic responses
Fillingim, R. B., & Ness, T. J. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00017-8 · Cited by 554
Sex Differences in Morphine Analgesia: An Experimental Study in Healthy Volunteers
Sarton, E., Olofsen, E., Romberg, R., den Hartigh, J., Kest, B., Nieuwenhuijs, D., Burm, A., Teppema, L., & Dahan, A. (2000) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200011000-00018 · Cited by 360
μ-Opioid Receptor-Mediated Antinociceptive Responses Differ in Men and Women
Zubieta, J.-K., Smith, Y. R., Bueller, J. A., Xu, Y., Kilbourn, M. R., Jewett, D. M., Meyer, C. R., Koeppe, R. A., & Stohler, C. S. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-12-05100.2002 · Cited by 363
Giles, B. E., & Walker, J. S. (1999) · Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00001503-199910000-00017 · Cited by 287
Sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia
Mogil, J. S., & Bailey, A. L. (2010) · Progress in Brain Research · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53630-3.00009-9 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Cicero, T. J., Nock, B., & Meyer, E. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-11
- Volume
- 279
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 767-773
- ISSN
- 0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2215985723
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)21187-9
- The paper
- Cicero, T. J., Nock, B., & Meyer, E. R. (1996). Gender-related differences in the antinociceptive properties of morphine. The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3565(25)21187-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.