Cited by 39Pain Mechanisms and TreatmentsNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyPain Management and Opioid Use

Neuronal inhibitory effects of methadone are predominantly opioid receptor mediated in the rat spinal cord in vivo

Carpenter, Katherine J., Chapman, Victoria, Dickenson, Anthony H.·2000·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

This study aims to assess whether the antinociceptive actions of methadone are mediated solely through opioid mechanisms, or whether its reported affinity for NMDA receptors has physiological relevance in vivo. Methadone is a μ‐opioid receptor agonist reported to relieve pain unresponsive to other opioids. It is a racemic mixture comprising d ‐ and l ‐optical isomers; the d ‐isomer has a lower affinity for opioid receptors, and both also exhibit NMDA receptor binding, likely to indicate antagonist activity. d ‐Methadone is antinociceptive in behavioural studies via non‐opioid mechanisms, which could include functional NMDA receptor‐blocking activity. Here we investigate the ability of d ‐ and dl ‐methadone to inhibit noxious and innocuous electrically‐evoked responses of dorsal horn neurones in the anaesthetized rat. Racemic methadone (5, 25, 50, 250 μg) applied spinally, dose‐relatedly inhibited the C‐fibre evoked response, input and wind‐up of the neurones, with a profile resembling that of morphine. d‐Methadone (5, 25, 50, 250, 500 μg) was also inhibitory, although less potent by a factor of between 13 and 48 depending on the neuronal measure; its profile of inhibition resembled that of the racemic mixture rather than an NMDA receptor antagonist. Both compounds had minimal effects on Aβ‐fibre‐evoked activity. The inhibitory effects of both d ‐ and dl ‐methadone on noxious‐evoked activity were naloxone reversible. The naloxone reversibility of d ‐methadone inhibitions is best interpreted as indicative of a purely opioid mechanism of action. However, the ability of naloxone to reverse the effects of d ‐methadone may also reflect a degree of synergy between weak NMDA antagonist and opioid agonist activity. Copyright 2000 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/eujp.1999.0147

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carpenter, K. J., Chapman, V., & Dickenson, A. H.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Chapman, Victoria
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
19-26
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2024033804
Cited by
39
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
methadone, NMDA receptor antagonism, antinociception, dorsal horn neurons, wind-up, naloxone reversibility, mu-opioid receptor agonists, analgesia
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Animals, Electrophysiology, Male, Methadone, Naloxone, Narcotic Antagonists, Nerve Fibers, Nerve Fibers, Myelinated, Neurons, Receptors, Opioid, Spinal Cord, Stereoisomerism, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

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