Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An increased tail-flick latency to noxious heat during or after stress in the rodent is usually interpreted as a stress-induced reduction in pain sensitivity and often described as a form of stress-induced "analgesia." However, this measure is an indirect and flawed measure of the change in nociceptive threshold to noxious heat. A major confound of the latency measure is the initial temperature of the tail, which can drop down to room temperature during stress, the consequence of a marked sympathetically mediated vasoconstriction in the skin of the extremities. We addressed this issue with tail-flick tests during contextual fear using infrared thermography to monitor temperature changes and a CO2 laser to deliver the heat stimulus. The experiment revealed a 4.2°C increase of the nociceptive threshold, confirming a true antinociceptive effect. However, its contribution to the increased withdrawal latency was less than two-thirds (63.2%). Nearly one-third (32.2%) was due to the drop in tail temperature (4.4°C), which also slowed conduction along sensory fibers (2.2%, included in the 32.2%). The remaining 4.6% was due to an increase in decisional/motor latency. This new unbiased method establishes beyond doubt that a conditioned stress response is associated with true antinociception to noxious heat. It also confirms that stress-induced changes in skin temperature can be a major confound in tail-flick tests. The present study shows, for the first time, the exact contribution of these two components of the tail-flick latency for a stress response. Less than two-thirds of the increase in tail-flick latency to noxious heat, evoked by conditioned fear, reflects true antinociception. The remaining is due to skin vasoconstriction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrive et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: