Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The antinociceptive effect of six novel synthetic pyrazolines (3-ethoxymethyl-5-ethoxycarbonyl-1H-pyrazole (Pz 1) and its corresponding 1-substituted methyl (Pz 2) and phenyl (Pz 3) analogues, and 3-(1-ethoxyethyl)-5-ethoxycarbonyl-1H-pyrazole (Pz 4) and its corresponding 1-substituted methyl (Pz 5) and phenyl (Pz 6) analogues) was evaluated by the tail immersion test in adult male albino mice. The animals (N = 11-12 in each group) received vehicle (5% Tween 80, 10 ml/kg, sc) or 1.5 mmol/kg of each of the pyrazolines (Pz 1-Pz 6), sc. Fifteen, thirty and sixty minutes after drug administration, the mice were subjected to the tail immersion test. Thirty minutes after drug administration Pz 2 and Pz 3 increased tail withdrawal latency (vehicle = 3.4 +/- 0.2; Pz 2 = 5.2 +/- 0.4; Pz 3 = 5.9 +/- 0.4 s; mean +/- SEM), whereas the other pyrazolines did not present antinociceptive activity. Dose-effect curves (0.15 to 1.5 mmol/kg) were constructed for the bioactive pyrazolines. Pz 2 (1.5 mmol/kg, sc) impaired motor coordination in the rotarod and increased immobility in the open-field test. Pz 3 did not alter rotarod performance and spontaneous locomotion, but increased immobility in the open field at the dose of 1.5 mmol/kg. The involvement of opioid mechanisms in the pyrazoline-induced antinociception was investigated by pretreating the animals with naloxone (2.75 micro mol/kg, sc). Naloxone prevented Pz 3- but not Pz 2-induced antinociception. Moreover, naloxone pretreatment did not alter Pz 3-induced immobility. We conclude that Pz 3-induced antinociception involves opioid mechanisms but this is not the case for Pz 2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tabarelli et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: