Korean J Pain.  2010 Dec;23(4):230-235. 10.3344/kjp.2010.23.4.230.

Analgesic Effect of Intrathecal Ginsenosides in a Murine Bone Cancer Pain

• Yoon MH
• Kim WM
• Lee HG
• Choi JI
• Kim YO
• Song JA

• KMID: 1454705
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2010.23.4.230

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Bone cancer pain has a disruptive effect on the cancer patient's quality of life. Although ginsenosides have been used as traditional medicine in Eastern Medicine, the effect on bone cancer pain has not been thoroughly studied. The aim of this study was to determine whether ginsenosides may alter the bone cancer pain at the spinal level.
METHODS
NCTC 2472 tumor cells (2.5 x 10(5)) were injected into the femur of adult male C3H/HeJ mice to evoke bone tumor and bone cancer pain. To develop bone tumor, radiologic pictures were obtained. To assess pain, the withdrawal threshold was measured by applying a von Frey filament to the tumor cells inoculation site. The effect of intrathecal ginsenosides was investigated. Effect of ginsenosides (150, 500, 1,000 microgram) was examined at 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 min after intrathecal delivery.
RESULTS
The intrafemoral injection of NCTC 2472 tumor cells induced a radiological bone tumor. The withdrawal threshold with tumor development was significantly decreased compared to the sham animals. Intrathecal ginsenosides effectively increased the withdrawal threshold in the bone cancer site.
CONCLUSIONS
NCTC 2472 tumor cells injection into the mice femur caused bone tumor and bone cancer pain. Intrathecal ginsenosides attenuated the bone cancer-related pain behavior. Therefore, spinal ginsenosides may be an alternative analgesic for treating bone cancer pain.

Keyword

antinociception; bone cancer pain; ginsenosides; mice; spinal cord

MeSH Terms

Adult
Animals
Bone Neoplasms
Femur
Ginsenosides
Humans
Male
Medicine, Traditional
Mice
Quality of Life
Salicylamides
Spinal Cord
Ginsenosides
Salicylamides

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Radiographics of sham-injected (A) and NCTC 2472 tumor cells-injected mice. Tumor cells were inoculated into the femur and radiological examination was done at 14 (B) and 21 (C) days after tumor cells injection. Tumor cells injections induced bone tumor and osteolysis over time. No change was seen in sham group. Arrows head indicated the bone destruction.

• 

  Fig. 2 Time course of the withdrawal response to von Frey filaments after tumor cells injection. Each line represents mean ± SEM of 4-6 mice. B = baseline withdrawal threshold measured before tumor cells injection. Paw withdrawal threshold (g) was plotted versus time in days. A significant difference was noted between the tumor and sham groups. *P < 0.05.

• 

  Fig. 3 Effects of intrathecal ginsenosides on the withdrawal response to von Frey filaments after tumor cells injection. The data are presented as the withdrawal threshold (A) or percent of the maximum possible effect (%MPE, B). Each line or bar represents mean ± SEM of 5-6 mice. B = baseline withdrawal threshold measured before tumor cells injection. DMSO = dimethylsulfoxide. The withdrawal threshold was measured immediately before ginsenosides delivery, and intrathecal ginsenosides were administered at time 0 (arrow). The withdrawal threshold was dose-dependently increased with ginsenosides. *P < 0.05, †P < 0.01.

Reference

1. Portenoy RK, Lesage P. Management of cancer pain. Lancet. 1999; 353:1695–1700. PMID: 10335806.

2. Banning A, Sjøgren P, Henriksen H. Pain causes in 200 patients referred to a multidisciplinary cancer pain clinic. Pain. 1991; 45:45–48. PMID: 1861877.

3. Coleman RE, Houston S, Purohit OP, Rubens RD, Kandra A, Ford J. A randomised phase II study of oral pamidronate for the treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1998; 34:820–824. PMID: 9797692.

4. Coleman RE. How can we improve the treatment of bone metastases further? Curr Opin Oncol. 1998; 10(Suppl 1):S7–S13. PMID: 9801853.

5. Mercadante S, Arcuri E. Breakthrough pain in cancer patients: pathophysiology and treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 1998; 24:425–432. PMID: 10189409.

6. Mercadante S. Malignant bone pain: pathophysiology and treatment. Pain. 1997; 69:1–18. PMID: 9060007.

7. Portenoy RK, Payne D, Jacobsen P. Breakthrough pain: characteristics and impact in patients with cancer pain. Pain. 1999; 81:129–134. PMID: 10353500.

8. Mercadante S, Fulfaro F. Management of painful bone metastases. Curr Opin Oncol. 2007; 19:308–314. PMID: 17545792.

9. O'Connor JP, Lysz T. Celecoxib, NSAIDs and the skeleton. Drugs Today (Barc). 2008; 44:693–709. PMID: 19137124.

10. Vanderah TW, Gardell LR, Burgess SE, Ibrahim M, Dogrul A, Zhong CM, et al. Dynorphin promotes abnormal pain and spinal opioid antinociceptive tolerance. J Neurosci. 2000; 20:7074–7079. PMID: 10995854.

11. Liu CX, Xiao PG. Recent advances on ginseng research in China. J Ethnopharmacol. 1992; 36:27–38. PMID: 1501490.

12. Attele AS, Wu JA, Yuan CS. Ginseng pharmacology: multiple constituents and multiple actions. Biochem Pharmacol. 1999; 58:1685–1693. PMID: 10571242.

13. Nah JJ, Hahn JH, Chung S, Choi S, Kim YI, Nah SY. Effect of ginsenosides, active components of ginseng, on capsaicin-induced pain-related behavior. Neuropharmacology. 2000; 39:2180–2184. PMID: 10963761.

14. Shin DJ, Yoon MH, Lee HG, Kim WM, Park BY, Kim YO, et al. The effect of treatment with intrathecal ginsenosides in a rat model of postoperative pain. Korean J Pain. 2007; 20:100–105.

15. Kim SY, Yoon MH, Lee HG, Kim WM, Lee JD, Kim YO, et al. The role of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors on the antinociception of Korean red ginseng in the spinal cord of rats. Korean J Pain. 2008; 21:27–32.

16. Schwei MJ, Honore P, Rogers SD, Salak-Johnson JL, Finke MP, Ramnaraine ML, et al. Neurochemical and cellular reorganization of the spinal cord in a murine model of bone cancer pain. J Neurosci. 1999; 19:10886–10897. PMID: 10594070.

17. Hylden JL, Wilcox GL. Intrathecal morphine in mice: a new technique. Eur J Pharmacol. 1980; 67:313–316. PMID: 6893963.

18. Dixon WJ. Efficient analysis of experimental observations. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1980; 20:441–462. PMID: 7387124.

19. Yoon MH, Choi JI, Jeong SW. Antinociception of intrathecal cholinesterase inhibitors and cholinergic receptors in rats. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003; 47:1079–1084. PMID: 12969099.

20. Nah SY. Ginseng; recent advances and trends. Korean J Ginseng Sci. 1997; 21:1–12.

21. Kaku T, Miyata T, Uruno T, Sako I, Kinoshita A. Chemico-pharmacological studies on saponins of Panax ginseng C. A. Meyer. II. Pharmacological part. Arzneimittelforschung. 1975; 25:539–547. PMID: 239732.

22. Lee JH, Jeong SM, Lee BH, Kim DH, Kim JH, Kim JI, et al. Differential effect of bovine serum albumin on ginsenoside metabolite-induced inhibition of alpha3beta4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Arch Pharm Res. 2003; 26:868–873. PMID: 14609137.

23. Nah SY, McCleskey EW. Ginseng root extract inhibits calcium channels in rat sensory neurons through a similar path, but different receptor, as mu-type opioids. J Ethnopharmacol. 1994; 42:45–51. PMID: 8046943.

24. Nah SY, Park HJ, McCleskey EW. A trace component of ginseng that inhibits Ca2+ channels through a pertussis toxin-sensitive G protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995; 92:8739–8743. PMID: 7568008.

25. Rhim H, Kim H, Lee DY, Oh TH, Nah SY. Ginseng and ginsenoside Rg3, a newly identified active ingredient of ginseng, modulate Ca2+ channel currents in rat sensory neurons. Eur J Pharmacol. 2002; 436:151–158. PMID: 11858794.

26. Shin YH, Jung OM, Nah JJ, Nam KY, Kim CY, Nah SY. Ginsenosides that produce differential antinociception in mice. Gen Pharmacol. 1999; 32:653–659. PMID: 10401990.