ArticlePain2020
The impact of bone cancer on the peripheral encoding of mechanical pressure stimuli.
Article in Pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative pregabalin does not alter behavioural or diffuse noxious inhibitory control responses in 2 rat models of chronic pain.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Imaging sensory transmission and neuronal plasticity in primary sensory neurons with a positively tuned voltage indicator.Nature communications · 2025Article
- An interdisciplinary perspective on peripheral drivers of pain in rheumatoid arthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of pain related behaviors and disease related outcomes in an immunocompetent mouse model of prostate cancer induced bone pain.Journal of bone oncology · 2023Article
- In Vivo Calcium Imaging of Neuronal Ensembles in Networks of Primary Sensory Neurons in Intact Dorsal Root Ganglia.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2023Article
- Activation of GDNF-ERK-Runx1 signaling contributes to P2X3R gene transcription and bone cancer pain.iScience · 2022Article
- Remembering Stephen McMahon, a great electrophysiologist, innovator and mentor.Nature neuroscience · 2022Article
- Challenges and opportunities in translational pain research - An opinion paper of the working group on translational pain research of the European pain federation (EFIC).European journal of pain (London, England) · 2021Article
- Sensitization of Cutaneous Primary Afferents in Bone Cancer Revealed by In Vivo Calcium Imaging.Cancers · 2020Article
- The Stage-Specific Plasticity of Descending Modulatory Controls in a Rodent Model of Cancer-Induced Bone Pain.Cancers · 2020Article
- Calcium imaging for analgesic drug discovery.Neurobiology of pain (Cambridge, Mass.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Skeletal metastases are frequently accompanied by chronic pain that is mechanoceptive in nature. Mechanistically, cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is mediated by peripheral sensory neurons innervating the cancerous site, the cell bodies of which are housed in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG). How these somatosensory neurons encode sensory information in CIBP remains only partly explained. Using a validated rat model, we first confirmed cortical bone destruction in CIBP but not sham-operated rats (day 14 after surgery, designated "late"-stage bone cancer). This occurred with behavioural mechanical hypersensitivity (Kruskal-Wallis H for independent samples; CIBP vs sham-operated, day 14; P < 0.0001). Next, hypothesising that the proportion and phenotype of primary afferents would be altered in the disease state, dorsal root ganglia in vivo imaging of genetically encoded calcium indicators and Markov Cluster Analysis were used to analyse 1748 late-stage CIBP (n = 10) and 757 sham-operated (n = 9), neurons. Distinct clusters of responses to peripheral stimuli were revealed. In CIBP rats, upon knee compression of the leg ipsilateral to the tumour, (1) 3 times as many sensory afferents responded (repeated-measures analysis of variance: P < 0.0001 [vs sham]); (2) there were significantly more small neurons responding (Kruskal-Wallis for independent samples (vs sham): P < 0.0001); and (3) approximately 13% of traced tibial cavity afferents responded (no difference observed between CIBP and sham-operated animals). We conclude that an increased sensory afferent response is present in CIBP rats, and this is likely to reflect afferent recruitment from outside of the bone rather than increased intraosseous afferent activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.