ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing NaV1.7 during tonic firing in pig C-nociceptors.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assuming the voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC) NaV1.7 facilitates action potential generation upon slow electrical depolarization, we investigated protoxin II and TTX to target VGSC sub-types and to assess their role in C-fiber excitability when stimulated with sinusoidal single 1 Hz pulse (500 ms) and repetitive 4 Hz stimuli. We performed ex vivo extracellular compound potentials (CAP) recordings of pig saphenous nerve and in vivo pig single nerve fiber (SNF) recordings of heat- mechanosensitive ("polymodal") nociceptors (C-HT) and low- threshold mechanoresponsive C-fibers (C-LTMR) upon electrical 1 and 4 Hz sinusoidal stimulation, which evoke a discharge burst and a tonic response, respectively. Both toxins reduced C-CAP amplitudes and conduction velocity. Number of action potentials evoked by low-intensity phasic (1 Hz) or tonic (4 Hz) sinusoidal stimulation were reduced in C-HT nociceptors after protoxin. In C-LTMR fibers, protoxin reduced the number of action potentials to 4 Hz, but did not affect 1 Hz discharges. The toxins did not increase the delay of action potential initiation of C-CAPs or during SNF. Our results confirm the functional role of NaV1.7 to tonic supra-threshold electrical 4 Hz sinusoidal action potential firing in C-fibers. Protoxin reduced AP discharges to low-intensity phasic 1 Hz stimuli in C-HT nociceptors but not C-LTMR touch fibers. This finding suggests a differential functional role of NaV1.7 between C-fiber classes. Peripheral NaV1.7 blockade seems to increase the depolarization level required for C-nociceptor activation, and this might be relevant to target clinically ongoing pain.
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.