Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 232
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 203-216

Effects of intrathecal and intracerebroventricular microinjection of kaempferol on pain: possible mechanisms of action

1 Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Physiology, School of Medicine; Neurophysiology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3 Neurophysiology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Mohammad Zarei
Department of Physiology, School of Medicine; Neurophysiology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1735-5362.310527

Rights and Permissions

Background and purpose: Kaempferol (KM), a flavonoid, has an anti-inflammatory and anticancer effect and prevents many metabolic diseases. Nonetheless, very few studies have been done on the antinociceptive effects of KM. This research aimed at assessing the involvement of opioids, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, and inflammatory mediators in the antinociceptive effects of KM in male Wistar rats. Experimental approach: The intracerebroventricular and/or intrathecal administration of the compounds was done for examining their central impacts on the thermal and chemical pain by the tail-flick and formalin paw tests. For assessing the role of opioid and GABA receptors in the possible antinociceptive effects of KM, several antagonists were used. Also, a rotarod test was carried out for assessing motor performance. Findings/Results: The intracerebroventricular and/or intrathecal microinjections of KM (40 μg/rat) had partially antinociceptive effects in the tail-flick test in rats (P < 0.05). In the formalin paw model, the intrathecal microinjection of KM had antinociceptive effects in phase 1 (20 and 40 μg/rat; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively) and phase 2 (20 and 40 μg/rat; P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). Using naloxonazine and/or bicuculline approved the involvement of opioid and GABA receptors in the central antinociceptive effects of KM, respectively. Moreover, KM reduced the expression levels of caspase 6, interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6. The antinociceptive effects of KM were not linked to variations in the locomotor activity. Conclusion and implications: It can be concluded that KM has remarkable antinociceptive effects at a spinal level, which is associated with the presence of the inflammatory state. These impacts were undetectable following injections in the lateral ventricle. The possible mechanisms of KM antinociception are possibly linked to various modulatory pathways, including opioid and GABA receptors.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded113    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal