Divergent modulation of nociception by glutamatergic and GABAergic neuronal subpopulations in the periaqueductal gray

The ventrolateral periaqueductal gray (vlPAG) constitutes a major descending pain modulatory system and is a crucial site for opioid-induced analgesia. A number of previous studies have demonstrated that glutamate and GABA play critical opposing roles in nociceptive processing in the vlPAG. It has been suggested that glutamatergic neurotransmission exerts antinociceptive effects, whereas GABAergic neurotransmission exert pronociceptive effects on pain transmission, through descending pathways. The inability to exclusively manipulate subpopulations of neurons in the PAG has prevented direct testing of this hypothesis. Here, we demonstrate the different contributions of genetically defined glutamatergic and GABAergic vlPAG neurons in nociceptive processing by employing cell type-specific chemogenetic approaches in mice. Global chemogenetic manipulation of vlPAG neuronal activity suggests that vlPAG neural circuits exert tonic suppression of nociception, consistent with previous pharmacological and electrophysiological studies. However, selective modulation of GABAergic or glutamatergic neurons demonstrates an inverse regulation of nociceptive behaviors by these cell populations. Selective chemogenetic activation of glutamatergic neurons, or inhibition of GABAergic neurons, in vlPAG suppresses nociception. In contrast, inhibition of glutamatergic neurons, or activation of GABAergic neurons, in vlPAG facilitates nociception. Our findings provide direct experimental support for a model in which excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the PAG bidirectionally modulate nociception

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Eric Olson

Component about Eri

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal