TRPV1 drugs alter core body temperature via central projections of primary afferent sensory neurons.

TRPV1, a capsaicin- and heat-activated ion channel, is expressed by peripheral nociceptors and has been implicated in various inflammatory and neuropathic pain conditions. Although pharmacological modulation of TRPV1 has attracted therapeutic interest, many TRPV1 agonists and antagonists produce thermomodulatory side effects in animal models and human clinical trials, limiting their utility. These on-target effects may result from the perturbation of TRPV1 receptors on nociceptors, which transduce signals to central thermoregulatory circuits and release proinflammatory factors from their peripheral terminals, most notably the potent vasodilative neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). Alternatively, these body temperature effects may originate from the modulation of TRPV1 on vascular smooth muscle cells (vSMCs), where channel activation promotes arteriole constriction. Here, we ask which of these pathways is most responsible for the body temperature perturbations elicited by TRPV1 drugs in vivo. We address this question by selectively eliminating TRPV1 expression in sensory neurons or vSMCs and show that only the former abrogates agonist-induced hypothermia and antagonist-induced hyperthermia. Furthermore, lesioning the central projections of TRPV1-positive sensory nerve fibers also abrogates drug-mediated thermomodulation, whereas eliminating CGRP has no effect. Thus, TRPV1 drugs alter core body temperature by modulating sensory input to the central nervous system, rather than through peripheral actions on the vasculature. These findings suggest how mechanistically distinct TRPV1 antagonists may diminish inflammatory pain without affecting core body temperature.

Synergistic Signaling by Light and Acetylcholine in Mouse Iris Sphincter Muscle.

The mammalian pupillary light reflex (PLR) involves a bilateral brain circuit whereby afferent light signals in the optic nerve ultimately drive iris-sphincter-muscle contraction via excitatory cholinergic parasympathetic innervation [1, 2]. Additionally, the PLR in nocturnal and crepuscular sub-primate mammals has a "local" component in the isolated sphincter muscle [3-5], as in amphibians, fish, and bird [6-10]. In mouse, this local PLR requires the pigment melanopsin [5], originally found in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) [11-19]. However, melanopsin's presence and effector pathway locally in the iris remain uncertain. The sphincter muscle itself may express melanopsin [5], or its cholinergic parasympathetic innervation may be modulated by suggested intraocular axonal collaterals of ipRGCs traveling to the eye's ciliary body or even to the iris [20-22]. Here, we show that the muscarinic receptor antagonist, atropine, eliminated the effect of acetylcholine (ACh), but not of light, on isolated mouse sphincter muscle. Conversely, selective genetic deletion of melanopsin in smooth muscle mostly removed the light-induced, but not the ACh-triggered, increase in isolated sphincter muscle's tension and largely suppressed the local PLR in vivo. Thus, sphincter muscle cells are bona fide, albeit unconventional, photoreceptors. We found melanopsin expression in a small subset of mouse iris sphincter muscle cells, with the light-induced contractile signal apparently spreading through gap junctions into neighboring muscle cells. Light and ACh share a common signaling pathway in sphincter muscle. In summary, our experiments have provided details of a photosignaling process in the eye occurring entirely outside the retina.

Spontaneous activation of visual pigments in relation to openness/closedness of chromophore-binding pocket.

Visual pigments can be spontaneously activated by internal thermal energy, generating noise that interferes with real-light detection. Recently, we developed a physicochemical theory that successfully predicts the rate of spontaneous activity of representative rod and cone pigments from their peak-absorption wavelength (λmax), with pigments having longer λmax being noisier. Interestingly, cone pigments may generally be ~25 fold noisier than rod pigments of the same λmax, possibly ascribed to an 'open' chromophore-binding pocket in cone pigments defined by the capability of chromophore-exchange in darkness. Here, we show in mice that the λmax-dependence of pigment noise could be extended even to a mutant pigment, E122Q-rhodopsin. Moreover, although E122Q-rhodopsin shows some cone-pigment-like characteristics, its noise remained quantitatively predictable by the 'non-open' nature of its chromophore-binding pocket as in wild-type rhodopsin. The openness/closedness of the chromophore-binding pocket is potentially a useful indicator of whether a pigment is intended for detecting dim or bright light.