Neuropathic pain is a growing healthcare problem causing a global burden. Currently used analgesics such as opioids are associated with adverse effects; urging the need for safer alternatives. Here we aimed to investigate the potential analgesic effects of tesaglitazar; dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors α and γ (PPARα and γ) agonist in rat models of neuropathic pain. This study also aimed to investigate the modulation of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptor activity by tesaglitazar which could provide a potential mechanism that underlie tesaglitazar antinociceptive effects. Von Frey filaments were used to determine the paw withdrawal threshold (PWT) in adult male Sprague Dawley rats (180-250g) following i.p. injection of streptozotocin (STZ) or cisplatin, which were used as models of neuropathic pain. Antinociceptive effects of tesaglitazar were determined 6 hours after drug administration. Cobalt influx assays in cultured dorsal root ganglia (DRG) neurons were used to study the effects of tesaglitazar preincubation on capsaicin-evoked cobalt influx. Both cisplatin and STZ produced a significant decrease in PWT. The higher dose of tesaglitazar (20μg/kg) significantly restored PWT in both neuropathic pain models (P<0.05). 10μM capsaicin produced a robust cobalt response in DRG neurons. Preincubation of DRG neurones with tesaglitazar 6 hours prior to stimulation with capsaicin significantly reduce capsaicin-evoked cobalt responses in a PPARα and PPARγ dependent fashion (P<0.05). In conclusion, tesaglitazar produced significant analgesic effects in STZ and cisplatin-induced neuropathy, possibly by modulating TRPV1 receptor activity. This may be of potential benefit in clinical practice dealing with peripheral neuropathy.
e23000 Background: Gender disparities exist in academia and are disproportionately affecting females. We conducted a cross sectional study to analyze gender disparities in MM publications in high impact hematology/oncology journals between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2020. Methods: Data was collected through Medline/PubMed database search. High impact journals (impact factor > 10) with at least ten MM related publications were included. Impact factor data was based on the 2016 InCites Journal Citation Report. We used Genderize, a validated database, to determine authors’ gender. Search engines were used if gender was undetermined or did not meet a cut-off of 0.9. Unclassified genders after search were excluded from analysis. Results: A total of 679 publications with 8898 authorships were analyzed. Mean number of authors for females vs. males, per publication was 4.4 and 8.7, respectively. Females constituted a third of total authors. Female first authors, corresponding authors and last/senior authors were 34%, 21% and 18%, respectively. 17% of authors of clinical trial publications were females. Publications by country had comparable percentages (30% females as first authors in the U.S. vs. 32% females as first authors in other countries). The proportion of female authorship in 2020 when compared to 2016 was similar (33%). Between 2016 and 2020, there was slight improvement in female first authors (32%-37%), last authors (16%-21%), and corresponding authors (17%-22%). Conclusions: Gender disparities in MM publications exist and are more obvious in the last/corresponding authorship in both the U.S. and other countries. Despite improvement in proportion of female authors, it remains suboptimal when compared to the growing proportion of female physicians. Efforts should be made to identify factors that contribute to these disparities and work to resolve them.
Gender disparities exist in academia and are disproportionately affecting females. We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze gender disparities in multiple myeloma (MM) publications. A total of 679 publications with 8898 authorships were analyzed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.