The detection of cool temperatures is thought to be mediated by primary afferent neurons that express the cool temperature sensing protein Transient Receptor Potential Cation Channel, Subfamily M, Member 8 (TRPM8). Using mice, this study tested the hypothesis that sex differences in sensitivity to cool temperatures were mediated by differences in neurons that express TRPM8. Ion currents from TRPM8 expressing trigeminal ganglion (TRG) neurons in females demonstrated larger hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated currents (Ih) than male neurons at both 30° and 18°C. Additionally, female neurons’ voltage gated potassium currents (Ik) were suppressed by cooling, whereas male Ik was not significantly affected. At the holding potential tested (-60mV) TRPM8 currents were not visibly activated in either sex by cooling. Modeling the effect of Ih and Ik on membrane potentials demonstrated that at 30° the membrane potential in both sexes is unstable. At 18°, female TRPM8 TRG neurons develop a large oscillating pattern in their membrane potential, whereas male neurons become highly stable. These findings suggest that the differences in Ih and Ik in the TRPM8 TRG neurons of male and female mice likely leads to greater sensitivity of female mice to the cool temperature. This hypothesis was confirmed in an operant reward/conflict assay. Female mice contacted an 18°C surface for approximately half the time that males contacted the cool surface. At 33° and 10°C male and female mice contacted the stimulus for similar amounts of time. These data suggest that sex differences in the functioning of Ih and Ik in TRPM8 expressing primary afferent neurons leads to differences in cool temperature sensitivity.

Rodent models of human disease can be valuable for understanding the mechanisms of a disease and for identifying novel therapies. However, it is critical that these models be vetted prior to committing resources to developing novel therapeutics. Failure to confirm the model can lead to significant losses in time and resources. One model used for migraine headache is to administer nitroglycerin to rodents. Nitroglycerin is known to produce migraine-like pain in humans and is presumed to do the same in rodents. It is not known, however, if the mechanism for nitroglycerin headaches involves the same pathological processes as migraine. In the absence of known mechanisms, it becomes imperative that the model not only translates into successful clinical trials but also successfully reverse translates by demonstrating efficacy of current therapeutics. In this study female rats were given nitroglycerin and nociception was evaluated in OPADs. Estrous was not monitored. Based on the ED50 of nitroglycerin a dose of 10 mg/kg was used for experiments. Sumatriptan, caffeine, buprenorphine and morphine were administered to evaluate the reverse translatability of the model. We found that nitroglycerin did not produce mechanical allodynia in the face of the rats, which is reported to be a consequence of migraine in humans. Nitroglycerin reduced the animals’ participation in the assay. The reduced activity was verified using an assay to measure exploratory behavior. Furthermore, the effects of nitroglycerin were not reversed or prevented by agents that are effective acute therapies for migraine. Two interesting findings from this study, however, were that morphine and nitroglycerin interact to increase the rats’ tolerance of mechanical stimuli on their faces, and they work in concert to slow down the central motor pattern generator for licking on the reward bottle. These interactions suggest that nitroglycerin generated nitric oxide and mu opioid receptors interact with the same neuronal circuits in an additive manner. The interaction of nitroglycerin and morphine on sensory and motor circuits deserves additional examination. In conclusion, based on the results of this study the use of nitroglycerin at these doses in naïve female rats is not recommended as a model for migraine headaches.