Analgesia for non-mammalian vertebrates

Williams, Catherine J.; James, Lauren E.; Bertelsen, Mads F.; Wang, Tobias

doi:10.1016/j.cophys.2019.07.001

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, essential information about some affects and their generation is very limited or non-existent in less well-studied animals, such as in many zoo or free-living wildlife species (e.g., References [ 70 , 72 , 84 ]). For example, it is not clear whether cartilaginous fish experience some kinds of pain because of the failure, as yet, to identify the necessary sensory receptors [ 88 ]. Accordingly, each example should be assessed by reference to what is known about the animals’ species-specific behaviour, physiology and ecology considered in relation to its particular physical, biological and social environment [ 85 ].…”

Section: The 2015 Five Domains Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Mellor

Beausoleil

Littlewood

et al. 2020

Animals

503

397

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as “survival-critical affects”. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals’ behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as “situation-related affects”, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals’ aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human–animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

show abstract

Section: The 2015 Five Domains Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Mellor

Beausoleil

Littlewood

et al. 2020

Animals

503

397

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estas aves, quando apresentam alguma enfermidade devem ser tratadas de acordo por médico veterinário especializado. O tratamento da dor em aves é uma área em expansão, e pesquisas realizadas com diferentes agentes farmacológicos ou não, devem ser incentivadas (Williams et al, 2019;Mikoni et al, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Uso Do Cloreto De Amônio Como Neurolítico Em Grou-Coroado-Cinzento (Balearica Pavonina) Mantido Sob Cuidados Humanos – Relato De Caso

Morel,

FESER

2024

Anais Do III Congresso Brasileiro on-Line De Ensino, Pesquisa E Extensão

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The study of pain in animals is based on their nociceptive behavior, namely the capacity to respond to potentially damaging stimuli (Abboud et al 2021). The ability to detect and respond to noxious stimuli is present throughout the Metazoan kingdom, including in vertebrates such as Drosophila melanogaster, known as the fruit fly (Williams et al 2019). D. melanogaster has been used for over a century in biological research (Kimble and Nüsslein-Volhard 2022), as a model organism, in drug discovery, genetic research and molecular pathways, among other studies (Pandey and Nichols 2011;Verheyen 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classical analgesic drugs modulate nociceptive-like escape behavior in Drosophila melanogaster larvae

Santos-Silva¹,

Lopes²,

GuimarÃES³

et al. 2022

RRP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Nociceptive stimulus triggers escape responses in Drosophila melanogaster larvae, characterized by 360° rolling behavior along its own body axis. Therefore, it is possible to study analgesic drugs based on this stereotypical nociceptive-like escape behavior. Here, we aimed to develop an analgesic predictive validity test of thermal nociception through D. melanogaster larvae. Materials and methods: We evaluated the effect of classical analgesics (morphine, dipyrone, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and dexamethasone (DXM)) in the rolling behavior latency of D. melanogaster larvae exposed to thermal-acute noxious stimulus and nociceptive sensitization paradigm. Drugs were injected into hemocoel (100 nL) before nociceptive measurement. Results and discussion: Rolling behavior latency was increased by morphine (2, 4, 8 and 16 ng) in dose-dependent manner. Naloxone (4 ng) fully reversed maximum effect of morphine. Dipyrone (32, 64 and 128 ng) and DXM (8 and 16 ng) elicited dose-dependent antinociceptive effects. Exposure of larvae to 97% of maximal infrared intensity induced nociceptive sensitization, i.e., latency changed from 12 to 7.5 seconds. ASA (25, 50 and 100 ng) and DXM (4, 8 and 16 ng) were administered 150 min after nociceptive sensitization and displayed reverse sensitization in rapid onset (30 min after injection). DXM (16 ng), injected prior to nociceptive sensitization, displayed a delay in the onset of action (150 min after injection). Locomotor behaviors were not affected by analgesic substances. Conclusion: Our findings open perspectives for evaluation and discovery of antinociceptive drugs using D. melanogaster larvae model. Graphical abstract

show abstract

Analgesia for non-mammalian vertebrates

Cited by 14 publications

References 117 publications

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Uso Do Cloreto De Amônio Como Neurolítico Em Grou-Coroado-Cinzento (Balearica Pavonina) Mantido Sob Cuidados Humanos – Relato De Caso

Classical analgesic drugs modulate nociceptive-like escape behavior in Drosophila melanogaster larvae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About