The neural basis of footshock analgesia: The role of specific ventral medullary nuclei

Previous studies have demonstrated that brief front paw shock produces opiate analgesia while brief hind paw shock produces non-opiate analgesia in rats. Additionally, front paw shock and hind paw shock can produce an opiate-mediated classically conditioned analgesia; that is, when shock is delivered to an animal, environmental cues become associated with this stimulus such that these cues become capable of producing potent opiate analgesia in the absence of shock. Investigations of the neural bases of these phenomena have revealed that front paw shock and classical conditioning lead to activation of supraspinal sites which mediate analgesia via descending pathways lying solely within the dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) of the spinal cord. Hind paw footshock induced analgesia (FSIA) is also mediated by a descending DLF pathway but is unlike front paw FSIA or classically conditioned analgesia in that it involves intraspinal pathways as well. The aim of the present series of experiments was to identify the supraspinal origin of the centrifugal DLF pathway mediating front paw (opiate) FSIA, hind paw (non-opiate) FSIA, and classically conditioned (opiate) analgesia. These studies examined the effect of electrolytic lesions of the nucleus raraphe magnus (NRM), nucleus reticularis paragigantocellularis (PGC), and combined lesions of these two areas (nucleus raphe alatus, NRA) on these environmentally-induced analgesias. The results of this work indicate that the NRA is the origin of the spinal cord DLF pathway mediating front paw (opiate) FSIA and classically conditioned (opiate) analgesia. Hind paw (non-opiate) FSIA is also mediated, in part, by the NRA but must involve another, yet unidentified, brainstem site(s) as well.     

Classical conditioning of front paw and hind paw footshock induced analgesia (FSIA): Naloxone reversibility and descending pathways

Opiate and non-opiate footshock induced analgesia (FSIA) can be differentially elicited dependent upon the body region shocked. As measured by the spinally-mediated tail flick test, hind paw shock produces non-opiate analgesia whereas front paw shock produces opiate analgesia. The present series of experiments utilized cord lesions and transections to identify descending and intraspinal pathways mediating front paw and hind paw FSIA. The results of these studies indicate that front paw shock leads to activation of supraspinal sites which mediate analgeshi via descending pathways lying solely within the dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) of the spinal cord; direct intraspinal pathways are not involved. Hind paw FSIA is also mediated by a descending DLF pathway but is unlike front paw FSIA in that it involves intraspinal pathways as well. This work provides further parallels between the analgesias produced by morphine, electrical brain stimulation and environmental stimuli.     

The neural basis of footshock analgesia: The effect of periaqueductal gray lesions and decerebration

Previous studies have demonstrated that brief front paw shock and brief hind paw shock produce potent opiate and non-opiate analgesia, respectively. Front paw footshock-induced analgesia (FSIA) and hind paw FSIA are similar in that each is mediated by a medullospinal pathway. A question which arises is whether these opiate and non-opiate descending pathways are activated in direct response to afferent information from the spinal cord or whether indirect activation via more rostral centers is required. The first experiment examined the effect of lesions of the rostral periaqueductal gray (PAG) and caudal PAG on front paw (opiate) FSIA and hind paw (non-opiate) FSIA. In no case did PAG lesions markedly reduce the magnitude of these pain inhibitory states. Since this result raised the possibility that rostral centers may not have any major involvement in the production of these phenomena, the second experiment examined the effect of decerebration on front paw FSIA and hind paw FSIA. Decerebration had no effect on hind paw FSIA and, at most, produced only a very modest decrease in front paw FSIA. The fact that potent and prolonged analgesia can still be elicited after decerebration clearly demonstrates that limbic, cortical, thalamic, and rostral midbrain structures are not critical to the production of these pain inhibitory effects. Thus this work provides the first demonstration of opiate and non-opiate analgesia systems within the caudal brainstem and spinal cord which can be activated by environmental stimuli.     

Muscarinic cholinergic mediation of opiate and non-opiate environmentally induced analgesias

Previous studies have demonstrated that brief front paw shock and brief hind paw shock produce prolonged opiate and non-opiate analgesia, respectively. Additionally, opiate analgesia can be classically conditioned by using either front paw shock or hind paw shock as the unconditioned stimulus. However, beyond this point little is known regarding the neurochemistry of these phenomena. The present series of studies examined the potential involvement of nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic systems in these 3 forms of environmentally induced analgesia. These experiments demonstrate that muscarinic cholinergic sites within the central nervous system are critically involved in the mediation of both hind paw (non-opiate) foot shock-induced analgesia (FSIA) and classically conditioned (opiate) analgesia since scopolamine, but not equimolar methylscopolamine, significantly attenuated analgesia. Furthermore, the primary muscarine site(s) appears to exist at a supraspinal, rather than spinal, level since delivery of scopolamine directly to the lumbosacral cord produced, at most, only a slight decrease in analgesia. Nicotinic systems do not appear to be importantly involved in any of these forms of environmentally induced analgesias since mecamylamine had no effect on either front paw FSIA or hind paw FSIA and, at most, produced only a slight reduction in classically conditioned analgesia. These data and a review of the literature suggest that the critical cholinergic sites involved in hind paw FSIA exist within the caudal brainstem whereas cholinergic sites within more rostral brain levels probably mediate classically conditioned analgesia.     

Footshock induced analgesia in dependent neither on pituitary nor sympathetic activation

A variety of environmental stimuli have been demonstrated to produce potent behavioral analgesia. Of these, footshock has been shown to be capable of differentially eliciting opiate or non-opiate analgesia dependent upon the body region shocked; front paw and hind paw shock produce opiate and non-opiate analgesia, respectively. In addition, footshock can be used as a conditioned stimulus to elicit classically conditioned opiate analgesia. A question which arises is whether such pain inhibition is mediated by neural or hormonal pathways. Evidence exists which suggests that endogenous opioids in the pituitary and adrenal medulla may be involved in the production of environmentally induced analgesia. Furthermore, epinephrine administration has previously been shown to produce pronounced pain inhibition. However, the present series of experiments demonstrate that the pituitary-adrenal cortical and sympathetic-adrenal medullary axes are neither necessary nor sufficient for the production of footshock induced analgesia (FSIA). Hypophysectomy failed to attenuate front paw FSIA, hind paw FSIA or classically conditioned analgesia indicating that pituitary β-endorphin or other pituitary factors are not necessary for the production of analgesia. Adrenal opioids and peripheral catecholamines are also not critical since front paw FSIA was potentiated by adrenalectomy or total sympathetic blockade. Furthermore, pituitary and sympathetic activation are not sufficient for the production of analgesia since low thoracic spinalization allows normal hormonal response to front paw shock yet abolishes shock-induced inhibition of the spinally mediated tail flick reflex. These results provide strong evidence that front paw FSIA, hind paw FSIA and classically conditioned analgesia are mediated by neural, rather than hormonal, pathways and provide further parallels between these forms of environmental analgesia, morphine analgesia and brain stimulation produced analgesia.     

Bilateral lesions of the dorsolateral funiculus of the cat spinal cord: Effects on basal nociceptive reflexes and nociceptive suppression produced by cholinergic activation of the pontine parabrachial region

In cats, bilateral microinjections of the cholinergic agonist, carbachol (0.6 micrograms in 0.2 microliter), into an area surrounding the lateral half of the brachium conjunctivum (BC) produces a non-narcotic suppression of nociceptive responses, as assessed by flexion reflexes (tail-flick and calibrated pinch tests). Bilateral lesions of the dorsolateral funiculi (DLF) of the thoracic spina cord (T2) significantly reduced the magnitude of this nociceptive suppression. Nociceptive suppression following carbachol microinjections into sites along the dorsal aspect of BC was reduced by DLF lesions to a greater degree than nociceptive suppression following injections into sites within or ventral to BC. Relatively superficial DLF lesions produced reductions in nociceptive suppression which were equivalent to reductions induced by deeper lesions. DLF lesions, either superficial or deep, produced equivalent, reliable decreases in tail-flick test assessments of baseline nociceptive thresholds. The magnitude of decreases in baseline nociceptive thresholds produced by DLF lesions was not correlated with the magnitude of reduction of carbachol-induced suppression of nociceptive responses, indicating that DLF lesions suppress anti-nociception independent of baseline alterations. These data suggest that non-narcotic analgesia produced by cholinergic activation of cells along the dorsal aspect of BC may be predominantly mediated by fibers descending within the DLF. However, results of the retrograde horseradish peroxidase (HRP) tracing studies reported in the present investigation indicate that this pain suppression is probably mediated by polysynaptic pathways since this region dorsal to BC projects neither through DLF nor extra-DLF pathways. Retrograde HRP data show that areas ventral to and including BC projects to the cord via both DLF and extra-DLF pathways. Since DLF lesions were less effective in reducing analgesia attained from ventral compared to dorsal sites, spinal pathways other than DLF may mediate reflex suppression following carbachol microinjection into these more ventral sites. Possible cholinergic contributions to endogenous, non-opiate forms of analgesia are discussed.     

Kappa opiate receptors mediate tail-shock induced antinociception at spinal levels.

Previous work has demonstrated that 3 pharmacologically and neuroanatomically distinct analgesia systems can be sequentially activated by increasing numbers of transcutaneous tail-shock. To date, the categorization of the early (after 2 tail-shocks) and late (after 80-100 tail-shocks) analgesias as opiate-mediated has been based on the ability of systemic naltrexone and morphine tolerance to block these effects. In contrast, the analgesia observed after 5-40 tail-shocks is unaffected by these manipulations, leading to its categorization as non-opiate. The present work and the following companion paper were aimed at identifying the neuroanatomical loci at which endogenous opiates exert their analgesic effects in this tail-shock paradigm and, further, to identify which opiate receptor subtypes are involved. The 3 experiments included in the present paper focus on the role of spinal opiates in tail-shock induced analgesia. The first experiment demonstrates that the tail-shock parameters used do not directly activate pain suppressive circuitry within the spinal cord, but rather activate centrifugal pain modulation circuitry originating within the brain. The last two experiments examine the effect of intrathecal microinjection of either naltrexone (a relatively non-selective opiate receptor antagonist), binaltorphimine (kappa receptor antagonist), Cys2-Tyr3-Orn5-Pen7-amide (CTOP) (mu receptor antagonist), or naltrindole (delta receptor antagonist). Taken together, these latter 2 experiments demonstrate that both the early (after 2 shocks) and late (after 80-100 shocks) opiate analgesias are mediated by kappa opiate receptors within the spinal cord.     

The neurochemical basis of footshock analgesia: the role of spinal cord serotonin and norepinephrine

Previous studies have demonstrated that brief front paw and brief hind paw shock produce potent opiate and non-opiate analgesia, respectively. Additionally, opiate analgesia can be classically conditioned by using either front paw shock or hind paw shock as the unconditioned stimulus. Front paw footshock-induced analgesia (FSIA), hind paw FSIA, and classically conditioned analgesia are similar in that each is mediated by a medullospinal pathway. However, the neurochemistry of these medullospinal connections has never been investigated. One question which arises is whether any of these phenomena are mediated by monoaminergic neurotransmitters at the level of the spinal cord. The present series of experiments examined the effect of depleting spinal serotonin (5-HT) and combined depletion of spinal 5-HT and norepinephrine (NE) on front paw FSIA, hind paw FSIA, and classically conditioned analgesia. Hind paw FSIA and classically conditioned analgesia were not attenuated by either of these neurochemical manipulations. Front paw FSIA was significantly reduced by both 5-HT depletion and combined 5-HT and NE depletion. To assess the relative importance of spinal 5 HT and NE in front paw FSIA, NE and 5-HT antagonists were injected onto the lumbosacral cord prior to shock exposure. Attenuation of front paw FSIA by equimolar doses of the monoamine blockers was much greater following injection of the 5-HT blocker than after the NE blocker. These data indicate that spinal 5-HT and, apparently to a lesser extent, spinal NE mediate front paw (opiate) FSIA whereas neither 5-HT nor NE appears to mediate hind paw FSIA or classically conditioned analgesia.     

Cholecystokinin antagonists selectively potentiate analgesia induced by endogenous opiates

We have recently observed that exogenous sulfated cholecystokinin octapeptide (CCK) can antagonize various forms of opiate analgesia and that the CCK receptor blocker proglumide potentiates morphine analgesia. These observations, plus the similarity in the distribution of CCK and opiate systems, suggest that endogenous CCK may act as a physiological opiate antagonist. We have extended these initial studies by examining the effect of CCK antagonists on opiate analgesia produced by release of endogenous opiates (front paw footshock induced analgesia) and by intrathecal administration of D-Ala-methionine enkephalinamide, a stable analogue of an endogenous opiate. Additionally, the specificity of proglumide's effect was examined by testing the effect of this drug on various forms of non-opiate analgesia. This series of experiments demonstrate that CCK antagonists can markedly potentiate analgesia induced by endogenous opiates and provide strong support for the hypothesis that endogenous CCK systems can oppose the analgesic effects of opiates. Potentiation of analgesia by CCK receptor blockers appears to be selective for opiate systems since proglumide typically attenuated or had no effect on various forms of non-opiate analgesia. These data suggest that CCK blockers may be clinically useful for enhancing the analgesic effects of procedures such as acupuncture, which may be mediated by release of endogenous opiates.     

Opiate vs non-opiate footshock-induced analgesia (FSIA): The body region shocked is a critical factor

Previous work has demonstrated that footshock can elicit either opiate or non-opiate analgesia. The present study has demonstrated that one critical factor determining the involvement of endogenous opioids is the body region shocked. Using 90 s shock, front paw shock produced an opiate analgesia which was significantly antagonized by as little as 0.1 mg/kg systemic naloxone and morphine tolerance. In the latter experiment, a parallel recovery of the analgesic potencies of both front paw shock and morphine was observed following 2 weeks of opiate abstinence. In contrast, hind paw shock produced a non-opiate analgesia which failed to be attenuated by 20 mg/kg systemic naloxone and showed no cross-tolerance to morphine. Since identical shock parameters were used for front paw and hind paw shock in the systemic naloxone experiments, stress per se clearly cannot be the crucial factor determining the involvement of endogenous opioids in footshock-induced analgesia. These results were discussed with respect to clinical treatments of pain which utilize somatosensory stimulation.     

A permissive role of corticosterone in an opioid form of stress-induced analgesia: blockade of opiate analgesia is not due to stress-induced hormone release

The 100 inescapable tail-shock paradigm produces three sequential analgesic states as the number of shocks increases: an early opioid analgesia (after 2 shocks) that is attenuated by systemic naltrexone, a middle analgesia (after 5–40 shocks) that is unaffected by systemic naltrexone, and a late opioid analgesia (after 80–100 shocks) that is attenuated by systemic naltrexone. In order to determine whether the absence of adrenal hormones would affect any of these analgesias, we tested adrenalectomized (ADX) versus sham-operated control rats 2 weeks post-surgery. Pain threshold was assessed using the tail-flick (TF) test. ADX attenuated both the early (2 shock) and late (80–100 shock) opiate analgesias and failed to reduce the naltrexone-insensitive analgesia after 5–40 shocks. We demonstrated that a loss of adrenomedullary catecholamines does not underlie the ADX-induced attenuation of opioid analgesia since sympathetic blockade using systemic chlorisondamine (6 mg/kg) failed to reduce analgesia at any point in the shock session. It was further shown that stress levels of adrenal hormones are not critical since (a) analgesia was unaffected when animals were tested 48 h after ADX, (b) 2 shocks do not produce a surge in corticosterone (CORT) over and above levels observed in animals restrained and TF tested in preparation for shock, and (c) basal CORT replacement in drinking water fully restored analgesia in ADX rats. These experiments demonstrate that basal CORT, rather than adrenomedullary substances, is critical to the expression of analgesia. The function of CORT here is not linked to a shock-induced surge of the steroid. CORT appears to play a permissive role in the expression of analgesia. Potential effects of the absence of corticosteroids on neurotransmitter biosynthesis important in analgesia production are discussed.     

Parallel activation of multiple spinal opiate systems appears to mediate 'non-opiate' stress-induced analgesias.

Pain is powerfully modulated by circuitries within the CNS. Two major types of pain inhibitory systems are commonly believed to exist: opiate (those that are blocked by systemic opiate antagonists and by systemic morphine tolerance) and non-opiate (those that are not). We used intrathecal delivery of mu, delta, and kappa opiate receptor antagonists to examine 3 well-accepted non-opiate stress-induced analgesias. Combined blockade of all 3 classes of opiate receptors antagonized all of the 'non-opiate' analgesias. Further experiments demonstrated that blocking mu and delta or mu and kappa was sufficient to abolish 'non-opiate' analgesias. Combined blockade of kappa and delta receptors was without effect. The clear conclusion is that all endogenous analgesia systems may in fact be opiate at the level of the spinal cord. Phenomena previously thought to be non-opiate appear to involve parallel activation of multiple spinal opiate processes. These findings suggest the need for a fundamental shift in conceptualizations regarding the organization and function of pain modulatory systems in particular, and opiate systems in general.     

Delta opiate receptors mediate tail-shock induced antinociception at supraspinal levels.

Previous work has demonstrated that 3 pharmacologically and neuroanatomically distinct analgesia systems can be sequentially activated by increasing numbers of transcutaneous tail-shock. To date, the categorization of the early (after 2 tail-shocks) and late (after 80-100 tail-shocks) analgesias as opiate-mediated has been based on the ability of systemic naltrexone and morphine tolerance to block these effects. In contrast, the analgesia observed after 5-40 tail-shocks is unaffected by these manipulations, leading to its categorization as non-opiate. The preceding companion paper and the present work were aimed at identifying the neuroanatomical loci at which opiates exert their analgesic effects in this tail-shock paradigm and, further, to identify which opiate receptor subtypes are involved. The 8 experiments included in the present paper examined the effect of microinjecting either naltrexone (a relatively non-selective opiate receptor antagonist), binaltorphimine (kappa receptor antagonist), Cys2-Tyr3-Orn5-Pen7-amide (CTOP) (mu receptor antagonist), or naltrindole (delta receptor antagonist) either into the third ventricle or over the frontal cortex. Taken together, these experiments demonstrate that the late (80-100 shock) opiate analgesia is mediated by delta opiate receptors located within subcortical structures rostral to the 4th ventricle. No evidence for supraspinal opiate involvement in the early (2 shock) opiate analgesia was found.     

Involvement of spinal opioid systems in footshock-induced analgesia: Antagonism by naloxone is possible only before induction of analgesia

Footshock reliably produces analgesia in rats which is mediated either by opiate or non-opiate systems. It has recently been demonstrated that a critical factor determining the involvement of endogenous opioids is the body region shocked; front paw shock produces a naloxone-reversible analgesia and hind paw shock produces an analgesia which fails to be attenuated by this opiate antagonist. The present study demonstrated that a crucial opiate site for the production of front paw footshock-induced analgesia (FSIA) exists within the spinal cord. One microgram of naloxone delivered directly to the lumbosacral cord immediately prior to shock significantly attenuated this analgesia. However, the efficacy of naloxone antagonism was order-dependent in that naloxone failed to antagonize fron paw FSIA if delivered immediately after shock; naloxone could prevent but could not reverse the analgesic state. The body region shocked was again observed to be a critical factor determining the involvement of endogenous opioids since 1 microgram of spinal naloxone failed to antagonize hind paw FSIA. These results were discussed in light of recent evidence proposing a neuromodulatory role of opioids within the spinal cord.     

The nature of conditioned anti-analgesia: spinal cord opiate and anti-opiate neurochemistry

The central nervous system contains circuitry that inhibits pain sensitivity (analgesia), as well as circuitry that opposes pain inhibition (anti-analgesia). Activation of analgesia systems and anti-analgesia systems can each be brought under environmental control using classical conditioning procedures. Analgesia can be produced by cues present before and during aversive events such as electric shock, while active inhibition of analgesia comes to be produced by cues never present immediately before or during shock and therefore signal safety. We have recently reported that these analgesia and anti-analgesia systems interact at the level of the spinal cord. A series of 3 experiments were performed to examine how such interactions occur. First, potential opioid mediation of conditioned analgesia was investigated using systemic and intrathecal (i.t.) delivery of opiate antagonists. Conditioned analgesia was found to be mediated by activation of spinal μ and δ opiate receptors. Second, analgesia produced by each of these receptor subtypes was challenged by environmental signals for safety. Analgesias produced by μ and δ opiate agonists were each abolished by safety signals. Third, antagonists/antisera directed against several putative anti-opiate neurotransmitters were tested i.t. to identify which mediate conditioned anti-analgesia at the level of the spinal cord. A cholecystokinin antagonist abolished conditioned anti-analgesia. In contrast, neuropeptide FF antiserum and a κ opiate antagonist were without effect.     

Analgesic effects of μ antagonists after naloxone non-reversible stress-induced analgesia

Three antagonists at the mu opiate receptor site: naloxone, naltrexone and diprenorphine, and one agonist-antagonist compound nalorphine, at doses usually not analgesic elicited analgesia in rats when administered after non-naloxone-reversible shock-induced analgesia had disappeared. The chi receptor antagonist, MR 2266, and the delta antagonist, ICI 154129, were all ineffective. This effect was no longer present when non-naloxone-reversible shock-induced analgesia was inhibited by the administration of the chi receptor antagonist, MR 2266. These results suggest that the mu opiate receptor may change its conformation under particular conditions such as continuous inescapable shock.     

Spinal mechanisms of te analgesic action of electroconvulsive shock

The present study investigated the spinal systems involved in the analgesic action of electroconvulsive shock (ECS). To identify such systems complete spinal transections and discrete lesions within the dorsal half of the spinal cord were performed. Complete spinal transection eliminated ECS analgesia totally, demonstrating that the observed analgesic effect is attributable to neural conduction. Lesions within the region of the dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) caused a pronounced, but incomplete, attenuation of ECS analgesia. Larger lesions of the dorsal aspects of the spinal cord including both the DLF and the dorsal column area did not result in further attenuation of analgesia. Thus, it appears that within the dorsal cord the area of the DLF contains the fibers mediating the antinociceptive action of ECS. Additional experiments were conducted to determine the neuromediators involved in ECS analgesia. Of a wide range of antagonists injected intraperitoneally (methysergide, phentolamine, haloperidol, diphenhydramine, naloxone, picrotoxin, theophylline and scopolamine), only methysergide produced a significant attenuation of ECS analgesia. In contrast, following intrathecal injections of antagonists a dose-related decrease of analgesia could be seen after the injection of methysergide, phentolamine and naloxone implicating spinal serotonin, noradrenaline and the enkephalins in the analgesic action of ECS. To assess further the interaction between the action of these neurotransmitter systems, we evaluated the effect of drug pair combinations on ECS analgesia. Intrathecal phentolamine + naloxone, methysergide + naloxone and methysergide + phentolamine were injected at doses that caused maximal attenuation of analgesia. Injections of drug combinations did not result in further attenuation of ECS analgesia. It appears that the analgesic action of ECS is mediated via systems descending within the spinal cord. The main contribution to the analgesic action of ECS is from fibers coursing within the DLF, although contribution of neural systems within the ventral spinal cord also exists. These descending analgesia systems appear to utilize serotonin, noradrenaline and endogenous opioids as neurotransmitters. Additional systems the pharmacological nature of which is still undetermined also exist.     

Spinal pain suppression mechanisms may differ for phasic and tonic pain

The dorsalateral funiculus (DLF) spinal pathway has previously been identified as a major pathway involved in descending modulation of pain. While bilateral lesions of the DLF attenuated systemic morphine analgesia as measured by the tail-flick test, they failed to attenuate analgesia as measured by the formalin test. These results suggest that phasic and tonic pain, modeled by the tail-flick and formalin tests, respectively, may utilize different pain suppression mechanisms.     

Two opioid forms of stress analgesia: Studies of tolerance and cross-tolerance

We have previously reported that stress analgesia sensitive to and insensitive to opiate antagonists can be differentially produced in rats by varying the severity or temporal pattern of inescapable footshock. In these studies, we give further evidence for the opioid and non-opioid bases of these paradigms of stress analgesia. We find that naloxone-sensitive analgesia demonstrates tolerance with repeated stress and cross-tolerance with morphine, whereas naloxone-insensitive analgesia demonstrates neither of these characteristics. Moreover, different forms of opioid, but not non-opioid, stress analgesia manifest cross-tolerance with each other. These data are discussed in terms of the similarities and differences between two forms of opioid stress analgesia.     

Is spinal cord dorsolateral funiculus involved in hypoalgesia induced by counter-irritation?

Several previous studies have demonstrated that, depending upon the behavioral test used, counter-irritation (i.e. the pain-relieving effects of pain elicited from heterotopic body areas) can produce hypoalgesia. In the present study, behavioral responses were elicited in the rat by increasing calibrated pressure applied to a hindpaw (Randall-Selitto test; 'passive' stimulus) and were studied before and after a subcutaneous formalin injection ('active' stimulus). The vocalization threshold to the pressure was clearly increased after injection of the algogenic solution either in the forepaw or in the cheek. Using this vocalization threshold, the counter-irritation-produced hypoalgesia was generally unchanged by unilateral dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) lesions. Following bilateral DLF lesions, hypoalgesia was decreased when formalin was injected in the forepaw, but was unaffected when the algogen was injected in the cheek. The present results partly contrast with previous papers from our group, where it has been assumed that the DLF is mainly involved in the neural circuitry subserving diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC), which have been considered as one possible neurophysiological basis for counter-irritation phenomena. They are discussed with reference to various hypotheses, including DNIC, as explanations for counter-irritation.