Publications

Acute insults produce hyperalgesic priming, a neuroplastic change in nociceptors that markedly prolongs inflammatory mediator-induced hyperalgesia. After an acute initiating insult, there is a 72 h delay to the onset of priming, for which the underlying mechanism is unknown. We hypothesized that the delay is due to the time required for a signal to travel from the peripheral terminal to the cell body followed by a return signal to the peripheral terminal. We report that when an inducer of hyperalgesic priming (monocyte chemotactic protein 1) is administered at the spinal cord of Sprague Dawley rats, priming is detected at the peripheral terminal with a delay significantly shorter than when applied peripherally. Spinally induced priming is detected not only when prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is presented to the peripheral nociceptor terminals, but also when it is presented intrathecally to the central terminals in the spinal cord. Furthermore, when an inducer of priming is administered in the paw, priming can be detected in spinal cord (as prolonged hyperalgesia induced by intrathecal PGE2), but only when the mechanical stimulus is presented to the paw on the side where the priming inducer was administered. Both spinally and peripherally induced priming is prevented by intrathecal oligodeoxynucleotide antisense to the nuclear transcription factor CREB mRNA. Finally, the inhibitor of protein translation reversed hyperalgesic priming only when injected at the site where PGE2 was administered, suggesting that the signal transmitted from the cell body to the peripheral terminal is not a newly translated protein, but possibly a newly expressed mRNA.

BACKGROUND

. While choices about genetic testing are increasingly common for patients and families, and public opinion surveys suggest public interest in genomics, it is not known how adults from the general population value genetic testing for heritable conditions. We sought to understand in a US sample the relative value of the characteristics of genetic tests to identify risk of hereditary colorectal cancer, among the first genomic applications with evidence to support its translation to clinical settings.

METHODS

. A Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey was conducted with adults age 50 years and older from a probability-based US panel. Participants were asked to make a series of choices between 2 hypothetical blood tests that differed in risk of false-negative test, privacy, and cost. Random parameters logit models were used to estimate preferences, the dollar value of genetic information, and intent to have genetic testing.

RESULTS

. A total of 355 individuals completed choice-format questions. Cost and privacy were more highly valued than reducing the chance of a false-negative result. Most (97% [95% confidence interval (CI)], 95%-99%) would have genetic testing to reduce the risk of dying of colorectal cancer in the best scenario (no false negatives, results disclosed to primary care physician). Only 41% (95% CI, 25%-57%) would have genetic testing in the worst case (20% false negatives, results disclosed to insurance company).

CONCLUSIONS

. Given the characteristics and levels included in the choice, if false-negative test results are unlikely and results are shared with a primary care physician, the majority would have genetic testing. As genomic services become widely available, primary care professionals will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about genetic testing decisions.