Abstract
Objectives
Low back pain is the second most frequently diagnosed pain condition in the United States’ and although a majority of individuals have resolution of pain during the acute period, an estimated 40% of individuals will experience persistent pain. Given the heterogenous nature of low back pain, this study sought to describe and compare somatosensory and molecular (gene expression) profiles between individuals with acute low back pain and healthy no-pain controls
Methods
Using a previously established protocol, we comprehensively assessed somatosensory parameters among 31 no-pain control participants and 31 participants with acute low back pain. Samples of whole blood were drawn to examine mRNA expression of candidate genes involved in the transduction, maintenance, and modulation of pain.
Results
The acute low back pain group exhibited increased pain sensitivity to cold stimuli, mechanical stimuli, including mechanical temporal summation at both the painful back area and remote location suggesting a mechanism of enhanced central nervous system excitability. In addition, deep tissue specific peripheral sensitization was suggested due to significant differences in pressure pain threshold of the painful back area, but not the remote body site. Several genes that were differentially expressed were significantly associated with somatosensory alterations identified in the acute low back pain group.
Discussion
Acute low back pain participants showed selective pain sensitivity enhancement and differential gene expression profiles compared to pain-free controls. Further research to characterize pain-associated somatosensory changes in the context of altered mRNA expression levels may provide insight on the molecular underpinnings of maladaptive chronic pain.
Keywords: gene expression, low back pain, quantitative sensory testing, sensitization, somatosensory
INTRODUCTION
Low back pain (LBP) is a musculoskeletal symptom defined as discomfort in the region between the thoraco-lumbar and lumbo-sacral junctions and is considered to be “acute” up to the first six weeks after onset [1]. It is the second most frequently diagnosed pain condition in the United States’ and although a majority of individuals have resolution of pain during the acute period, an estimated 40% of individuals will experience persistent LBP, lasting for ≥12 weeks [2–6]. Given the heterogeneous and multidimensional nature of LBP, researchers have focused on psychosocial and environmental risk factors as a means of identifying individuals at risk for persistent LBP [7–11]. Abundant evidence demonstrates that these factors contribute to pain, however, interventions designed to reduce psychosocial and environmental risks factors have only been marginally successful in decreasing the incidence of long-term pain and disability [12–15]. Less attention has been focused on characterizing the somatosensory alterations associated with acute LBP, which may provide a deeper understanding of the biologically-relevant pain mechanisms involved in this condition as well as the transition from acute to persistent LBP.
One method of characterizing the pain experience is through quantitative sensory testing (QST) which was primarily introduced to detect and differentiate between neuropathic syndromes, but also represents a standardized and comprehensive tool for somatosensory testing. The advantages of QST are that it is non-invasive and measures different modalities of pain (mechanical, heat and cold) with reproducibly controlled protocols [16]. While there have been several studies demonstrating increased peripheral and central sensitivity in individuals with chronic LBP [17, 18] few studies have used comprehensive QST protocols to assess for somatosensory alterations during the acute phase. A study that compared only pressure pain threshold in acute and chronic LBP participants found that the chronic group had localized and generalized pressure hyperalgesia, which was not present in the acute group [19]. LeResche and colleagues [20] used pressure pain thresholds, cold pressor pain ratings, conditioned pain modulation and mechanical temporal summation in patients with acute LBP to assess whether test responses predicted clinically significant back pain four months later. Of the psychophysical tests used, lower pressure pain thresholds significantly predicted back pain at four months but the associations were no longer significant after controlling for participant age and sex. More recently, Hϋbsher and colleagues [21] used thermal thresholds and tolerance as well as temporal summation to evaluate differences between individuals with acute LBP, chronic LBP and healthy (no-pain) controls. They found that chronic LBP participants had significantly more sensitive cold pain threshold in the painful area of the back as well as a remote site compared with no-pain controls, however, participants with acute LBP did not show elevated pain sensitivity in response to the selected tests. Whereas these studies suggest efficient pain modulation in individuals with acute LBP [22], to our knowledge, there have been no studies to systematically evaluate peripheral and central sensory alterations using QST during an acute episode of LBP.
Although a precise structural etiology of persistent LBP is rarely present, recent studies document functional alterations that reflect peripheral and possibly central nervous system (CNS) sensitization [23,24]. Peripheral sensitization may be triggered by inflammatory processes resulting from tissue or nerve injury and manifests as increased sensitivity to experimental pain restricted to the site of injury. In contrast, central sensitization can manifest as allodynia, hyperalgesia and/or enhanced temporal summation in non-injured regions of the body. Enhanced sensitivity to experimental pain may be a trait characteristic, possibly conferred through genetic polymorphisms that influence pain signaling [25]. However, accumulating evidence indicates that sensitivity to pain can also develop over time in response to modifications in the expression of genes that encode pain signaling molecules and their receptors, particularly genes associated with neurotrophins [26–29], inflammatory mediators [30] and catecholamines [31]. Altered levels of these pain signaling molecules and their receptors are thought to be important for the early steps of nervous system sensitization. Given that levels of gene expression associated with enhanced pain sensitivity are potentially modifiable [32], further elucidation of the differences in somatosensory function and gene expression at the onset of LBP, during the acute phase, may provide foundational knowledge to evaluate and guide the development of predictive markers and preventative interventions to reduce the incidence of persistent LBP.
Therefore, we sought to describe and compare somatosensory responses to experimental pain and gene expression data between individuals with acute LBP and healthy (no-pain) controls. Using a previously established protocol [16], we comprehensively compared QST parameters between no-pain control participants and those with acute LBP. As this study was exploratory we did not select specific parameters to compare. However, our hypothesis was that there would be significant differences in somatosensory function and gene expression profiles between the acute LBP group and the no-pain control group.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Participants
Men and women between the ages of 18–50 years of age diagnosed with an acute nonspecific LBP episode and able to read and write in English were invited to participate from primary healthcare clinics through advertisements. An acute nonspecific LBP episode was defined as pain anywhere in the region of the low back bound superiorly by the thoraco-lumbar junction and inferiorly by the lumbo-sacral junction, which had been present for >24 hours but <4 weeks duration and was preceded by at least 1 pain-free month [33]. This age range was selected to provide a more homogeneous sample in terms of general health, work status and contributing factors of persistent LBP. Recruitment took place at an urban university health system in the mid-Atlantic region after approval from the Institution Review Board. All participants provided written consent prior to study participation.
Patients were excluded for the following conditions: (a) pain at another site or associated with a painful condition (eg., degenerative disc disease, herniated lumbar disc, fibromyalgia, neuropathy, rheumatoid arthritis, sciatica); (b) previous spinal surgery; (c) presence of neurological deficits; (d) history of comorbidities that affect sensorimotor function (eg., multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, diabetes); (e) pregnant or within 3-months postpartum; (f) taking opioid, antidepressants or anticonvulsant medication; and, (g) history of psychological disorders (major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia) because of a possible associations with biological markers [34–36]. Eligibility for the healthy no-pain control group included men and women (a) between 18–50 years of age; (b) could read and write in English; (c) with no known medical, psychological problems or prescribed medication; (d) not pregnant or breastfeeding; and, (e) no recent history of pain at any location.
We estimated the sample size based on a previous study that compared LBP patients with healthy controls and reported the effect size of several QST parameters (with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.80–1.12) [18]. Using the more conservative effect size of 0.8 to achieve a power of 80% at probability level of 0.05 the minimum sample size using a one-tailed hypothesis was estimated to be 21 per group [37]. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, it was deemed most appropriate to increase the size to 31 per group in order to ensure adequate power to detect significant differences between groups.
Procedures
After obtaining informed consent, participants were scheduled to undergo baseline data collection as soon as possible but no longer than one week from the time of consent. Data collection took place in a private research suite to complete questions about age, gender, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, lifestyle behaviors (smoking, exercise), comorbidities, and past episodes of LBP. Following completion of the questionnaires, participants underwent venipuncture for collection of blood samples and quantitative sensory testing (QST). The sequence of data collection was followed for all participants.
Quantitative sensory testing
QST was used to evaluate responses to experimental pain and uses standardized stimuli to test both nociceptive and non-nociceptive systems [38]. Quantitative sensory testing was performed in the lumbar region (at the location of pain for the acute LBP group) and on the dominant forearm (remote area). A standardized protocol of administration, including examination room conditions and instructions provided for the participant, were strictly followed. Participants were given a practice run on the non-dominant forearm in order to verify the participant's understanding of the protocol.
Mechanical pain threshold and sensitivity were measured with a standard set of von Frey hairs (Optihair2-Set, Marstock Nervtest, Germany) that exert forces between 0.25 and 512 mN with a rounded tip that is 0.5 mm in diameter. The final threshold is calculated as the geometric mean of five series of ascending and descending stimuli intensities. Wind-up ratio (WUR) was determined from this series with the mean pain rating of trains divided by the mean pain rating to a single stimuli. Dynamic mechanical allodynia (ALL) was tested using a standardized brush applied five times with a single stroke; the pain rating to each stroke was recorded.
Thermal and pressure testing was performed using the Medoc Pathway System™ (Ramat Yishai, Israel). The Medoc thermode, with contact area of 7.84 cm2, was placed in contact with the participant's skin in the area to be tested. The Medoc software guided the examiner through a series of thermal testing procedures in the following order: cold detection threshold, warm detection threshold, cold pain threshold, and heat pain threshold. The mean threshold temperature of three consecutive measurements were calculated and used for analysis. All thresholds were obtained with ramped stimuli (1°C/second) that were terminated when the participant pressed a button attached to the Medoc device. Cut-off temperatures were 0° and 50° C with a baseline temperature of 32°C. For pressure pain threshold, the examiner used an algometer (range from 50–600 kPa) attached to the Medoc Pathways system to increase the pressure at a steady rate (30 kPa/s) until the participant indicated first pain sensation by pressing the button. The pressure pain threshold (PPT) was determined by repeating the procedure at the same site until either: (1) Two values were recorded within 20 kPa of one another or (2) Three trials were administered. In either case, the mean of the two closest values were recorded as the threshold estimate. During the testing, the computer screen was positioned so that the participant was not able to watch temperature and pressure fluctuations.
Gene Expression Profiles
Whole blood was collected by venipuncture into one 5-mL EDTA vacutainer and one 10-mL cell preparation tube with sodium citrate, labeled with a unique study identification label, and transported directly to the laboratory for processing. RNA isolation was performed using the PAXgene™ total RNA isolation system (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol and was reverse transcribed using iScript cDNA synthesis kit (Invitrogen, Valencia, CA). The mRNA expression of 84 genes involved in the transduction, maintenance, and modulation of pain was determined (Neuropathic & Inflammatory RT2 Profiler PCR Array; Sabio Sciences, Valencia, CA; BioRad, Hercules, CA) using qPCR performed on the BioRad CFX96®. After an initial incubation step, 35 cycles (95°C for 15 seconds and 1 minute at 60°C) of PCR were performed. Expression levels were quantified using the ΔΔCT method which normalizes data of the genes of interest to β-actin (controls are included in array). The BioRadCFX software was used to determine optimal baseline and threshold settings of the assay Ct values.
Statistical Analysis
Normality of the data was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Student t-tests were used to test for group differences in demographic and QST variables that were normally distributed, whereas the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Bonferroni-Holm adjusted Mann-Whitney U test for post hoc analyses were used for variables that were not normally distributed. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 tests. Post-hoc analyses were conducted as necessary to account for multiple testing. For gene expression analyses, each LBP participant was randomly matched to healthy no-pain control participants by age within three years and gender. Five male LBP participants who could not be matched based on the criteria were matched with the remaining participants in the same group with the closest age. Missing Cq values were imputed by 35, a maximum cycle of PCR performed. For each housekeeping gene (HKG) included in the assay (ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1, and RPLP0), the GAPDH was the most stable and suitable HKG used for normalization of the Cq values as it exhibited the lowest variance and highest abundance. Results are based on normalization using the GAPDH and the three most stable HKGs (GAPDH, ACTB, and B2M). For each of the 86 non-housekeeping genes considered “genes of interest” (GOI), the ΔCq value were calculated as ΔCq = Cq,GOI − Cq,GAPDH. Thereafter, for each subject, the relative fold change in expression was calculated as 2−Δ(ΔCq) where i.e. Δ(ΔCq) = ΔCq,LBP − ΔCq,Normal, or ΔCq,LBPvisit5 − ΔCq,LBPvisit1. For each comparison, a linear model was fit for each gene with sample group as the independent variable. Empirical Bayes method was applied to obtain robust estimators [39]. Benjamini and Hochberg's method was used to control the false discovery rate (FDR) [40]. The moderated unpaired and paired t-statistics were computed for the two sample comparisons. Non-parametric tests were applied as appropriate. The differentially expressed (DE) genes were defined with FDR less than 5%.
RESULTS
Study Participant Characteristics
Demographic and clinical information of the participants is seen in Table 1. Of note, there were more African-American participants in the acute LBP group compared to the healthy no-pain control group (p<0.01). There were more participants in the acute LBP group earning an annual income less than $60,000 compared with the control group (p<0.01) and more participants were working full- or part-time in the control group compared to the acute LBP group (p=0.01). In addition, more participants in the control group had started college or were currently pursuing advanced education compared to the acute LBP group (p<0.01). Although there were no significant differences in exercise frequency, a significantly higher number of participants in the acute LBP group were current smokers and had common comorbidities such as hypertension compared to the control group (p<0.01; p<0.05 respectively). As expected, the acute LBP group had significantly more prior episodes of LBP compared to the control group (p<0.01) but none reported a prior episode lasting >3 months in the previous 6 months.
Table 1.
Low Back Pain (N=31) |
No-Pain Control (N=31) |
T-test/χ2 P-value |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 17 (54.84%) | 13 (41.94%) | 0.31 |
Male | 14 (45.16%) | 18 (58.06% | ||
Age [Years; Mean (SE)] | 35.77 (1.83) | 37.06 (2.04) | 0.64 | |
Race | African American | 19 (61.29%) | 6 (19.35%) | 0.0008* |
Caucasian | 6 (19.35%) | 20 (64.52%) | ||
Other | 6 (19.35%) | 5 (16.13%) | ||
Income | <$60K | 23 (74.19%) | 11 (40.74%) | 0.009* |
>/=$60K | 8 (25.81%) | 16 (59.26%) | ||
Employment | Full or Part-time | 18 (58.06%) | 27 (87.10%) | 0.010* |
Unemployed | 13 (41.94%) | 4 (12.90%) | ||
Education | High School or lower | 15 (48.39%) | 3 (9.68%) | 0.0008* |
College | 16 (51.61%) | 28 (90.32%) | ||
Exercise | None | 5 (16.13%) | 3 (9.68%) | 0.72 |
1–3 days/week | 14 (45.16%) | 14 (45.16%) | ||
4 or more days/week | 12 (38.71%) | 14 (45.16%) | ||
Smoking | Current smoker | 15 (48.39%) | 3 (10%) | 0.001* |
Not smoking | 16 (51.61%) | 28 (90%) | ||
Comorbidities | Present | 12 (41.38%) | 4 (12.90%) | 0.013* |
Not present | 17 (58.62%) | 27 (87.10%) | ||
Prior episodes None | 4 (12.9%) | 31 (100%) | 0.0001* | |
<6 months ago | 10 (32.26%) | |||
>6 months ago | 17 (54.84%) |
reflects p<0.05; not all columns in each row add up to total N due to missing values
Subjects with acute LBP have lower pain threshold and higher pain scores compared to no-pain controls
Compared to the no-pain control group, participants in the acute LBP group had lower threshold for cold at both the remote and back area (p<0.05 for both), meaning that pain was elicited at a higher temperature in the acute LBP group. The pressure pain threshold was significantly lower only in the back area of the acute LBP group compared to the control group (p<0.01) meaning that less pressure stimulus was required to elicit pain. Mechanical sensitivity and the wind-up ratio were significantly higher in both the remote and back area in the acute LBP group compared to the control group (p<0.01 for both) meaning that the acute LBP group reported higher pain scores to a set mechanical stimulus. Finally, pain scores were significantly elevated in response to a standard brush applied to the painful back region in the acute LBP compared to controls (p<0.01) suggesting mechanical allodynia (Table 2).
Table 2.
Test | Low Back Pain (N=31) |
No-Pain Control (N=31) |
P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Cold Detection Threshold [°C; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 27.96 (0.40) | 27.58 (0.98) | 0.72 |
Back area | 28.30 (0.30) | 28.11 (0.97) | 0.85 |
Warm Detection Threshold [°C; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 35.89 (0.45) | 34.54 (1.23) | 0.3 |
Back area | 35.91 (0.33) | 33.97 (1.21) | 0.13 |
Cold Pain Threshold [°C; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 19.47 (1.20) | 14.24 (2.13) | 0.04* |
Back area | 21.12 (1.28) | 15.43 (2.16) | 0.03* |
Heat Pain Threshold [°C; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 39.58 (0.71) | 37.37 (1.9) | 0.29 |
Back area | 38.5 (0.61) | 36.56 (1.9) | 0.33 |
Pressure Pain Threshold [KPa; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 190.52 (18.15) | 215.15 (24.81) | 0.43 |
Back area | 174.28 (25.24) | 310.68 (38.76) | 0.005* |
Mechanical Pain Threshold [mN; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 6.01 (0.15) | 6.17 (0.30) | 0.64 |
Back area | 5.59 (0.20) | 6.02 (0.30) | 0.24 |
Mechanical Sensitivity [NRS 0–10; Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 2.27 (0.35) | 0.53 (0.14) | 0.0001* |
Back area | 3.60 (0.45) | 0.97 (0.22) | 0.0001* |
Wind-up Ratio [Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 1.26 (0.10) | 0.38 (0.10) | 0.0001* |
Back area | 1.44 (0.13) | 0.52 (0.14) | 0.0001* |
Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia [Mean (SE)] | |||
Remote area | 0.38 (0.14) | 0.25 (0.09) | 0.42 |
Back area | 1.60 (0.42) | 0.42 (0.12) | 0.01* |
reflects p<0.05
Subjects with acute LBP have differential gene expression compared to no-pain controls
When GAPDH was used for normalization, ten genes were differentially expressed in the acute LBP group as compared to the control group (3 upregulated and 7 dysregulated). The three upregulated genes were CCL2, PNOC, and CNR2. The seven dysregulated genes were GCH1, CSF1, CALCA, PTGES, GDNF, and KCNQ2. The mean Δ(ΔCq) and fold change expression values can be found in Table 3. Results of gene expression when using ATCB, B2M, GAPDH as reference genes in normalization are also provided in Table 4. Upregulation of PNOC was significantly associated with mechanical sensitivity of the back region (Spearman r=0.359; p=0.047). Dysregulation of CALCA and GDNF were significantly associated with cold pain threshold at the remote site (r=0.541, p=0.002; r=0.431; p=0.015 respectively) while CSF1 was associated with wind-up ratio of the painful back region (r=0.368; p=0.050).
Table 3.
Genes | Acute low back pain (ΔCq) |
No-pain controls (ΔCq) |
Δ(ΔCq) | Fold-Change* | FDR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCL2 | 10.367 (±1.593) | 11.251 (±1.627) | −0.884 (±1.593) | 1.845 (±0.331) | 0.042 |
PNOC | 9.694 (±1.060) | 10.188 (±1.438) | −0.495 (±1.060) | 1.409 (±0.480) | 0.031 |
CNR2 | 6.840 (±0.944) | 7.276 (±1.530) | −0.436 (±0.944) | 1.353 (±0.520) | 0.031 |
GCH1 | 4.735 (±0.855) | 4.277 (±1.277) | 0.458 (±0.855) | 0.728 (±0.553) | 0.011 |
CSF1 | 7.144 (±0.855) | 6.636 (±1.109) | 0.508 (±0.855) | 0.703 (±0.553) | 0.031 |
CALCA | 11.451 (±1.04) | 10.862 (±1.215) | 0.589 (±1.040) | 0.665 (±0.486) | 0.031 |
PTGES | 11.465 (±1.317) | 10.490 (±1.594) | 0.974 (±1.317) | 0.509 (±0.401) | 0.011 |
GDNF | 12.674 (±1.472) | 11.687 (±1.336) | 0.986 (±1.472) | 0.505 (±0.360) | 0.033 |
KCNQ2 | 13.418 (±1.473) | 12.409 (±1.216) | 1.009 (±1.473) | 0.497 (±0.360) | 0.049 |
HTR2A | 12.255 (±1.202) | 11.048 (±1.356) | 1.207 (±1.202) | 0.433 (±0.435) | 0.011 |
Fold change: 2−Δ(ΔCq) where Δ(ΔCq) = ΔCq,LBP − ΔCq,Normal, and FDR: False discovery rate.
Table 4.
Genes | Acute low back pain (ΔCq) |
No-pain controls(ΔCq) |
Δ(ΔCq) | Fold-Change* | FDR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCL2 | 12.175 (±1.594) | 13.17 (±1.579) | −0.996 (±1.594) | 1.994 (±0.33) | 0.018 |
PNOC | 11.501 (±1.062) | 12.108 (±1.38) | −0.607 (±1.062) | 1.523 (±0.47) | 0.011 |
TRPV1 | 10.587 (±1.134) | 11.137 (±1.76) | −0.549 (±1.134) | 1.464 (±0.456) | 0.049 |
CNR2 | 8.648 (±0.946) | 9.196 (±1.479) | −0.548 (±0.946) | 1.462 (±0.519) | 0.011 |
GCH1 | 6.542 (±0.857) | 6.197 (±1.216) | 0.346 (±0.857) | 0.787 (±0.552) | 0.018 |
PTGES | 13.272 (±1.319) | 12.41 (±1.546) | 0.862 (±1.319) | 0.550 (±0.401) | 0.018 |
HTR2A | 14.063 (±1.203) | 12.968 (±1.298) | 1.095 (±1.203) | 0.468 (±0.434) | 0.015 |
Fold change:2−Δ(ΔCq)where Δ(ΔCq) = ΔCq,LBP − ΔCq,Normal and FDR: False discovery rate.
DISCUSSION
The primary aim of this study was to describe and compare somatosensory/pain sensitivity measures and gene expression data between individuals with acute LBP and healthy (no-pain) controls. This study indicates a unique profile of somatosensory alterations and differential gene expression present at the initial episode of acute LBP and is the first, to our knowledge, to report these differences in comparison to no-pain controls. Significantly, we found that acute LBP participants showed selective pain sensitivity enhancement and differential gene expression profiles compared to pain-free controls. The acute LBP group exhibited increased pain sensitivity to cold stimuli, mechanical stimuli, including mechanical temporal summation at both the painful back area and remote location. Along with mechanical allodynia of the painful back region, these findings suggest a mechanism of enhanced central nervous system excitability in participants with acute LBP. In addition, deep tissue specific peripheral sensitization was suggested in the acute LBP group due to significant differences in pressure pain threshold of the painful back area, but not the remote body site.
Although previous studies have reported sensory alterations among participants with chronic LBP, this study is the first to report indications of selective peripheral and central sensitization in participants with acute LBP compared to normal controls. For instance, O’Neill and colleagues showed that chronic but not acute LBP patients have reduced pressure pain threshold [19, 41]. Similarly, Hϋbsher and colleagues reported significantly lower cold pain threshold in the painful area of the back as well as a remote site in chronic LBP compared with no-pain controls [21]. The authors note only a non-significant trend of cold sensitivity in the acute LBP compared with chronic LBP group, however, the small sample size of the acute LBP group (n=20) may have influenced the ability to detect significant differences. Collectively, the findings from the present study complement and extend the results from previous investigations measuring somatosensory changes in participants with acute and chronic LBP [20–21]. A common finding among these studies is that participants with acute and chronic LBP display more sensitive pain thresholds at the lumbar site, albeit the QST endpoints that were altered in acute versus chronic LBP are different. For example, in a chronic LBP sample Puta et al. [18] found increased cold and warm detection thresholds, which were unaltered in our acute LBP participants. The differences in these endpoints could be due to the stage at which LBP was tested suggesting that the presentation of pain changes over time. Alternately, it could point to the heterogeneous nature of the condition, thus making pain management modalities complex.
In addition to differences in somatosensory function, we found ten genes that were differentially expressed (three upregulated and seven dysregulated) in the acute LBP group compared to no-pain controls. Of the upregulated genes, chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2) upregulation has previously been shown in the oral surgery model of tissue injury and acute pain, with upregulation associated with pain intensity at three-hours post-surgery along with increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines [42] Prepro-nociceptin (PNOC), the precursor of nociceptin, appears to induce upregulation of cytokines and interleukin (IL)-10 decreases the expression of PNOC [43]. Upregulation of PNOC was associated with mechanical sensitivity of the painful back region in the acute LBP group, suggesting a role in contributing to peripheral sensitization. We also found upregulated cannabinoid type-2 (CB2) receptor (CNR2) gene expression consistent with the findings in a post-mortem study and vast preclinical literature that the CB2 receptor and endocannabinoid system play an important role in modulating pain sensitivity [44, 45]. As increased expression of the CNR2 gene has been associated with reduced pain sensitivity, it remains unclear why higher expression levels were found in the acute LBP group. However, in the presence of multiple dysregulated genes GCH1, CSF1, TRPV1, CALCA, PTGES, GDNF, and KCNQ2 found in participants with acute LBP, there may be interactions that contribute to the sensory alterations observed. Noting that expression does not imply transcription of proteins and due to the design of the study we cannot assume causality. Differential gene expression may be directly related to activation of nociceptive pathways as has been described in skin, muscle and dorsal root ganglion after plantar incision in a rat model of acute pain [46]. In that study, few genes changed in the DRG, however, there were several dysregulated neurotrophin genes in the skin and muscle. Further research to characterize pain-associated somatosensory changes in the context of altered mRNA expression levels may provide insight on the molecular underpinnings of maladaptive chronic pain. For instance, in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, genome-wide expression profiling of whole blood revealed differential expression of 80 genes involved in signal transduction, cell structure and motility, and immunity [47]. Given the small sample size, it is beyond the scope of this study to predict definitive genetic markers of the somatosensory changes that occur in acute LBP. Nonetheless, these preliminary findings provide some evidence of potential candidate genetic markers that may influence pain signaling and inflammatory processes during the acute stage.
This study has several limitations. First, the study enrolled volunteers and blinding of the examiner to group status was not possible due to the requirement of assessing the region of pain in the acute LBP group. Second, the sample size is small to detect generalizable differences in gene expression and further research in this area should be conducted to confirm the upregulated and dysregulated genes identified. Third, our sample did not match on all demographic characteristics such as race and education, however, the demographics of the acute LBP group were consistent with previous literature [1, 2]. A prospective blinded study with matched controls based on age, sex, race, socioeconomic level, educational attainment and smoking status may assist in clarifying the study findings. In addition, because many participants in the acute LBP group had previous episodes of low back pain one could argue that this was a heterogeneous sample of participants with acute (first-episode and recurrent) low back pain. However, contrary to traditional thought that recurrent pain leads to persistent sensitization of peripheral and central pain processing, Slade and colleagues [47] found that participants with intermittent painful temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD) did not exhibit increased sensitization to pressure stimuli once the pain resolved. Whether the same phenomenon occurs during the continuum of intermittent/recurrent low back pain, in which flare-ups frequently occur, remains to be systematically evaluated.
This study is the first to characterize the manifestations of nervous system sensitization through rigorous quantitative pain sensitivity testing at the onset of an acute episode of nonspecific LBP with results compared with no-pain controls. In addition, this study is among the first to examine gene expression profiles in whole blood of participants with acute LBP. We have systematically identified a unique profile of somatosensory parameters and differential gene expression in an acute LBP sample compared to healthy no-pain controls. Future studies will examine these parameters in a longitudinal cohort to determine whether there are specific indicators of somatosensory function and gene expression that contribute to persistent LBP.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
Source of Funding: This research was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research (Starkweather, PI; R01 NR013932). Drs. Dorsey (P30 NR011396; R01 NR013601; P30 NR014129) and Lyon (R01 NR012667) are currently receiving grants. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: For the remaining authors none were declared.
REFERENCES
- 1.Bhandary AK, Chimes GP, Malanga GA. Investigational pharmacology for low back pain. J Pain Res. 2010;3:169–181. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S9243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Costa Lda C, Maher CG, McAuley JH, Hancock MJ, Herbert RD, Refshauge KM, Henschke N. Prognosis for patients with chronic low back pain: inception cohort study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3829. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dunn KM, Jordan K, Croft PR. Characterizing the course of low back pain: a latent class analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:754–761. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD, Cumming RG, Bleasel J, York J, Das A, McAuley JH. Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a171. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:769–781. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2010.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jones GT, Johnson RE, Wiles NJ, Chaddock C, Potter RG, Roberts C, Symmons DP, Macfarlane GJ. Predicting persistent disabling low back pain in general practice: a prospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:334–341. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Jr, Shekelle P, Owens DK. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:478–491. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kleinstuck F, Dvorak J, Mannion AF. Are "structural abnormalities" on magnetic resonance imaging a contraindication to the successful conservative treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain? Spine. 2006;31:2250–2257. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232802.95773.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.van den Bosch MA, Hollingworth W, Kinmonth AL, Dixon AK. Evidence against the use of lumbar spine radiography for low back pain. Clin Rad. 2004;59:69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2003.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Apkarian AV, Robinson JP. Pain: Clinical Updates. USA: International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP); 2010. Low Back Pain. [Google Scholar]
- 11.National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care. Low Back Pain: Early Management of Persistent Non-specific Low Back Pain. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chou R, Shekelle P. Will this patient develop persistent disabling low back pain? JAMA. 2010;303:1295–1302. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hilfiker R, Bachmann LM, Heitz CA, Lorenz T, Joronen H, Klipstein A. Value of predictive instruments to determine persisting restriction of function in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain. Systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1755–1775. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0433-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jellema P, van der Windt DA, van der Horst HE, Stalman WA, Bouter LM. Prediction of an unfavourable course of low back pain in general practice: comparison of four instruments. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:15–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, Koes BW, Croft PR, Hay E. Treatment-based subgroups of low back pain: a guide to appraisal of research studies and a summary of current evidence. Best Pract & Res Clin Rheum. 2010;24:181–191. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rolke R, Magerl W, Campbell KA, Schalber C, Caspari S, Birklein F, Treede RD. Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Blumenstiel K, Gerhardt A, Rolke R, Bieber C, Tesarz J, Friederich HC, Eich W, Treede RD. Quantitative sensory testing profiles in chronic back pain are distinct from those in fibromyalgia. Clin J Pain. 2011;27:682–690. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182177654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Puta C, Schulz B, Schoeler S, Magerl W, Gabriel B, Gabriel HH, Miltner WH, Weiss T. Somatosensory abnormalities for painful and innocuous stimuli at the back and at a site distinct from the region of pain in chronic back pain patients. PLoS One. 2013;8:e58885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.O'Neill S, Kjaer P, Graven-Nielsen T, Manniche C, Arendt-Nielsen L. Low pressure pain thresholds are associated with, but does not predispose for, low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:2120–2125. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1796-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.LeResche L, Turner JA, Saunders K, Shortreed SM, Von Korff M. Psychophysical tests as predictors of back pain chronicity in primary care. J Pain. 2013;14:1663–1670. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hubscher M, Moloney N, Rebbeck T, Traeger A, Refshauge KM. Contributions of mood, pain catastrophizing, and cold hyperalgesia in acute and chronic low back pain: a comparison with pain-free controls. Clin J Pain. 2014;30:886–893. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yarnitsky D, Granot M, Granovsky Y. Pain modulation profile and pain therapy: Between pro- and anti-nociception. Pain. 2014;155:663–665. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Clauw DJ, Williams D, Lauerman W, Dahlman M, Aslami A, Nachemson AL, Kobrine AI, Wiesel SW. Pain sensitivity as a correlate of clinical status in individuals with chronic low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:2035–2041. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199910010-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Giesecke T, Gracely RH, Grant MA, Nachemson A, Petzke F, Williams DA, Clauw DJ. Evidence of augmented central pain processing in idiopathic chronic low back pain. Arthr Rheum. 2004;50:613–623. doi: 10.1002/art.20063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Diatchenko L, Nackley AG, Slade GD, Bhalang K, Belfer I, Max MB, Goldman D, Maixner W. Catechol-O-methyltransferase gene polymorphisms are associated with multiple pain-evoking stimuli. Pain. 2006;125:216–224. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nicol GD, Vasko MR. Unraveling the story of NGF-mediated sensitization of nociceptive sensory neurons: ON or OFF the Trks? Mol Intervent. 2007;7:26–41. doi: 10.1124/mi.7.1.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ren K, Dubner R. Pain facilitation and activity-dependent plasticity in pain modulatory circuitry: role of BDNF-TrkB signaling and NMDA receptors. Mol Neurobiol. 2007;35:224–235. doi: 10.1007/s12035-007-0028-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Salio C, Lossi L, Ferrini F, Merighi A. Ultrastructural evidence for a pre- and postsynaptic localization of full-length trkB receptors in substantia gelatinosa (lamina II) of rat and mouse spinal cord. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;22:1951–1966. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04392.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zhou LJ, Zhong Y, Ren WJ, Li YY, Zhang T, Liu XG. BDNF induces late-phase LTP of C-fiber evoked field potentials in rat spinal dorsal horn. Exper Neurol. 2008;212:507–514. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.04.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yukhananov R, Kissin I. Persistent changes in spinal cord gene expression after recovery from inflammatory hyperalgesia: a preliminary study on pain memory. BMC Neurosci. 2008;9:32. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-9-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jacobsen LM, Eriksen GS, Pedersen LM, Gjerstad J. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibition reduces spinal nociceptive activity. Neurosci Let. 2010;473:212–215. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.02.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Geranton SM. Targeting epigenetic mechanisms for pain relief. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2011.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.de Vet HCW, Heymans MW, Dunn KM, Pope DP, van der Beek AJ, Macfarlane GJ. Episodes of low back pain: A proposal for uniform definitions to be used in research. Spine. 2002;27:2409–2416. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000030307.34002.BE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Gama CS, Andreazza AC, Kunz M, Berk M, Belmonte-de-Abreu PS, Kapczinski F. Serum levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Neurosci Let. 2007;420:45–48. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Harley J, Roberts R, Joyce P, Mulder R, Luty S, Frampton C Kennedy M. Orosomucoid influences the response to antidepressants in major depressive disorder. J Psychopharm. 2010;24:531–535. doi: 10.1177/0269881109105101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Pandey GN, Dwivedi Y, Rizavi HS, Ren X, Zhang H, Pavuluri MN. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene and protein expression in pediatric and adult depressed subjects. Prog Neuro-psychopharm & Biol Psych. 2010;34:645–651. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Belfer I, Dai F. Phenotyping and genotyping neuropathic pain. Curr Pain & Head Rep. 2010;14:203–212. doi: 10.1007/s11916-010-0110-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Smyth GK. Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3 doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1027. Article3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc. 1995;51:289–300. [Google Scholar]
- 40.O'Neill S, Manniche C, Graven-Nielsen T, Arendt-Nielsen L. Association between a composite score of pain sensitivity and clinical parameters in low-back pain. Clin J Pain. 2014;30:831–838. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Wang XM, Hamza M, Wu TX, Dionne RA. Upregulation of IL-6, IL-8 and CCL2 gene expression after acute inflammation: Correlation to clinical pain. Pain. 2009;142:275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Zhang L, Stuber F, Stamer UM. Inflammatory mediators influence the expression of nociceptin and its receptor in human whole blood cultures. PLoS One. 2013;8:e74138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Burston JJ, Sagar DR, Shao P, Bai M, King E, Brailsford L, Turner JM, Hathway GJ, Bennett AJ, Walsh DA, Kendall DA, Lichtman A, Chapman V. Cannabinoid CB2 receptors regulate central sensitization and pain responses associated with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Rani Sagar D, Burston JJ, Woodhams SG, Chapman V. Dynamic changes to the endocannabinoid system in models of chronic pain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012;367:3300–3311. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Spofford CM, Brennan TJ. Gene expression in skin, muscle and dorsal root ganglion after plantar incision in the rat. Anesthes. 2012;117:161–172. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31825a2a2b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Jin EH, Zhang E, Ko Y, Sim WS, Moon DE, Yoon KJ, Hong JH, Lee WH. Genome-wide expression profiling of complex regional pain syndrome. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Slade GD, Sanders AE, Ohrbach R, Fillingim RB, Dubner R, Gracely RH, Bair E, Maixner W, Greenspan JD. Pressure pain thresholds fluctuate with, but do not usefully predict, the clinical course of painful temporomandibular disorder. Pain. 2014;155:2134–2143. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.08.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.