Published: Vol 7, Iss 23, Dec 5, 2017 DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.2628 Views: 12224
Reviewed by: Xi FengJingang HuangAnonymous reviewer(s)
Protocol Collections
Comprehensive collections of detailed, peer-reviewed protocols focusing on specific topics
Related protocols
Protocol for Measuring Free (Low-stress) Exploration in Rats
Wojciech Pisula and Klaudia Modlinska
Jan 20, 2020 3598 Views
Operant Vapor Self-administration in Mice
Renata C. N. Marchette [...] Khaled Moussawi
May 20, 2021 3550 Views
Construction of Activity-based Anorexia Mouse Models
Maria Consolata Miletta and Tamas L. Horvath
Aug 5, 2023 978 Views
Abstract
Pain research is mostly based on experimental assays that use animal models, which may allow deciphering the physiopathology of this condition and to propel drug discovery. The formalin nociception test is considered one of the most predictive approaches to study acute pain in rodents. This test permits monitoring pain-related responses (i.e., itch) caused by a subcutaneous injection of an inflammatory agent, namely 2.5% formalin solution, in the hind paw. After the injection, two distinct time periods or phases of licking/biting behaviour occur, which are separated by a quiescent period. Importantly, these phases differ in duration and underlying mechanisms. Hence, the initial acute phase (phase I), commonly recorded for 5 min just after formalin administration, reflects acute peripheral pain, probably due to direct activation of nociceptors through TRPA1 channels. On the other hand, the phase II, which starts after the quiescent period (5-15 min) and is commonly recorded for 15-30 min, is due to the ongoing inflammatory input and central nociceptive sensitization. Here, we describe in detail the protocol used to perform a reliable and reproducible formalin test in mice.
Keywords: PainBackground
The formalin test is an experimental assay that permits determining mice nocifensive behaviour. Thus, the mice response (i.e., licking and flinching) is assessed after a subcutaneous injection of formalin normally in the plantar hind paw (Tjolsen et al., 1992). The test was originally described in the late seventies (Dubuisson and Dennis, 1977), and, initially, it consisted of the injection of 50 µl of 5% formalin in the dorsal surface of one forepaw of a rat or a cat. Since then, the formalin test has been extensively used to assess nociception and inflammation-related responses, thus being adapted according to each study’s aim. Mice and rats are frequently used due to their innate grooming behaviour (i.e., forepaw licking). Accordingly, a 2.5% formalin (in physiological saline solution) injected in the mid-plantar surface of the rodent hind paw is commonly used to induce nociceptive responses (i.e., paw ‘flinching’ and licking) lasting for 45-90 min (Tjolsen et al., 1992).
The formalin test is considered a very powerful tool in preclinical research to develop novel analgesic drugs (Mogil, 2009). The main advantage of the test consists of the very objective quantification of the pain-associated behaviour in response to the noxious stimuli (i.e., formalin). Furthermore, the formalin test allows the study of two different kinds of pain typologies: i) acute peripheral pain mediated by the direct activation of nociceptors through TRPA1 channels, and ii) inflammatory and central nociceptive sensitization. Indeed, the existence of these two phases lead to the possibility of studying different analgesic drugs, including NSAIDs and other mild analgesics, and, therefore, may allow deciphering the drug mechanism of action along the pain neuraxis.
Overall, the formalin test may be considered an easy-going experimental approach to ascertain the analgesic activity of any named drug. Here, we provide a complete description of the formalin test in order to facilitate its implementation by other scientists.
Materials and Reagents
Equipment
Procedure
Data analysis
The antinociception induced by drug treatment in the formalin test can be calculated by the following formula:
where, LTV and LTD represent the licking/biting time in the vehicle- and drug-treated animals, respectively.
The antinociceptive effect is expressed as a percentage (mean ± SEM) of the maximum effect observed (Figure 4). The results are analysed either by Student’s t-test or by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test using vehicle-treated animals as a control (Figure 4). Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05.
Figure 4. Representative results. Antinociceptive effect of raseglurant (10 mg/kg) as analgesic drug using the formalin test. ***P < 0.001 Student’s t-test when compared to the vehicle (physiological saline solution) treated animals (see Figure 2). Extracted from Font et al., 2017.
Recipes
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by MINECO/ISCIII (SAF2014-55700-P and PIE14/00034), the Catalan government (2014 SGR 1054), ICREA (ICREA Academia-2010), Fundació la Marató de TV3 (Grant 20152031) and IWT (SBO-140028) to FC. MINECO (PCIN-2013-017-C03-01 and CTQ2014-57020-R), the Catalan government (2014SGR109 and 2014CTP0002) to AL. ERANET Neuron project ‘LIGHTPAIN’. This protocol was adapted from previous work: Font et al., 2017. The authors declare not conflict of interest.
References
Article Information
Copyright
López-Cano et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).
How to cite
Readers should cite both the Bio-protocol article and the original research article where this protocol was used:
Category
Neuroscience > Behavioral neuroscience > Animal model
Neuroscience > Sensory and motor systems > Animal model
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.
Tips for asking effective questions
+ Description
Write a detailed description. Include all information that will help others answer your question including experimental processes, conditions, and relevant images.
Share
Bluesky
X
Copy link