中文摘要：

[目的]观察电针预处理对角叉菜胶诱导大鼠痛记忆模型的干预效应及对脊髓背角（Spinal cord dorsal horn,SCDH）磷酸化环磷酸腺苷反应元件结合蛋白（phospharylated c AMP response element binding protein,p-CREB）的调节作用,探讨电针预处理在SCDH水平干预痛记忆的p-CREB调节机制。[方法]将30只健康雄性SD大鼠随机分为对照组、模型组和电针组（EA组）,每组10只。模型组及EA组大鼠于双侧后足交叉注射角叉菜胶诱发痛记忆模型,两次注射间隔14天。分别检测造模前,首次注射后和二次注射后4h、24h、48h、72h的机械痛阈。采用免疫荧光法检测p-CREB在SCDH神经细胞中的定位表达,凝胶电泳迁移率分析实验检测大鼠SCDH水平p-CREB的DNA结合活性。[结果]首次造模前,三组大鼠双侧足跖基础痛阈无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。一次造模后,与对照组比较,模型组和电针组大鼠造模同侧痛阈在模后4h至72h差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;与模型组比较,电针组同侧痛阈在模后4h差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,在24h至72h差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。三组大鼠首次造模各时点对侧足跖痛阈差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。二次注射后,在造模同侧,模型组与电针组大鼠造模侧足跖痛阈在二次造模后4 h至72 h差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。模型组与电针组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。与对照组比较,模型组大鼠二次造模对侧足跖机械痛阈在24h、48h、72h差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,EA组在72h差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。与模型组比较,EA组大鼠在24h、48h、72h对侧足跖痛阈差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01,P〈0.05）。与对照组比较,模型组p-CREB阳性细胞数差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,p-CREB与GFAP的共表达差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）、与Neu N的共表达无明显变化、与OX-42的共表达差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）、p-CREB的D

英文摘要：

[Objective] To investigate intervention effect of electroacupuncture（ EA） pretreatment on the model rats of pain memory induced by two injections of carrageenan and the expression of phosphrylation CREB（p-CREB） in spinal cord dorsal horn（SCDH）. [Methods] 30 healthy male Sprague Dawley rats were divided into three groups, control, model and EA groups. Model and EA groups rats were made of pain memory model by two cross-injection of carrageenan in the hindpaws, 14-day intervals. Changes of pain perception before modeling and at 4h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h after the first and second injections by the paw withdrawal thresholds（PWTs）, the co-expressions of p-CREB with Neu N, GFAP and OX-42 respectively were detected by immunofluorescence（IF）. The DNA binding activity of p-CREB was measured by electrophoretic mobility shift assay（EMSA）. [Result] There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups before first injection（P〈0.05）. Compared with control group after the first injection, there was a statistically significant difference of the ipsilateral PWTs in model and EA groups from 4h to 72h（P〈0.01）. Compared with model group, there was a statistically significant difference in EA group at 24 h, 48 h and 72h（P〈0.01）. No difference was found in contralateral PWTs among the groups（P 〉0.05）.Compared with control group after second injection, the ipsilateral PWTs of model and EA groups showed statistically significant difference at 24 h, 48 h,72h（P〈0.01）, and no difference between model and EA groups. For the conralateral PWTs, compared with control group, there was a statistically significant difference in model group at 24 h, 48 h and 72h（P〈0.01）, and in EA group at 72h（P〈0.01）. Compared with model group, EA group showed statistically significant difference at 24 h, 48 h, 72h（P〈0.01, P〈0.05）. The positive cell numbers of p-CREB were elevated compared with control group（P〈0.01）,while the number of EA group was reduced compared w