Hubbry Logo
Tail flick testTail flick testMain
Open search
Tail flick test
Community hub
Tail flick test
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tail flick test
Tail flick test
Tail flick test
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Tail flick test apparatus

The tail flick test is a test of the pain response in animals, similar to the hot plate test. It is used in basic pain research and to measure the effectiveness of analgesics, by observing the reaction to heat. It was first described by D'Amour and Smith in 1941.[1]

Procedure

[edit]
The experiment is set up with a heat source directed at the animal's tail (top); time is measured until the animal reacts by flicking its tail away (bottom).

Most commonly, an intense light beam is focused on the animal's tail and a timer starts. When the animal flicks its tail, the timer stops and the recorded time (latency) is a measure of the pain threshold.[2] Alternate methods can be used to apply heat, such as immersion in hot water.[3]

Alternately, a dolorimeter with a resistance wire with a constant heat flow may be used. For the tail flick test, the wire is attached to the tail of the organism, and the wire applies heat to the tail. The researcher then records the latency to tail flick.[4]

Applications

[edit]

Researchers testing the effectiveness of drugs on the pain threshold often use the tail flick test to measure the extent to which the drug being tested has reduced the amount of pain felt by the model organism.[5]

Both laboratory mice and rats are a common model organism for these tests. These rodents are usually given analgesics, which are responsible for weakening the response to pain. Under these weakened responses to pain, with effectiveness often peaking about 30 minutes after ingestion, researchers test the effectiveness of the drugs by exposing the tail to constant heat and measuring how long it takes to flick, signaling its response to the pain.[6][7] Naloxone and naltrexone, two opioid antagonists, have been used to study pain sensitivity in relation to exercise in mice.[8]

Experimental tests of the tail flick testing method showed that the temperature of the skin of the tail plays a major role in the critical temperature, i.e., the temperature at which the tail flicks in response to pain. Researchers found that if the tail has been exposed to a cooler temperatures before the test, then the critical temperature decreases.[9]

Through use of the tail flick test, researchers have found that genetics play a role in pain sensation and the effectiveness of analgesics. A mouse of one genetic line may be more or less tolerant of pain than a mouse of another genetic line. Also, a mouse of one genetic line may experience a higher or lower effectiveness of an analgesic than a mouse of another genetic line. Using this test, researchers can also begin to identify genes that play a role in pain sensation. For example, the Calca gene (see WikiGenes CALCA) is primarily responsible for the variability in thermal (heat) nociception.[10] The Sprawling mutation (see WikiGenes Swl) resulted in a moderate sensory neuropathy but the mutation did not affect nociceptive modality or motor function in the mice. The mice with the Sprawling mutation were unable to sense the pain, but their other sensory functions were unaffected.[11]

Limitations

[edit]

The tail flick test is one test to measure heat-induced pain in animals. This reflexive response is an indicator of pain sensitivity in an organism and reduction of pain sensitivity produced by analgesics. Limitations of this test include: the need for more research with murine subjects, and determining the validity of applying observed pain responses from animals to humans.[12] Also, researchers have found that skin temperature can significantly affect the results of the tail flick test and it is important to consider this effect when performing the test.[13] Lastly, many thermal tests do not distinguish between opioid agonists and mixed agonist-antagonists, and consequently a tail flick test for mice using cold water in place of heat has been developed to allow that distinction.[14]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tail flick test

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The tail flick test is a behavioral used to evaluate thermal in , such as rats and mice, by measuring the latency—the time elapsed—between the application of a noxious stimulus to the tail and the animal's reflexive withdrawal or "flick" response. This test quantifies sensitivity and serves as a standard tool in preclinical research to assess the effectiveness of analgesics and study underlying mechanisms. First described in 1941 by pharmacologists Fred E. D'Amour and Donn L. Smith, the test was developed as a simple method to determine the loss of pain sensation in rats following administration, using a radiant source focused on the tail to elicit a rapid . Since its introduction in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, it has become one of the most established nociceptive assays in and , with variants including hot water immersion to standardize the thermal stimulus. The tail flick test is primarily utilized to screen opioid analgesics, such as , which prolong withdrawal latency by activating mu- receptors in pain pathways, while it shows limited sensitivity to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). It has been instrumental in elucidating genetic variations in pain thresholds, contributing to broader understandings of models. Despite its advantages in simplicity and low animal stress, limitations include its focus on acute thermal pain rather than complex, ongoing pain states, potentially reducing translatability to human conditions.

History and Development

Origins in Pain Research

The tail flick test originated in the early as a pioneering method for quantitatively assessing sensitivity in laboratory animals. In 1941, Fred E. D'Amour and Donn L. Smith introduced the basic radiant heat procedure, applying a focused beam of light to the tail of restrained rats to elicit a , with the latency to response serving as a measure of nociceptive threshold. This approach addressed the need for an objective, reproducible to evaluate the loss of sensation, particularly under the influence of pharmacological agents, surpassing earlier qualitative observations of reflex behaviors. The test's initial purpose centered on quantifying acute nociceptive responses in to facilitate studies of analgesia, drawing from foundational work on spinal withdrawal reflexes established in prior decades. By standardizing , it enabled precise measurement of how substances like elevated pain thresholds, providing a tool for preclinical screening of analgesics that correlated with clinical efficacy. This focus aligned with growing interest in mechanisms of pain modulation during the mid-20th century. Following its formal description in , the tail flick test saw increasing adoption in laboratories, becoming a staple for evaluating potency in . The method emerged alongside other nociception assays amid post-World War II advancements in .

Key Milestones and Refinements

In the late and early , the tail flick test saw significant to improve measurement precision, with the introduction of photoelectric sensors and solid-state devices that automatically detected tail movement and recorded latency times in 0.1-second increments, reducing observer bias and enabling computer interfacing for data logging. A notable example is the 1983 design by Walker and Dixon, which utilized a photocell positioned above the heat source to terminate trials upon tail deflection, marking a key advancement in reliable nociceptive assessment. During the and , efforts focused on to enhance across laboratories, with protocols recommending baseline latencies and cut-off times to minimize tissue damage while capturing reliable responses. These guidelines, drawn from extensive use in screening, were promoted in reviews of models to account for variations in heat intensity and animal handling. Key validation studies in the , particularly in research, demonstrated the test's utility in preclinical models. Refinements for models in the 2000s addressed and strain differences through multi-center studies emphasizing acclimation and strain-specific norms to improve cross-study comparability. Post-2010 advancements integrated infrared thermography for non-contact monitoring of tail temperature during radiant heat application, enhancing by allowing precise control of stimulus onset without physical contact and reducing variability from environmental factors. This technique, combined with CO2 laser stimulators, has been validated in fear-conditioned paradigms to distinguish true nociceptive responses from stress-induced changes, further refining the test for complex pain research. More recent refinements include custom restraining devices to reduce stress and improve consistency, as described in a 2021 study.

Underlying Physiology

Nociceptive Mechanisms

The tail flick test elicits through the activation of specialized sensory neurons known as nociceptors in the tail skin, which detect potentially harmful thermal stimuli. These nociceptors express the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 () channel, a non-selective cation channel that serves as the primary molecular for noxious and is present on both Aδ and C fiber nociceptors. When the tail is exposed to temperatures exceeding 43°C, TRPV1 undergoes conformational changes that open the channel pore, permitting influx of cations such as calcium and sodium ions into the neuron. This ion influx causes membrane depolarization, which, if sufficient, triggers the generation and propagation of action potentials along the afferent nerve fibers to the , initiating the signaling cascade. In standard radiant heat tail flick tests, thermal nociception primarily involves unmyelinated C fibers with conduction velocities below 2 m/s, which contribute to the due to the slower heat ramp-up; thinly myelinated Aδ fibers (5–30 m/s) mediate quicker responses in variants using rapid stimuli such as or short-duration . Both fiber types express or related channels, but the typical flick latency of 2–4 seconds under standard conditions aligns with C fiber activation thresholds for acute . Peripheral sensitization can modulate nociceptive thresholds during repeated tail flick testing, enhancing responsiveness to thermal stimuli. Inflammatory mediators such as prostaglandins, particularly (PGE2), play a key role by binding to G-protein-coupled receptors on terminals, which indirectly lowers the activation threshold of channels through intracellular signaling pathways involving cyclic AMP and . This sensitization results in heightened firing rates at lower temperatures, prolonging or intensifying the tail flick response and mimicking in inflammatory states. For instance, intradermal administration of PGE2 has been shown to reduce thermal withdrawal latencies in rodent models of acute . The baseline temperature of the tail skin significantly influences the consistency of nociceptive activation in the tail flick test, as it affects the rate of heat conduction to endings and thus firing. Optimal tail skin temperatures range from 30–35°C, where receptor sensitivity remains stable and latencies are reproducible; deviations, such as cooling below 30°C, increase latencies by slowing and reducing initial , while warming above 35°C can prematurely elevate baseline excitability. Experimental protocols often incorporate pre-warming or environmental controls to maintain this range, ensuring that observed flick responses reflect true nociceptive processing rather than thermal artifacts.

Reflex Response Pathway

The reflex response pathway in the tail flick test constitutes a primarily spinal that enables rapid withdrawal of the from noxious thermal stimuli. Primary afferent nociceptors, consisting of Aδ and C fibers, transmit the nociceptive signal from the skin to the ipsilateral dorsal horn of the and sacral , where they onto projection neurons and predominantly in I and II. These second-order neurons, often excitatory , relay the signal polysynaptically through the intermediate laminae (III-V) to alpha motor neurons located in the ventral horn, specifically in the lateral motor column at lumbosacral levels (L4-S2 in ). Activation of these alpha motor neurons triggers contraction of the intrinsic muscles (e.g., intertransversarii caudae and extensor caudae lateralis), resulting in the characteristic flick or withdrawal movement. This spinal circuitry is subject to modulation by descending pathways originating from supraspinal sites, which can alter reflex excitability. Endogenous opioids released from neurons in the (PAG) of the project via the rostroventral medulla to inhibit nociceptive transmission presynaptically and postsynaptically at mu-opioid receptors in the superficial of the dorsal horn, thereby prolonging tail flick latency and reducing the reflex response. This descending inhibition involves and serotonergic intermediaries in the PAG and nucleus raphe magnus, contributing to antinociception under physiological conditions. The temporal components of the reflex pathway reflect the sequential neural processing, with the total observed tail flick latency in untreated typically ranging from 2 to 4 seconds, encompassing both thermal activation and neural transmission. Afferent conduction time for C fibers over a tail-to-spinal cord of ~10-15 cm in rats is on the order of 0.1-0.2 seconds, synaptic delay within the lasts approximately 80 milliseconds, and the efferent motor response adds a few milliseconds; these estimates are derived from studies including variants and apply approximately to radiant heat conditions. Supraspinal involvement in the basic tail flick reflex is minimal, as the response persists with similar latency in spinally transected , indicating its reliance on local spinal circuits. However, in models of , loops involving the PAG and rostroventral medulla can facilitate the reflex through enhanced descending excitatory inputs, amplifying nociceptive processing and shortening latency via projections to spinal .

Experimental Procedure

Equipment and Setup

The core equipment for the tail flick test consists of a restraining device, such as a Plexiglas tube or soft towel sling, to securely hold the while allowing the to protrude freely. A radiant source, typically a with a 50-60 W bulb or a commercial unit (e.g., in devices like the IITC Model 336 or Harvard Apparatus LE7106), is used to deliver focused stimulation. Latency measurement relies on a integrated with a or photocell, which automatically detects withdrawal by interrupting a and records response time to 0.01-second precision. Setup begins with positioning the heat source beneath a slotted platform or groove where the tail rests, focusing the beam on a marked site 3-5 cm from the tail tip (∼3 cm for mice, ∼5 cm for rats) for consistent . The photocell is aligned adjacent to the stimulation point to capture movement without obstruction. Calibration involves adjusting the heat intensity—often to 25% active power in automated units—to achieve a baseline withdrawal latency of 3-6 seconds in naive animals, with trials repeated at 2-5 minute intervals to confirm stability and a 10-12 second cutoff to avoid tissue damage. Prior to testing, animals are prepared by marking the tail stimulation site with a non-toxic marker and acclimating them to the restraint device for 15-30 minutes or through 2-3 brief sessions on preceding days to habituate and reduce handling stress. Environmental controls include conducting the test in a quiet, low-distraction room at 22-24°C to stabilize skin temperature and minimize variability in responses due to thermal or stress factors.

Step-by-Step Execution

The tail flick test begins with proper positioning of the to ensure accurate and ethical application of the stimulus. The animal, typically a or , is gently secured in a restraint device such as a plexiglass tube or cloth holder to minimize stress while allowing the to extend freely outward. A specific site on the , often marked 3-5 cm from the tip (∼3 cm for mice, ∼5 cm for s) to standardize exposure, is selected for heat application, ensuring the is flat and unobstructed. to the restraint for 10-15 minutes prior to testing helps reduce variability from handling anxiety. Once positioned, the radiant heat stimulus is applied by activating the heat source, such as a focused beam from an analgesiometer, directed precisely at the marked tail site. A timer is started simultaneously with heat activation, and the latency—the time from stimulus onset to the first observable tail flick or withdrawal—is recorded in seconds. The trial is terminated immediately upon response or at a 10-12 second cut-off to prevent tissue damage, with the heat source automatically shutting off if equipped. Multiple trials are conducted per animal to obtain reliable baseline and post-treatment measurements, typically 3-5 trials in total. Inter-trial intervals of 2-5 minutes are maintained to allow recovery, and the is applied to different sites along the (e.g., rotating between proximal, mid, and distal sections) to avoid local or damage from repeated exposure. Data collection involves recording the withdrawal latency for each trial, followed by calculation of the mean latency across trials for the individual animal. To quantify analgesic effects, the percentage maximum possible effect (%MPE) is computed using the formula: %MPE=test latency−baseline latencycut-off time−baseline latency×100\% \text{MPE} = \frac{\text{test latency} - \text{baseline latency}}{\text{cut-off time} - \text{baseline latency}} \times 100 This metric normalizes responses relative to baseline and maximum possible protection, providing a standardized measure for comparison across subjects or treatments.

Variations and Adaptations

Radiant Heat Method

The radiant heat method in the tail flick test utilizes a non-contact thermal stimulus delivered via an source, typically a 50 W , focused through a parabolic mirror onto a small area of the rodent's tail surface. This setup causes a gradual ramping of the local temperature, reaching noxious levels of approximately 50-55°C to elicit a spinal without direct physical contact. A key advantage of this approach is its ability to minimize tissue damage, as the focused heat application avoids prolonged exposure or mechanical stress on the skin, unlike immersion-based methods. Additionally, the stimulus intensity can be precisely adjusted remotely—ranging from 1% to 100%—via voltage control or settings, enabling consistent replication across trials and animals while reducing variability from manual handling. In the protocol, the animal is restrained with its tail positioned over a flush-mounted , where a focused beam of 1-2 mm is projected onto the dorsal tail surface, often at points 10-15 mm apart to avoid . The latency to tail flick is measured automatically using a photocell or IR that detects movement and halts the heat source, with timing recorded to 0.1 s accuracy; a programmable cut-off of 5-30 s ensures animal safety by terminating the trial if no response occurs. Common commercial apparatus for this method includes the Ugo Basile Tail Flick Unit (model 37360), which integrates a touch-screen interface, TTL synchronization ports, and USB data export for automated multi-trial sequences, and the IITC Life Sciences Tail Flick Analgesia Meter, featuring similar IR projection and software-driven calibration for high-throughput screening.

Tail Immersion Method

The tail immersion method is a conductive variant of the flick test, designed for assessing acute thermal in through sustained immersion in a hot bath. In this procedure, the animal is gently restrained, and 3-5 cm of the distal tail is submerged in a circulating water bath maintained at 46-52°C, with the latency to rapid tail withdrawal measured as the endpoint. A cut-off latency of 20-30 seconds is typically enforced to minimize tissue damage, and trials are spaced to allow recovery. This method differs from the radiant heat approach by employing direct conduction for faster and more uniform to a broader surface area, facilitating studies of through repeated immersions at incrementally higher temperatures (e.g., up to 55°C). The protocol emphasizes drying the tail thoroughly between trials using a soft cloth or to prevent residual moisture from insulating the skin and altering subsequent conduction. Advantages of the tail immersion method include its simplicity and lower cost, as it requires only a standard water bath and rather than specialized radiant heat projectors. However, a key disadvantage is the potential for variability in if the tail remains wet, which can reduce conduction efficiency and lead to inconsistent latency measurements.

Applications in Research

Analgesic Efficacy Testing

The tail flick test serves as a cornerstone in preclinical screening for efficacy, particularly for compounds targeting acute in . It quantifies the prolongation of withdrawal latency following administration of potential pain-relieving agents, allowing researchers to assess dose-dependent antinociceptive effects. This model is especially valuable for evaluating centrally acting , as the reflex arc involves spinal and supraspinal pathways sensitive to modulation. Pre-treatment protocols typically involve intraperitoneal (IP) administration of the test compound, such as morphine at doses ranging from 1 to 10 mg/kg, followed by latency measurements 30 to 60 minutes post-injection to capture peak antinociceptive activity. This timing aligns with the pharmacokinetics of many analgesics, ensuring evaluation during the period of maximal effect while minimizing confounding factors like sedation. Baseline latencies are established prior to dosing, and animals are tested in a controlled environment to maintain consistency. Endpoint metrics focus on the percentage of maximum possible effect (%MPE), calculated as [(post-treatment latency - baseline latency) / (cutoff time - baseline latency)] × 100, which normalizes responses across subjects and facilitates dose-response curve construction. Potency is further quantified by the effective dose 50 (ED50), the dose producing 50% MPE, often determined using probit analysis to fit sigmoidal curves and estimate confidence intervals. These metrics enable robust statistical comparisons, such as shifts in ED50 for tolerance studies. The test has been a standard for screening since the mid-20th century, with serving as a benchmark showing reliable latency increases at low milligram doses. In the and , it was adapted for non-steroidal drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen, though with variable sensitivity due to the model's emphasis on central mechanisms over peripheral ; for instance, ibuprofen at 20-50 mg/kg IP demonstrated modest %MPE elevations in assays. Validation studies indicate that tail flick outcomes correlate with clinical efficacy in Phase I trials for acute painkillers, particularly opioids, where preclinical ED50 reductions predict human doses with moderate translational success.

Basic Nociception Studies

The tail flick test has been instrumental in elucidating fundamental mechanisms through genetic models, particularly mice lacking key ion channels involved in thermal pain transduction. In -/- mice, which lack the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 channel critical for detecting noxious heat, basal tail flick latencies are largely normal compared to wild-type controls under acute conditions, though some studies report mild prolongation indicating reduced thermal sensitivity. This highlights TRPV1's essential role in peripheral heat sensing, particularly in contexts, as seminal studies demonstrated normal baseline without . Neurological models of injury further leverage the tail flick test to probe intrinsic hypersensitivity. Following partial sciatic nerve ligation or chronic injury in , the test consistently reveals characterized by decreased tail flick latencies, reflecting central sensitization and enhanced spinal excitability post-injury. For instance, in models of unilateral sciatic nerve axotomy, latencies shorten bilaterally within days of injury, demonstrating the propagation of neuropathic changes beyond the affected limb and emphasizing the test's utility in mapping nerve damage-induced nociceptive alterations. Inherent biological variations, such as and strain differences, influence baseline responses in the tail flick test, informing genetic and hormonal contributions to processing. Females across various strains often display longer latencies than males, suggesting reduced thermal sensitivity potentially driven by modulation of spinal circuits. Strain-specific effects are also prominent; for example, mice typically exhibit shorter latencies and greater thermal sensitivity compared to Sprague-Dawley rats, which show more variable and generally longer response times, highlighting the need to standardize strains for reproducible studies.00900-5/fulltext) Advancements in neuroimaging have integrated the tail flick test with functional MRI (fMRI) to correlate behavioral latencies with neural activation patterns, particularly in the spinal cord. Studies from the 2010s revealed that shorter tail flick latencies align with heightened BOLD signal intensity in the dorsal horn and brainstem nuclei, linking peripheral nociceptive input to supraspinal processing and individual variability in pain thresholds. This multimodal approach has clarified how spinal activation scales with latency, providing insights into the neuroanatomical basis of basic nociception without exogenous analgesics.

Limitations and Challenges

Sources of Variability

The tail flick test is subject to various biological sources of variability that can significantly influence latency measurements. One key factor is tail skin temperature, where warmer tails shorten response latency due to enhanced to nociceptors, as demonstrated in studies controlling ambient temperatures between 20-30°C. Age and body weight also play roles, with juvenile exhibiting longer latencies (slower responses) compared to adults, reflecting developmental differences in nociceptive processing and . Technical factors introduce additional inconsistency in test outcomes. Handler-induced stress, often from restraint or novel handling, elevates baseline latencies through activation of endogenous pathways, mimicking effects. Inconsistent ramp-up rates during radiant stimulation further contribute to variability. Inter-animal differences amplify these effects, particularly across genetic strains and circadian cycles. For instance, mice display longer latencies than DBA/2 mice, attributable to strain-specific variations in nociceptive sensitivity and pigmentation affecting absorption. Diurnal rhythms likewise modulate responses, with latencies peaking (longer) at night under standard light-dark cycles, linked to circadian influences on thresholds. To mitigate these sources of variability, researchers employ sessions prior to testing, allowing animals to acclimate to handling and restraint, thereby stabilizing baseline responses. Randomized trial orders prevent order effects, while statistical controls such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) account for inter-animal and environmental factors in data interpretation.

Ethical and Practical Concerns

The tail flick test raises significant ethical concerns related to , primarily due to the application of thermal stimuli that can cause nociceptive responses and potential tissue damage if not properly controlled. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) mandate safeguards, such as automatic cut-off mechanisms to limit exposure time and prevent burns, ensuring that stimuli do not exceed thresholds that would cause undue distress in . These guidelines align with broader ethical commitments to minimize and distress in sentient laboratory animals, requiring justification for any procedure involving and the implementation of humane endpoints. Central to these ethical frameworks are the 3Rs principles—replacement, reduction, and refinement—which guide research involving the tail flick test. Replacement encourages or computational alternatives where feasible, though challenges persist in fully replicating nociceptive pathways without animals; reduction aims to decrease animal numbers through optimized experimental design and statistical power; and refinement involves minimizing stimulus intensity, duration, and handling stress to lessen . For instance, refinement strategies include using automated systems to standardize heat application and shorten test sessions, thereby reducing variability from animal handling that could exacerbate stress. Practically, the tail flick test enables moderate throughput, typically allowing evaluation of 20-30 animals per day in manual setups, though this demands skilled technicians for precise restraint and stimulus application to avoid artifacts. Automated commercial systems, costing approximately $6,000, enhance reproducibility and efficiency but still require training to calibrate radiant heat sources and monitor responses accurately. In the , critiques emerged regarding the test's over-reliance in preclinical research, highlighting its limited translational validity to pain conditions due to the focus on spinal reflexes that bypass cortical processing involved in clinical . This has prompted advocacy for non-rodent models, such as , which offer behavioral assays for with reduced ethical burdens and costs, as larval zebrafish exhibit pain-like responses to chemical or thermal stimuli without the welfare issues of mammalian tail heating. More recently, in the 2020s, there has been a shift toward optogenetic approaches as refined alternatives, enabling targeted activation of nociceptors via light-sensitive channels without thermal damage, thus aligning better with 3Rs by providing precise, non-invasive studies in transgenic mice.

References

  1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00284/full
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7352401/
  3. https://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/jpet/72/1/74.full.pdf
  4. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25291/0000734.pdf?sequence=1
  5. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21277086/
  7. https://mjms.modares.ac.ir/article_19408.html
  8. https://www.nature.com/articles/39807
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4705384/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165027011002615
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5679719/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2518957/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1058913905801263
  14. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/6/3/701.full.pdf
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7096630/
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9463431/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/tail-flick-test
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7970838/
  19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9267652/
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8531665_Rodent_analgesiometry_The_hot_plate_tail_flick_and_Von_Frey_hairs
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05589-1
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160540281900917
  23. https://www.protocols.io/view/tail-flick-32bgqan.pdf
  24. https://maze.conductscience.com/portfolio/tail-flick-test/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11267441/
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304394088904971
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5592204/
  28. https://www.diacomp.org/shared/document.aspx?id=34&docType=Protocol
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225168208_Factors_affecting_baseline_nociceptive_sensitivity
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4769337/
  31. https://ugobasile.com/products/categories/pain-and-inflammation/tail-flick-unit-thermal-stimulation%2C-damour-smith-method
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/tail-flick-test
  33. https://ugobasile.com/download/Pain%20and%20Inflammation/Tail%20Flick/37560%20Tail%20Flick%20instruction%20manual%20v1.4.pdf
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2765876/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8375991/
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/12/4355
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160540289900193
  38. https://www.protocols.io/view/hot-water-tail-immersion-test-bhxbj7in
  39. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/23/10494
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5561516/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2597555/
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11506403_NSAID_Antinociception_Measured_in_a_Chemical_and_a_Thermal_Assay_in_Mice
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848188/
  44. https://www.nature.com/articles/35012076
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15836979/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2823483/
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281380385_Inter-individual_differences_in_pain_processing_investigated_by_functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging_of_the_brainstem_and_spinal_cord
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8372138/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1421528/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3575459/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10204719/
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031938479903913
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6935703/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6528820/
  55. https://www.wpiinc.com/var-ii-336t-plantar-test-tail-flick-meter-for-rat-and-mouse.html
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4055199/
  57. https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2017/04/19/zebrafish-larvae-pain-research/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237523003211
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.