A Study on the Mechanism of Cinobufagin in the Treatment of Paw Cancer Pain by Modulating Local β-Endorphin Expression In Vivo

Table 2

Effects of cinobufagin on homogenate and plasma β-END, CRF, and IL-1β in the experimental group mice.

Group	β-END (ng/L)		CRF (ng/L)		IL-1β (ng/L)
	Homogenate	Plasma	Homogenate	Plasma	Homogenate	Plasma
Control	188.04±39.43	154.52±22.44	69.93±4.31	74.67±7.69	55.39±13.45	62.14±9.42
Model	54.75±14.41^##	72.54±23.85^##	143.24±25.09^##	161.35±12.24^##	147.90±26.08^##	148.30±18.57^##
Cinobufagin	166.16±43.01^##∗∗	64.02±9.96^##	310.78±65.66^##∗∗	131.88±10.21^##	157.51±20.12^##	161.19±26.49^##
Cinobufagin + NAL-M	159.18±29.14^#∗∗	75.14±13.92^##	295.88±57.29^##∗∗	138.68±13.58^##	165.33±19.42^##	149.99±9.26^##
Morphine	68.58±17.79^##	71.38±8.79^##	138.03±17.79^##	140.59±44.94^##	160.64±19.33^##	139.47±15.54^##

Control: control group; model: model group; cinobufagin group: cinobufagin, 10 mL/kg/day; cinobufagin + NAL-M group: cinobufagin, 10 mL/kg/day, NAL-M, 20 mg/kg/day; E; Morphine group: morphine, 8 mg/kg/day, i.p. Data are shown as the mean ± SD (𝑛=6). ^#𝑃<0.05, ^##𝑃<0.01 compared to control group; ^∗𝑃<0.05, ^∗∗𝑃<0.01 compared to model group.