Figure 8
Influence of exposure to IR fibre bedding on paw edema, mechanical stimulus-evoked pain behaviour, and burrowing behaviours of rats with carrageenan-inflamed paws. Right hind paws of rats housed in cages with IR fibre bedding (+IRF) or in cages with standard wooden shaving bedding (−IRF) were injected with carrageenan. Of note, rats were transferred to cages with IR fibre bedding 5 days before immunization. A group of rats with right hind paws injected with saline from cages with standard wooden shaving bedding served as an additional control (SAL rats). (A) Line graph indicates the increase in paw volume (dV) in carrageenan or saline administered rats relative to that before the administration. Bar graph shows the dV reduction (%) in +IRF rats relative to −IRF rats (see “Material and methods”). (B) Scatter plot indicates the burrowing activity (BA) of each rat following carrageenan or saline administration expressed as the percentage of the BA before the administration (basal activity). Bar graph shows the increase in BA (%) in +IRF rats relative to −IRF rats (see “Material and methods”). (C) Line graph indicates the difference between the paw withdrawal thresholds after and before carrageenan or saline injection (dP) in +IRF, –IRF and SAL rats. Bar graph shows the antihyperalgesic activity (AHA) of exposure to IR fibre bedding (+IRF) in rats with carrageenan-induced paw inflammation (see “Material and methods”). All line graphs and scatter plots were created using GraphPad Prism version 7.00 for Windows, GraphPad Software, La Jolla, California, USA (https://www.graphpad.com). Results are expressed as mean ± SEM. n = 6 rats/group.* p ≤ 0.05 and *** p ≤ 0.001 vs −IRF; and ## p ≤ 0.01 ### p ≤ 0.001 vs +IRF.
