The enhanced analgesic effects of electroacupuncture and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on visceral pain via ventral lateral septal nucleus.

The enhanced analgesic effects of electroacupuncture and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on visceral pain via ventral lateral septal nucleus - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Mol Pain . 2026 Mar 24;22:17448069261428970. doi: 10.1177/17448069261428970 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search The enhanced analgesic effects of electroacupuncture and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on visceral pain via ventral lateral septal nucleus Rui-Xia Weng Rui-Xia Weng 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China Find articles by Rui-Xia Weng 1, * , Yuan Gao Yuan Gao 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China Find articles by Yuan Gao 1, 2, * , Chen-Hao Zhang Chen-Hao Zhang 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China 3 Translational Medicine Center, The Affiliated Zhangjiagang Hospital of Soochow University, Zhangjiagang, P.R. China Find articles by Chen-Hao Zhang 1, 2, 3, * , Ru-Yu Yan Ru-Yu Yan 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China Find articles by Ru-Yu Yan 1, 2 , Qi Liu Qi Liu 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China 4 Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Find articles by Qi Liu 1, 2, 4 , Zhen-Hua Xu Zhen-Hua Xu 3 Translational Medicine Center, The Affiliated Zhangjiagang Hospital of Soochow University, Zhangjiagang, P.R. China Find articles by Zhen-Hua Xu 3 , Hua-Zheng Wang Hua-Zheng Wang 5 The Affiliated BenQ Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China Find articles by Hua-Zheng Wang 5 , Rui Li Rui Li 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China Find articles by Rui Li 1 , Rong Gao Rong Gao 3 Translational Medicine Center, The Affiliated Zhangjiagang Hospital of Soochow University, Zhangjiagang, P.R. China Find articles by Rong Gao 3 , Yong-Chang Li Yong-Chang Li 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China 3 Translational Medicine Center, The Affiliated Zhangjiagang Hospital of Soochow University, Zhangjiagang, P.R. China Find articles by Yong-Chang Li 1, 2, 3, ✉ , Guang-Yin Xu Guang-Yin Xu 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China Find articles by Guang-Yin Xu 1, 2, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Drug Discovery and Translational Research for Brain Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China 2 Clinical Research Center of Neurological Disease, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou, China 3 Translational Medicine Center, The Affiliated Zhangjiagang Hospital of Soochow University, Zhangjiagang, P.R. China 4 Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China 5 The Affiliated BenQ Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China ✉ Guang-Yin Xu, Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, P.R. China. Email: [email protected] ✉ Yong-Chang Li, Center for Translational Pain Medicine, Institute of Neuroscience, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, P.R. China. Email: [email protected] * These authors have contributed equally to this work. Received 2025 Dec 23; Revised 2026 Feb 11; Accepted 2026 Feb 12; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage ). PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13087329  PMID: 41877394 Abstract Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder characterized primarily by chronic visceral pain, with a complex pathogenesis and limited efficacy of current therapeutic interventions. Growing evidence indicates that electroacupuncture (EA) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) exert significant analgesic effects on visceral pain. However, the underlying neural circuit mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this study, the ventral part of the lateral septal nucleus (LSV) was identified as a critical brain region mediating the analgesic effects of EA and rTMS in a mouse model of visceral pain. Visceral nociceptive stimulation significantly increased c-Fos expression in the LSV, predominantly within glutamatergic (Glu + ) neurons. Optogenetic inhibition of LSV Glu + neurons attenuated visceral pain, whereas their activation exacerbated pain-related behaviors. Both EA and rTMS individually reduced visceral pain-induced c-Fos expression and alleviated pain behaviors, with the combined EA + rTMS treatment producing a more pronounced analgesic effect than either treatment alone. Moreover, fiber photometry recordings demonstrated that EA and rTMS decreased glutamate release and concurrently increased cannabinoid signaling in the LSV, suggesting that these interventions modulate neurotransmitter dynamics to regulate neuronal excitability. In summary, our findings highlight the pivotal role of LSV Glu + neurons in the modulation of visceral pain. EA and rTMS exert their therapeutic effects by regulating glutamate and cannabinoid release within this circuit. These insights provide a foundation for developing targeted neuromodulatory strategies for the treatment of chronic visceral pain. Keywords: Irritable bowel syndrome, chronic visceral pain, ventral part of lateral septal nucleus, electroacupuncture, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation Introduction Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent functional gastrointestinal disorder affecting approximately 7%–21% of the global population. 1 – 5 It is characterized by recurrent abdominal pain accompanied by altered bowel habits, including diarrhea, constipation, or a mixed pattern. 6 , 7 Among these clinical manifestations, chronic visceral pain is particularly debilitating and represents a primary reason for medical consultation among patients with IBS. 8 – 10 Despite its high prevalence and substantial impact on quality of life, the etiology of IBS-associated visceral pain remains poorly understood, and disease-specific therapeutic targets are lacking. Consequently, current pharmacological treatments often yield suboptimal efficacy and are frequently accompanied by adverse effects. Existing therapeutic strategies largely focus on symptom management—such as dietary modification, pharmacotherapy, and psychological interventions 11 – 15 —but these approaches commonly fail to provide sustained pain relief, highlighting the urgent need for innovative therapies and a deeper understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying visceral pain in IBS. Accumulating evidence supports a critical role for neuromodulation in pain management 16 – 19 Techniques such as electroacupuncture (EA) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have demonstrated therapeutic potential in neuropathic and inflammatory pain conditions. 18 , 20 – 23 However, their efficacy and mechanistic basis in chronic visceral pain remain incompletely defined. EA, a modern adaptation of traditional acupuncture, combines electrical stimulation with needle insertion at specific acupoints 24 – 26 and has been shown to modulate endogenous opioid and neurotransmitter release, thereby inhibiting nociceptive transmission and reducing pain perception. 27 , 28 In addition to analgesic effects, EA has been associated with improvements in bowel function, including normalization of bowel habits and reductions in diarrhea or constipation episodes, ultimately enhancing patients’ quality of life. 29 , 30 Similarly, rTMS is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that employs magnetic fields to stimulate cortical and subcortical brain regions. 31 – 33 By inducing electric currents via a magnetic coil positioned over the scalp, rTMS can modulate neuronal excitability within pain-related regions, including the ventral lateral septal nucleus (LSV), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and insular cortex (IC)—key nodes involved in visceral sensory processing. 34 – 38 Through modulation of these central circuits, rTMS has been shown to reduce pain perception and may represent a promising therapeutic approach for visceral pain. 36 , 39 Nevertheless, rTMS predominantly targets central mechanisms and may exert limited effects on peripheral pathways. In addition, optimal stimulation parameters and standardized clinical protocols for IBS have yet to be established. Both EA and rTMS therefore possess distinct advantages and limitations. 40 – 42 EA relies on precise needle placement and individualized parameter adjustment, which may affect reproducibility and patient compliance, whereas rTMS offers precise control over stimulation parameters and selectively targets central pain circuits, but often requires repeated sessions to achieve sustained efficacy. Given their complementary mechanisms—EA primarily engaging peripheral pathways and rTMS modulating central circuits—combining these modalities may produce synergistic effects on the complex gut–brain axis implicated in IBS. Peripheral EA stimulation, particularly at acupoints along the stomach and large intestine meridians, can elicit neurochemical responses such as cannabinoid release, thereby reducing visceral hypersensitivity. 43 , 44 In parallel, rTMS influences central pain-processing regions, including the LSV, ACC, and IC, attenuating pain perception and disrupting maladaptive central sensitization. 45 , 46 This integrative neuromodulatory strategy has the potential not only to enhance analgesic efficacy but also to overcome the limitations of single-modality interventions. From a translational perspective, elucidating the neural circuit mechanisms underlying the combined effects of EA and rTMS may advance our understanding of IBS pathophysiology, particularly the role of gut–brain axis dysfunction in visceral pain. Clinically, such insights could facilitate the development of more effective and personalized therapeutic approaches, ultimately improving treatment outcomes, reducing side effects, and enhancing quality of life for individuals with IBS. In this study, we investigate whether LSV Glu + neurons serve as a shared neural substrate mediating the analgesic effects of both EA and rTMS, thereby enabling more robust and sustained pain relief. Our findings provide a mechanistic foundation for the clinical development of novel combinatorial analgesic strategies. Materials and methods Animals Male C57BL/6J mice were housed in the Experimental Animal Center of Soochow University under specific pathogen-free (SPF) conditions. The holding room was maintained on a 12-h light/dark cycle at 24–25°C and 40%–60% relative humidity. Animals had free access to standard chow and autoclaved water. All experimental protocols received approval from the Animal Care and Use Committee of Soochow University and were performed in compliance with the ethical standards of the International Association for the Study of Pain. To eliminate potential hormonal confounders, exclusively male subjects were utilized in this study. Neonatal colonic inflammation (NCI) model A model of chronic visceral pain was established in male offspring via neonatal colonic inflammation (NCI), following established methods. 47 , 48 On postnatal day 10 (PND10), pups were randomly allocated to either the NCI or control (CON) group. Under light restraint, a flexible catheter was inserted 1 cm into the rectum. The NCI group received a 30 μL intracolonic instillation of 0.5% acetic acid in saline, which was retained for 30 s, whereas control animals received an equivalent volume of saline alone. Pups were weaned at PND21 and group-housed until behavioral testing at 6 weeks of age. Electrode implantation and electromyography recordings To quantitatively assess the visceral pain response, electromyography (EMG) electrodes were surgically placed in the external oblique muscles. 49 , 50 Under deep isoflurane anesthesia and using aseptic technique, the abdominal fur was shaved and the skin disinfected. Bilateral nickel-chromium wire electrodes were implanted into the external oblique musculature. The electrode leads were tunneled subcutaneously to an externalized exit point at the nape of the neck and secured. The abdominal incision was sutured closed, and mice were allowed a 1-week recovery period before further procedures. Visceral pain tests Visceral hypersensitivity was evaluated by measuring the EMG response to graded colorectal distension (CRD). 4 , 51 , 52 Following the recovery period, a lubricated latex balloon attached to a polyethylene catheter was inserted into the distal colorectum and taped to the base of the tail. Mice were acclimated in transparent restraint chambers for 30–60 min prior to testing. The balloon was then inflated to progressively higher pressures (20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg), with each distension lasting 20 s followed by a 3-min rest interval. EMG signals from the external oblique muscles were recorded throughout each distension using Acknowledge software (Biopac Systems, Inc., USA). The visceromotor response was quantified by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) for the EMG signal. All CRD testing and data analysis were performed by experimenters blinded to the treatment groups. EA treatment Based on previous studies demonstrating the analgesic effects of electroacupuncture at Zusanli (ST36), we applied EA at this acupoint in NCI model mice. 53 , 54 Animals were gently immobilized on a custom-built platform using a resin holder, with limbs exposed and unrestricted. Sterile acupuncture needles (0.25 mm × 13 mm; Hua Tuo, Suzhou Medical Supplies Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China) were inserted bilaterally into the ST36 acupoints to a depth of approximately 4 mm. Electrodes were connected to a nerve stimulator (Hua Tuo, Suzhou Medical Supplies Co., Ltd.), and electrical stimulation was applied at 0.5 mA, 100 Hz for 30 min per day over 7 consecutive days. After stimulation, needles were retained in place for an additional 15 min. During the entire procedure, mice remained awake but immobile, with no observable signs of distress. Mice in the sham group received the same procedure without electrical stimulation. rTMS treatment To alleviate visceral pain in NCI mice, rTMS was employed to intervene in the excitability of LSV neurons. Similar to the EA treatment protocol, mice were restrained on a smooth wooden board with their heads exposed. rTMS was delivered using a magnetic stimulator (YiRuiDe, Wuhan, China) targeting the LSV. The mice received rTMS treatment for 7 consecutive days, with each session lasting 5 min. Stimulation was applied at a frequency of 1 Hz and an intensity of 80% of the resting motor threshold (RMT), 55 , 56 determined by visual inspection of bilateral forelimb movements in anesthetized mice during preliminary experiments. Throughout the procedure, mice remained awake and stationary without displaying signs of distress. In the sham group, the procedure was identical except that no magnetic stimulation was delivered. Induced c-Fos expression To evaluate neuronal activation in the LSV following visceral pain, c-Fos immunostaining was performed. 57 Mice were acclimated in transparent chambers for 1 h prior to stimulation to minimize stress. Visceral pain was evoked using a standardized CRD protocol: a 60-mmHg distension was applied for 20 s, repeated five times with 3-min intervals over a 15-min session to prevent tissue damage. Animals were euthanized 1.5 h post-stimulation for tissue collection. Immunofluorescence staining For immunofluorescence, mice were transcardially perfused with saline followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PBS, pH 7.2–7.4). After post-fixation overnight at 4°C, brains were cryoprotected in a graded sucrose series (10%, 20%, 30%), embedded in OCT compound, and sectioned at 30 μm on a cryostat (Leica CM3050S). Following antigen retrieval in boiling sodium citrate, sections were blocked with 7% donkey serum containing 0.3% Triton X-100 and incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies against c-Fos (mouse, 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and Glutamate (rabbit, 1:200, Sigma-Aldrich). After washing, sections were incubated with Alexa Fluor-conjugated secondary antibodies (donkey anti-mouse 555 and donkey anti-rabbit 488, 1:500, Invitrogen) and mounted with DAPI. Images were acquired using Zeiss AXIO SCOPE A1 and LSM900 confocal microscopes. c-Fos-positive nuclei within the LSV were quantified from 1-2 representative slices per mouse using ImageJ software. Stereotaxic injection For targeted manipulation and recording, adult male mice (6–8 weeks) were anesthetized with isoflurane and secured in a stereotaxic frame (RWD, 71000-M, Shenzhen, China). Following a scalp disinfection and craniotomy, viral vectors were injected into the LSV using a micro-syringe (Gaoge) connected to a glass micropipette and an injection pump (Longer Pump, TJ-2A, Beijing, China). A volume of 200 nL was delivered at a rate of 30 nL/min, and the needle was left in place for 10–15 min post-injection to ensure adequate diffusion. For targeted manipulation of LSV Glu + neurons, rAAV-Vglut2-ChR2-EYFP (3.0 × 10 12 genome copies/mL, BrainVTA, Wuhan, China) or rAAV-Vglut2-eNpHR-EYFP (2.35 × 10 12 genome copies/mL, BrainVTA, Wuhan, China) was injected into the LSV brain region (AP: +0.74 mm; ML: +0.6 mm; DV: −3.75 mm). After that, the wounds of the mice were sealed with dental cement and fixed together with skull screws. Behavioral tests were conducted 20 days later. For fiber photometry experiments, rAAV-hSyn-GRAB-eCB2.0-WPRE-hGH (2.32 × 10 12 genome copies/mL, BrainVTA, Wuhan, China) or rAAV-hSyn-iGlusnFR (5.25 × 10 12 genome copies/mL, BrainVTA, Wuhan, China) was injected into the LSV brain region, respectively. After injection, the wound was sealed with dental cement and skull screws. Behavioral assessments were conducted 20 days later. Animals with injection site deviations were excluded from statistical analysis. Optogenetic and fiber photometry procedures Optogenetic Manipulation: In mice expressing ChR2 or eNpHR in LSV Glu + neurons, we delivered light stimuli during EMG recording. For neuronal activation, a 473 nm blue light (2–5 mW, 20-ms pulses at 10 Hz) was applied; for inhibition, a constant 594 nm yellow light (3–5 mW) was used. Light delivery was controlled via an Optogenetics-LED system (Alpha Omega Engineering). Fiber Photometry Recording: Neural activity in the LSV was monitored using a fiber photometry system (RWD, R821). Signals from the eCB2.0 or iGlusnFR sensors were excited at 470 nm, with a 405 nm reference channel used for motion correction. Fluorescence changes (ΔF/F0) in response to graded CRD (20, 40, 60, 80 mmHg) were recorded, with F0 defined as the baseline fluorescence averaged over a 10-s pre-stimulus period. Each mouse underwent 9 trials of CRD stimulation during recording. Data were analyzed using Multichannel Fiber Photometry Software (RWD, Shenzhen, China). Drug administration To determine whether cannabinoid signaling mediates the analgesic effects of EA + rTMS on visceral pain in NCI mice, cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) signaling was selectively inhibited. The selective CB1 antagonist AM251 (2 mM, 50 μL per site) was administered via bilateral cannula injections into the LSV region. Statistical analyses All data are reported as mean ± SEM. The error bars in the figures indicate SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism software. Normality checks were performed on all data before conducting the statistical analysis. The data statistical significance was assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc test and two-sample student’s t -test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results NCI induces visceral pain and activates LSV Glu + neurons in mice As previously described, neonatal colonic inflammation (NCI) is a well-established rodent model that reliably induces visceral pain and closely mimics the clinical features of IBS. 15 , 48 In the present study, the NCI model was employed ( Figure 1(a) ). Visceral pain was assessed using CRD combined with EMG. The area under the EMG curve (AUC) was significantly increased in NCI mice compared with CON mice, indicating the presence of visceral pain in the NCI group ( Figure 1(b)–(d) , ** p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). To determine whether the LSV was activated in response to visceral pain, mice were subjected to CRD stimulation ( Figure 1(e) ). As shown, c-Fos expression in the LSV was significantly elevated following repeated CRD, with a markedly higher expression in NCI mice compared to controls ( Figure 1(f) and ( g ), *** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test). To further characterize the activated neuronal population, c-Fos immunostaining was combined with glutamatergic neuronal markers. Immunofluorescence analysis revealed substantial co-localization of c-Fos with Glu + neurons in the LSV ( Figure 1(h) and ( i )). These findings suggest that the LSV Glu + neurons are strongly activated in NCI-induced chronic visceral pain and may play a critical role in its modulation. Figure 1. Open in a new tab Visceral pain stimulation induces a significant increase in c-Fos expression in the LSV. (a) Experimental protocol for NCI model preparation. (b) Diagram showing EMG recording setup for assessing visceral pain in mice. (c) Representative EMG traces recorded during CRD. (d) The area under the curve of the EMG at 20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg (** p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (e) Illustration of experimental setup for evaluating CRD-evoked c-Fos expression. (f) Representative images of c-Fos positive cells in LSV of CON and NCI mice, scale bar = 50 µm. (g) Quantification of c-Fos-positive cells in the LSV after CRD stimulation (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice for CON group, n = 5 brain sections from 3 mice for NCI group). (h) Representative immunofluorescence images showing glutamate-positive (Glu + ) and c-Fos-positive (c-Fos + ) cells in the LSV, scale bar = 50 µm. (i) Quantification of co-localization between Glu + and c-Fos + cells in the LSV, expressed as the percentage of Glu + /c-Fos + double-labeled cells among total Glu + or c-Fos + cells ( n = 5 brain sections from 3 mice per group). ns indicates non-significant differences. Optogenetic manipulation of LSV Glu + neurons alters visceral pain To further elucidate the functional role of LSV Glu + neurons in chronic visceral pain, optogenetic approaches were used to selectively manipulate these neurons, and visceral nociception was assessed via CRD combined with EMG recordings ( Figure 2(a) and ( b )). AAV2/9-Vglut2-hChR2-EGFP or AAV2/9-Vglut2-eNpHR-EGFP was stereotactically injected into the LSV to enable light-induced activation or inhibition of Glu + neurons, respectively ( Figure 2(c) ). Optogenetic inhibition of LSV Glu + neurons significantly attenuated visceral pain responses in NCI mice ( Figure 2(d) and ( e ), *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). In contrast, optogenetic activation of LSV Glu + neurons significantly enhanced visceral pain responses in CON mice ( Figure 2(f) and ( g ), ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). These results indicate that LSV Glu + neurons actively contribute to the modulation of visceral nociceptive processing and are functionally involved in the maintenance or amplification of chronic visceral pain states. Figure 2. Open in a new tab Optogenetic inhibition of LSV Glu + neurons alleviates visceral pain in NCI mice, whereas activation induces visceral pain in CON mice. (a) Experimental timeline of optogenetic modulation targeting LSV Glu + neurons in NCI and CON mice. (b) Schematic of EMG recording setup used to evaluate pain responses following optogenetic intervention. (c) Schematic diagram of virus injection and optical fiber implantation in the LSV, with a representative image of virus expression in LSV Glu + neurons, scale bar = 50 μm. (d) Representative EMG traces from NCI mice in response to CRD at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg. (e) The AUC of the EMG in NCI mice in response to CRD at 20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg (*** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (f) Representative EMG traces of CON mice at different levels of CRD stimulation (20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg). (g) The AUC of the EMG in CON mice at 20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). ns indicates non-significant differences. EA or rTMS intervention reduces LSV Glu + neurons activation and alleviates visceral pain behavior in NCI mice To investigate the therapeutic effects of EA and rTMS on visceral pain, we conducted a series of intervention experiments. A schematic of bilateral ST36 EA stimulation in NCI mice is presented in Figure 3(a) . Following EA or sham-EA treatment, c-Fos immunostaining and CRD-induced EMG recordings were performed to assess neuronal activation and visceral pain behaviors, respectively ( Figure 3(b) ). The results showed that c-Fos expression in the LSV was significantly reduced after EA intervention, and this reduction was predominantly observed in Glu + neurons ( Figure 3(c) and ( d ), *** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test). Additionally, the area under the curve of EMG was significantly reduced in the EA group compared with Sham-EA, indicating that visceral pain was relieved ( Figure 3(e) and ( f ), ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). Similarly, rTMS intervention was applied to another group of NCI mice, followed by c-Fos staining and EMG evaluation ( Figure 3(g) and ( h )). CRD-induced c-Fos expression in the LSV was also significantly decreased after rTMS, particularly in Glu + neurons ( Figure 3(i) and ( j ), *** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test). Consistently, rTMS treatment significantly reduced the EMG AUC compared to the sham-rTMS group, suggesting an analgesic effect ( Figure 3(k) and ( l ), *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). These findings indicate that both EA and rTMS relieve visceral pain in NCI mice by suppressing the activity of LSV Glu + neurons, implicating the LSV as a key target for neuromodulatory interventions in visceral pain. Figure 3. Open in a new tab EA or rTMS treatment suppresses LSV Glu + neuronal activation and alleviates visceral pain in NCI mice. (a) Schematic illustration of bilateral EA stimulation at acupoint ST36. (b) Experimental protocol for c-Fos immunostaining and visceral pain behavioral assessment following EA or sham-EA treatment. (c) Representative images and quantification of c-Fos + neurons in the LSV of EA and Sham-EA groups (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (d) Representative images and quantification of c-Fos + neurons co-labeled with Glu + neurons in the LSV of EA and Sham-EA group (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (e) Representative EMG traces of EA and Sham-EA group in response to CRD at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg. (f) The AUC of the EMG for EA and sham-EA groups at each CRD pressure level (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (g) Schematic diagram of rTMS stimulation targeting the LSV. (h) Experimental timeline of c-Fos staining and behavioral assessment after rTMS or sham-rTMS treatment. (i) Representative images and quantitative analysis of c-Fos + neurons in LSV of rTMS and Sham-rTMS groups (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (j) Representative images and quantification of c-Fos + /Glu + co-labeled neurons in the LSV of rTMS and Sham-rTMS groups (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (k) Representative EMG traces of rTMS and Sham-rTMS group at different levels of CRD stimulation (20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg). (l) The AUC of the EMG for rTMS and Sham-rTMS groups at 20, 40, 60 and 80 mmHg (*** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). ns indicates non-significant differences. Combined EA + rTMS treatment exhibits enhanced analgesic effects compared to EA or rTMS alone Although EA and rTMS individually attenuate visceral pain, their therapeutic efficacy may be limited when applied alone. Therefore, a combined EA + rTMS treatment strategy was employed ( Figure 4(a) ). c-Fos staining was performed to assess neuronal activation within the LSV following combination therapy. Results revealed that EA + rTMS treatment significantly suppressed LSV Glu + neuron activation ( Figure 4(b) and ( c ), *** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test). To compare the analgesic efficacy of EA, rTMS, and EA + rTMS, CRD-evoked EMG recordings were analyzed. The combination treatment group exhibited a more pronounced reduction in visceral pain responses and maintained this analgesic effect over a longer duration relative to single treatments ( Figure 4(d)–(f) , * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). These findings suggest that EA + rTMS treatment mediates more potent analgesic effects by inhibiting LSV Glu + neurons. Figure 4. Open in a new tab Combined EA + rTMS treatment exhibits more robust and sustained analgesic effects in NCI mice. (a) Schematic diagram of c-Fos staining and visceral pain behavior test following EA + rTMS or Sham-EA + Sham-rTMS treatment. (b) Representative images and quantification of c-Fos + neurons in the LSV of EA + rTMS and Sham-EA + Sham-rTMS groups (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (c) Representative images and quantification of c-Fos + /Glu + co-labeled neurons in the LSV (*** p < 0.001, two-sample t -test, n = 6 brain sections from 3 mice per group), scale = 100 µm. (d) Representative EMG traces from Sham, EA, rTMS, and EA + rTMS groups during CRD stimulation at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg. (e) The AUC of the EMG for Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS groups during CRD stimulation at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (f) The visceral pain threshold of Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS treatment groups (*** p < 0.001; # p < 0.05, ### p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). ns indicates non-significant differences. EA + rTMS treatment increases cannabinoid release and decreases glutamate release in the LSV To explore the neurochemical mechanisms underlying the analgesic effects of EA and rTMS, we performed in vivo fiber photometry to monitor glutamate and endocannabinoid release in the LSV before and after the interventions. rAAV-hSyn-GRAB-eCB2.0 or rAAV-hSyn-iGlusnFR was injected into the LSV to detect cannabinoid and glutamate dynamics ( Figure 5(a) and ( b )). Representative image of rAAV-hSyn-iGlusnFR expression in the LSV was shown in Figure 5(c) . Photometry recordings showed that all three interventions reduced glutamate release in the LSV ( Figure 5(d) and ( e )). Notably, the combined EA + rTMS treatment resulted in a significantly greater reduction in glutamate release than either EA or rTMS alone ( Figure 5(f) and ( g ), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test). To investigate the basis of this suppression of glutamate release, cannabinoid release was assessed. Representative image of rAAV-hSyn-GRAB-eCB2.0 expression in LSV was shown in Figure 5(h) . All interventions significantly increased cannabinoid levels in the LSV ( Figure 5(i) and ( j )), with EA + rTMS inducing the most robust increase ( Figure 5(k) and ( l ), ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test). Together, these findings suggest that the analgesic effects of EA and rTMS are mediated by enhanced cannabinoid signaling, which in turn reduces glutamate release in the LSV. The combination therapy amplifies this effect, providing a stronger neurochemical basis for its superior analgesic efficacy. Figure 5. Open in a new tab Combined EA + rTMS treatment increases cannabinoid release and decreases glutamate release in the LSV. (a) Schematic of viral injection of glutamate or cannabinoid sensors and optical fiber implantation targeting the LSV. (b) Experimental protocol for real-time assessment of glutamate or cannabinoid release following Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS treatment. (c) Representative image of glutamate sensor expression in LSV, scale = 100 µm. (d) and (e) Heatmaps and waveform plots of fiber photometry recordings in response to CRD stimulation at the 60 mmHg. (f) Quantification of AUC for glutamate release in the LSV across groups (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (g) Average peak for glutamate release signals in LSV of Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS treatment group receiving CRD stimulation (* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (h) Representative image of cannabinoid sensor expression in LSV, scale = 100 µm. (i) and (j) Heatmaps and waveform plots of fiber photometry recordings in response to CRD stimulation at the 60 mmHg. (k) Quantification of AUC for cannabinoid release in the LSV of Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS treatment group receiving CRD stimulation (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). (l) Average peak for cannabinoid release signals in LSV of Sham, EA, rTMS and EA + rTMS treatment group receiving CRD stimulation (*** p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). ns indicates non-significant differences. AM251 abolishes the analgesic effect of EA + rTMS in NCI mice To determine whether the analgesic effect of combined EA + rTMS in NCI mice is mediated by cannabinoid signaling, we assessed visceral pain behaviors following administration of cannabinoid receptor antagonists. Given that CB1 receptors are predominantly expressed in the brain, the selective CB1 antagonist AM251 was delivered via bilateral cannula injections into the LSV. Compared with saline-treated controls, mice receiving AM251 failed to exhibit EA + rTMS–induced attenuation of visceral pain behaviors ( Figure 6(a)–(d) , ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test). These results indicate that CB1-dependent cannabinoid signaling is required for the analgesic effect of EA + rTMS in NCI mice. Figure 6. Open in a new tab AM251 significantly blocked the analgesic effect of EA + rTMS in NCI mice. (a) Schematic diagram of AM251 delivery to LSV. (b) Flowchart of EA + rTMS Intervention Following AM251 Injection. (c) Representative EMG traces from vehicle and AM251 groups during CRD stimulation at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg. (d) The AUC of the EMG for vehicle and AM251 groups during CRD stimulation at 20, 40, 60, and 80 mmHg (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, n = 6 per group). Discussions This study reveals a novel neural mechanism underlying chronic visceral pain in irritable bowel syndrome and highlights the therapeutic potential of EA and rTMS, either alone or in combination. Using the NCI mouse model, we demonstrated that chronic visceral hypersensitivity is associated with increased activation of Glu + neurons in the LSV. Optogenetic manipulation confirmed the causal role of LSV Glu + neurons in modulating visceral pain responses. Notably, both EA and rTMS significantly suppressed LSV activity and alleviated pain behaviors, with their combination producing a more robust and sustained analgesic effect. Emerging evidence supports a unique role of the LSV in visceral pain processing. 52 , 57 Our findings align with previous reports showing that LSV Glu + neurons play a key role in regulating visceral nociception. The marked upregulation of c-Fos expression in these neurons following CRD stimulation suggests that the LSV functions as an integrative hub for peripheral nociceptive input and central pain perception. Optogenetic activation of LSV Glu + neurons exacerbated visceral pain, whereas their inhibition attenuated pain responses, providing direct evidence of their functional significance. EA has been widely employed in traditional Chinese medicine to relieve pain, and its analgesic effects have been attributed to modulation of both peripheral and central mechanisms. 22 , 58 – 60 In our study, EA significantly reduced CRD-evoked visceral hypersensitivity and suppressed c-Fos expression in LSV Glu + neurons, suggesting attenuation of central sensitization. Mechanistically, EA has been reported to enhance the release of endogenous opioids, serotonin, and endocannabinoids, which may contribute to its inhibitory effects on excitatory neurons. 23 , 27 , 28 rTMS, a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, has gained traction in recent years for treating neuropathic and affective disorders. 61 , 62 rTMS delivers repetitive magnetic pulses to modulate cortical and subcortical circuits. In this study, rTMS targeting the LSV significantly inhibited Glu + neuronal activation and alleviated visceral pain behaviors in NCI mice, supporting its efficacy in central modulation of pain. Crucially, the combination of EA and rTMS yielded superior analgesic outcomes compared to either treatment alone. This synergistic effect may be attributed to dual-level modulation: EA targeting peripheral input and spinal relay, while rTMS modulates central pain circuitry. Fiber photometry revealed that EA + rTMS treatment not only reduced glutamate release in the LSV more significantly but also enhanced endocannabinoid signaling. As endocannabinoids are known to inhibit glutamatergic transmission and reduce neuronal excitability, 63 – 65 these findings suggest that cannabinoid-mediated suppression of glutamatergic activity may underlie the enhanced analgesic effects of combined treatment. The present study provides in vivo evidence that EA and rTMS synergistically inhibit LSV Glu + neuron activity via enhanced endocannabinoid signaling, thereby relieving chronic visceral pain. These findings carry several important implications. First, they underscore the LSV as a central hub in the regulation of visceral pain. Second, they offer mechanistic insights into how neuromodulatory therapies, especially when combined, can more effectively disrupt maladaptive pain circuits. Third, they open new avenues for integrative, multimodal treatment strategies tailored to the complex pathophysiology of IBS. Despite the promising findings, several limitations should be acknowledged. While our results support a causal role for LSV Glu + neurons in visceral pain modulation, further studies are needed to map their downstream projections and define their precise contribution to behavioral output. In addition, although we showed that EA + rTMS increases cannabinoid release in the LSV, the expression levels and distribution of cannabinoid receptors in this region remain to be elucidated and will be addressed in future studies. Notably, while the primary focus of this study was on the combined EA + rTMS intervention, our exploratory cannabinoid release data offer preliminary insights into the relative contributions of each modality. The observed hierarchy of effect—where the combined intervention elicited the most pronounced increase in endocannabinoid levels, followed by rTMS alone, and then EA alone—suggests that both modalities contribute positively, but not equally, to the net effect. This pattern implies that rTMS may be the more potent driver of endocannabinoid release within the parameters used in this study, while EA provides a significant additive or possibly priming effect. Crucially, the supra-additive outcome of the combined treatment (EA + rTMS) compared to either intervention alone points toward a synergistic interaction rather than a simple summation of effects. The translational relevance of EA + rTMS therapy also warrants further investigation in clinical settings. Optimization of stimulation parameters such as frequency, intensity, and duration will be critical for maximizing efficacy and reproducibility in IBS patients. Furthermore, the current study included only male mice to eliminate the potential confounding effects of estrogen and estrous cycle on visceral pain sensitivity. 66 – 69 However, given the known sex differences in pain perception and response to analgesics, 70 – 72 the exclusion of female mice represents a potential limitation of this study and should be prioritized in future research. In conclusion, this study identifies LSV Glu + neurons as key regulators of chronic visceral pain in IBS and demonstrates that combined EA and rTMS treatment provides a more effective and mechanistically distinct approach to pain relief. These findings offer new strategies for neuromodulation-based therapies targeting functional gastrointestinal disorders. Footnotes Author contributions: R.-X.W., Y.G., and C.-H.Z. performed experiments, analyzed data and prepared the manuscript. R.-Y.Y., Q.L., and Z.-H.X. performed experiments, analyzed data, and prepared the figures. R.L., R.G., and Y.-C.L. analyzed data and prepared the manuscript. G.-Y.X. designed experiments, supervised the experiments, and finalized the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the paper. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from National Key Research and Development Program of China (2024YFC3505200, 2024YFC3505203), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82401454, 82470573 and 82530041), Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF (GZC20231890 and 2025T180728), Jiangsu Provincial Department of Science and Technology (BE2023710) and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Ethics approval: Care and handling of the animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Soochow University and were in accordance with the guidelines of the International Association for the Study of Pain. ORCID iD: Yong-Chang Li https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8694-5150 References 1. Chey WD, Kurlander J, Eswaran S. Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review. JAMA 2015; 313: 949–958. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Ford AC, Sperber AD, Corsetti M, Camilleri M. Irritable bowel syndrome. Lancet 2020; 396: 1675–1688. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Huang KY, Wang FY, Lv M, Ma XX, Tang XD, Lv L. Irritable bowel syndrome: epidemiology, overlap disorders, pathophysiology and treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29: 4120–4135. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Li D, Du H, Qu ST, Wu JL, Li YC, Xu QY, Chen X, Dai XX, Xu JT, Wang Q, Xu GY. Thalamic nucleus reuniens glutamatergic neurons mediate colorectal visceral pain in mice via 5-HT 2B receptors. Neurosci Bull 2024; 40: 1421–1433. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Weaver KR, Melkus GD, Henderson WA. Irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Nurs 2017; 117: 48–55. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Bayrer JR, Castro J, Venkataraman A, Touhara KK, Rossen ND, Morrie RD, Maddern J, Hendry A, Braverman KN, Garcia-Caraballo S, Schober G, Brizuela M, Castro Navarro FM, Bueno-Silva C, Ingraham HA, Brierley SM, Julius D. Gut enterochromaffin cells drive visceral pain and anxiety. Nature 2023; 616: 137–142. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Mayer EA, Ryu HJ, Bhatt RR. The neurobiology of irritable bowel syndrome. Mol Psychiatry 2023; 28: 1451–1465. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Drossman DA. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: history, pathophysiology, clinical features and rome IV. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 1262–1279. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Ford AC, Vanner S, Kashyap PC, Nasser Y. Chronic visceral pain: new peripheral mechanistic insights and resulting treatments. Gastroenterology 2024; 166: 976–994. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Sinopoulou V, Gordon M, Dovey TM, Akobeng AK. Interventions for the management of abdominal pain in ulcerative colitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 7: CD013589. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Bertin L, Zanconato M, Crepaldi M, Marasco G, Cremon C, Barbara G, Barberio B, Zingone F, Savarino EV. The role of the FODMAP diet in IBS. Nutrients 2024; 16: 370. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Cassar GE, Knowles S, Youssef GJ, Moulding R, Uiterwijk D, Waters L, Austin DW. Examining the mediational role of psychological flexibility, pain catastrophizing, and visceral sensitivity in the relationship between psychological distress, irritable bowel symptom frequency, and quality of life. Psychol Health Med 2018; 23: 1168–1181. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Gordon M, Sinopoulou V, Tabbers M, Rexwinkel R, de Bruijn C, Dovey T, Gasparetto M, Vanker H, Benninga M. Psychosocial interventions for the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2022; 176: 560–568. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Lucarini E, Di Pilato V, Parisio C, Micheli L, Toti A, Pacini A, Bartolucci G, Baldi S, Niccolai E, Amedei A, Rossolini GM, Nicoletti C, Cryan JF, O’Mahony SM, Ghelardini C, Di Cesare Mannelli L. Visceral sensitivity modulation by faecal microbiota transplantation: the active role of gut bacteria in pain persistence. Pain 2022; 163: 861–877. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Weng RX, Wei YX, Li YC, Xu X, Zhuang JB, Xu GY, Li R. Folic acid attenuates chronic visceral pain by reducing clostridiales abundance and hydrogen sulfide production. Mol Pain 2023; 19: 17448069221149834. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Deogaonkar M. Peripheral neuromodulation for chronic pain. Neurol India 2020; 68: S224–S230. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Gish B, Langford B, Sobey C, Singh C, Abdullah N, Walker J, Gray H, Hagedorn J, Ghosh P, Patel K, Deer T. Neuromodulation for the management of chronic pelvic pain syndromes: a systematic review. Pain Pract 2024; 24: 321–340. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Knotkova H, Hamani C, Sivanesan E, Le Beuffe MFE, Moon JY, Cohen SP, Huntoon MA. Neuromodulation for chronic pain. Lancet 2021; 397: 2111–2124. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Qi Z, Yang Z, Liu H, Fan L, Zuo N, Jiang T. Enhancing transcranial magnetic stimulation comfort: the role of electrical stimulation in pain reduction. Neurosci Bull 2025; 41: 155–158. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Chu WG, Zhang R, Li HT, Li YC, Ding H, Li ZZ, Han WJ, Wang F, Zheng XX, Mao HH, Yuan H, Wu SX, Xie RG, Luo C. Locus coeruleus noradrenergic-spinal projections contribute to electroacupuncture-mediated antinociception in postoperative pain in mice. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2025; 12: e01182. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Wang F, Tian ZC, Ding H, Yang XJ, Wang FD, Ji RX, Xu L, Cao ZX, Ma SB, Zhang M, Cui YT, Cong XY, Chu WG, Li ZZ, Han WJ, Gao YH, Yu YW, Zhao XH, Wang WT, Xie RG, Wu SX, Luo C. A sensory-motor-sensory circuit underlies antinociception ignited by primary motor cortex in mice. Neuron 2025; 113:1947–1968.e1947. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Xu Y, Zhu X, Chen Y, Chen Y, Zhu Y, Xiao S, Wu M, Wang Y, Zhang C, Wu Z, He X, Liu B, Shen Z, Shao X, Fang J. Electroacupuncture alleviates mechanical allodynia and anxiety-like behaviors induced by chronic neuropathic pain via regulating rostral anterior cingulate cortex-dorsal raphe nucleus neural circuit. Cns Neurosci Ther 2023; 29: 4043–4058. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Zhang Q, Zhou M, Huo M, Si Y, Zhang Y, Fang Y, Zhang D. Mechanisms of acupuncture-electroacupuncture on inflammatory pain. Mol Pain 2023; 19: 17448069231202882. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Da X, Jiang X, Li L, Xu C, Chen Z. From acupoints to mylohyoid: revealing the neural circuitry basis of electroacupuncture for dysphagia. Neurosci Bull 2024; 40: 139–142. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Ulloa L. Electroacupuncture activates neurons to switch off inflammation. Nature 2021; 598: 573–574. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Yao L, Ye Q, Liu Y, Yao S, Yuan S, Xu Q, Deng B, Tang X, Shi J, Luo J, Wu J, Wu Z, Liu J, Tang C, Wang L, Xu N. Electroacupuncture improves swallowing function in a post-stroke dysphagia mouse model by activating the motor cortex inputs to the nucleus tractus solitarii through the parabrachial nuclei. Nat Commun 2023; 14: 810. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Fang K, Cheng W, Yu B. Effects of electroacupuncture at varied frequencies on analgesia and mechanisms in sciatic nerve cuffing-induced neuropathic pain mice. J Mol Neurosci 2024; 74: 98. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Shi JT, Cao WY, Zhang XN, Wan HY, Su YS, Qu ZY, Wang R, He W, Jing XH, Wang XY. Local analgesia of electroacupuncture is mediated by the recruitment of neutrophils and released β-endorphins. Pain 2023; 164: 1965–1975. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Pei L, Wang G, Yang S, Zhou S, Xu T, Zhou J, Zhang W, Lu K, Hu L, Wang Y, Wang K, You D, Wu Y, Li L, Guo J, Sun J. Electroacupuncture reduces duration of postoperative ileus after laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multicenter randomized triapo olumal. Gastroenterology 2025; 169: 73–84. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Wang Y, Yang JW, Yan SY, Lu Y, Han JG, Pei W, Zhao JJ, Li ZK, Zhou H, Yang NN, Wang LQ, Yang YC, Liu CZ. Electroacupuncture vs sham electroacupuncture in the treatment of postoperative ileus after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2023; 158: 20–27. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Lanza G, Fisicaro F, Cantone M, Pennisi M, Cosentino FII, Lanuzza B, Tripodi M, Bella R, Paulus W, Ferri R. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in primary sleep disorders. Sleep Med Rev 2023; 67: 101735. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Sheng R, Chen C, Chen H, Yu P. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke rehabilitation: insights into the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neuroinflammation. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1197422. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Yang J, Guo H, Cai A, Zheng J, Liu J, Xiao Y, Ren S, Sun D, Duan J, Zhao T, Tang J, Zhang X, Zhu R, Wang J, Wang F. Aberrant hippocampal development in early-onset mental disorders and promising interventions: evidence from a translational study. Neurosci Bull 2024; 40: 683–694. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Citherlet D, Boucher O, Robert M, Provost C, Alcindor A, Peng K, De Beaumont L, Nguyen DK. Insular cortex modulation by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with concurrent functional magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary findings. Brain Sci 2025; 15: 680. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Downar J, Siddiqi SH, Mitra A, Williams N, Liston C. Mechanisms of action of TMS in the treatment of depression. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2024; 66: 233–277. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Kundu B, Brock AA, Englot DJ, Butson CR, Rolston JD. Deep brain stimulation for the treatment of disorders of consciousness and cognition in traumatic brain injury patients: a review. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 45: E14. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Perini I, Kämpe R, Arlestig T, Karlsson H, Löfberg A, Pietrzak M, Zangen A, Heilig M. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the insular cortex for reduction of heavy drinking in treatment-seeking alcohol-dependent subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 2020; 45: 842–850. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Vinod P, Thatikonda NS, Malo PK, Bhaskarapillai B, Arumugham SS, Janardhan Reddy YC. Comparative efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation protocols for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a network meta-analysis. Asian J Psychiatr 2024; 94: 103962. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Andrade MF, Fabris-Moraes W, Pacheco-Barrios K, Fregni F. Effect of neurostimulation on chronic pancreatic pain: a systematic review. Neuromodulation 2024; 27: 1255–1265. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Burke MJ, Fried PJ, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: neurophysiological and clinical applications. Handb Clin Neurol 2019; 163: 73–92. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. De Risio L, Borgi M, Pettorruso M, Miuli A, Ottomana AM, Sociali A, Martinotti G, Nicolò G, Macrì S, di Giannantonio M, Zoratto F. Recovering from depression with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10: 393. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Wang L, Gao W, Tang Q, Zhu L, Wu M. Immediate effects of electroacupuncture in oculomotor nerve palsy following brainstem infarction: a case report. Explore (NY) 2023; 19: 861–864. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Ma N, Li X, Li Q, Yang D, Zhuang S, Nan S, Liu A, Ding M, Ding Y. Electroacupuncture relieves visceral hypersensitivity through modulation of the endogenous cannabinoid system. Acupunct Med 2023; 41: 224–234. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Zhao Y, Jiang HL, Shi Y, Zhang W, Zhang LX, Hou YJ, Yang ZQ, He BY, Liang FR, Zheng QH. Electroacupuncture alleviates visceral hypersensitivity in IBS-D rats by inhibiting EGCs activity through regulating BDNF/TrkB signaling pathway. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2022; 2022: 2497430. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Galhardoni R, Aparecida da, Silva V, García-Larrea L, Dale C, Baptista AF, Barbosa LM, Menezes LMB, de Siqueira SRDT, Valério F, Rosi J, Jr, de Lima Rodrigues AL, Reis Mendes Fernandes DT, Lorencini Selingardi PM, Marcolin MA, Duran FLS, Ono CR, Lucato LT, Fernandes AMBL, da Silva FEF, Yeng LT, Brunoni AR, Buchpiguel CA, Teixeira MJ, Ciampi de, Andrade D. Insular and anterior cingulate cortex deep stimulation for central neuropathic pain: disassembling the percept of pain. Neurology 2019; 92: e2165–e2175. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Xiao X, Ding M, Zhang YQ. Role of the anterior cingulate cortex in translational pain research. Neurosci Bull 2021; 37: 405–422. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Weng RX, Chen W, Tang JN, Sun Q, Li M, Xu X, Zhang PA, Zhang Y, Hu CY, Xu GY. Targeting spinal TRAF6 expression attenuates chronic visceral pain in adult rats with neonatal colonic inflammation. Mol Pain 2020; 16: 1744806920918059. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Zhang FC, Wei YX, Weng RX, Xu QY, Li R, Yu Y, Xu GY. Paraventricular thalamus-insular cortex circuit mediates colorectal visceral pain induced by neonatal colonic inflammation in mice. Cns Neurosci Ther 2024; 30: e14534. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Kamphuis JBJ, Guiard B, Leveque M, Olier M, Jouanin I, Yvon S, Tondereau V, Riviere P, Gueraud F, Chevolleau S, Noguer-Meireles MH, Martin JF, Debrauwer L, Eutamene H, Theodorou V. Lactose and fructo-oligosaccharides increase visceral sensitivity in mice via glycation processes, increasing mast cell density in colonic mucosa. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 652–663 e656. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Zhang HH, Hu J, Zhou YL, Hu S, Wang YM, Chen W, Xiao Y, Huang LY, Jiang X, Xu GY. Promoted interaction of nuclear factor-κB with demethylated cystathionine-β-synthetase gene contributes to gastric hypersensitivity in diabetic rats. J Neurosci 2013; 33: 9028–9038. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Li D, Li YC, Zhu ZY, Zhang FC, Zhao QY, Jiang JH, Shen B, Tang Y, Xu GY. The paraventricular thalamus mediates visceral pain and anxiety-like behaviors via two distinct pathways. Neuron 2025; 113: 2310–2324.e2317. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Li YC, Wang Q, Li MG, Hu SF, Xu GY. A paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus input to ventral of lateral septal nucleus controls chronic visceral pain. Pain 2023; 164: 625–637. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Wan K, Xu Q, Shi Y, Cui C, Lei J, Zhang K, Yao Q, Rao Y, Zhou Z, Wu Y, Mei J, Pan HL, Jing X, Zhu H, Li M. Electroacupuncture produces analgesic effects via cannabinoid CB1 receptor-mediated GABAergic neuronal inhibition in the rostral ventromedial medulla. Chin Med 2025; 20: 30. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Wang YL, Zhu HY, Lv XQ, Ren XY, Peng YC, Qu JY, Shen XF, Sun R, Xiao ML, Zhang H, Chen ZH, Cong P. Electroacupuncture zusanli (ST36) relieves somatic pain in colitis rats by inhibiting dorsal root ganglion sympathetic-sensory coupling and neurogenic inflammation. Neural Plast 2023; 2023: 9303419. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Huang Z, Tan T, Du Y, Chen L, Fu M, Yu Y, Zhang L, Song W, Dong Z. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation ameliorates cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in APP23/PS45 mouse model of alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci 2017; 9: 292. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Ma J, Zhang Z, Kang L, Geng D, Wang Y, Wang M, Cui H. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) influences spatial cognition and modulates hippocampal structural synaptic plasticity in aging mice. Exp Gerontol 2014; 58: 256–268. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. Li YC, Zhang FC, Li D, Weng RX, Yu Y, Gao R, Xu GY. Distinct circuits and molecular targets of the paraventricular hypothalamus decode visceral and somatic pain. Neuron 2024; 112: 3734–3749.e3735. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Wei H, Liu B, Yin C, Zeng D, Nie H, Li Y, Tai Y, He X, Liu B. Electroacupuncture improves gout arthritis pain via attenuating ROS-mediated NLRP3 inflammasome overactivation. Chin Med 2023; 18: 86. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Yang P, Chen H, Wang T, Su H, Li J, He Y, Su S. Electroacupuncture promotes synaptic plasticity in rats with chronic inflammatory pain-related depression by upregulating BDNF/TrkB/CREB signaling pathway. Brain Behav 2023; 13: e3310. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Zhu Y, Sun H, Xiao S, Shen Z, Zhu X, Wang Y, He X, Liu B, Jiang Y, Liang Y, Fang J, Shao X. Electroacupuncture inhibited carrageenan-induced pain aversion by activating GABAergic neurons in the ACC. Mol Brain 2024; 17: 69. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 61. Ciampi de, Andrade D, Valiengo L. Differential effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on mood and pain symptoms in people with chronic pain and major depressive disorders-a review. Eur J Pain 2025; 29: e70077. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Coelho DRA, Gersten M, Jimenez AS, Fregni F, Cassano P, Vieira WF. Treating neuropathic pain and comorbid affective disorders: preclinical and clinical evidence. Pain Pract 2024; 24: 937–955. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Kondev V, Najeed M, Yasmin F, Morgan A, Loomba N, Johnson K, Adank DN, Dong A, Delpire E, Li Y, Winder D, Grueter BA, Patel S. Endocannabinoid release at ventral hippocampal-amygdala synapses regulates stress-induced behavioral adaptation. Cell Rep 2023; 42: 113027. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Urits I, Charipova K, Gress K, Li N, Berger AA, Cornett EM, Kassem H, Ngo AL, Kaye AD, Viswanath O. Adverse effects of recreational and medical cannabis. Psychopharmacol Bull 2021; 51: 94–109. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 65. Xue B, Zhang MX, Bi XC, Lai SP, Bie XT, Dong Y, Li JF, Gao F, Zhang X, Wang Y. An amygdala-hippocampus circuit for endocannabinoid modulation of anxiety avoidance. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2025; 12: e05121. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 66. Chen J, Li Q, Saliuk G, Bazhanov S, Winston JH. Estrogen and serotonin enhance stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity in female rats by up-regulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor in spinal cord. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2021; 33: e14117. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 67. Chen JH, Sun Y, Ju PJ, Wei JB, Li QJ, Winston JH. Estrogen augmented visceral pain and colonic neuron modulation in a double-hit model of prenatal and adult stress. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27: 5060–5075. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 68. Moloney RD, Sajjad J, Foley T, Felice VD, Dinan TG, Cryan JF, O’Mahony SM. Estrous cycle influences excitatory amino acid transport and visceral pain sensitivity in the rat: effects of early-life stress. Biol Sex Differ 2016; 7: 33. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 69. Tramullas M, Collins JM, Fitzgerald P, Dinan TG, O’ Mahony SM, Cryan JF. Estrous cycle and ovariectomy-induced changes in visceral pain are microbiota-dependent. IScience 2021; 24: 102850. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 70. Mogil JS. Qualitative sex differences in pain processing: emerging evidence of a biased literature. Nat Rev Neurosci 2020; 21: 353–365. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 71. Mogil JS, Parisien M, Esfahani SJ, Diatchenko L. Sex differences in mechanisms of pain hypersensitivity. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2024; 163: 105749. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 72. Osborne NR, Davis KD. Sex and gender differences in pain. Int Rev Neurobiol 2022; 164: 277–307. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Articles from Molecular Pain are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (7.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top