Content uploaded by Cecilia Bove
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cecilia Bove on Jul 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review
Fluoroquinolones-Associated Disability: It Is Not All in
Your Head
Maya Z. Freeman , Deanna N. Cannizzaro, Lydia F. Naughton and Cecilia Bove *
Citation: Freeman, M.Z.; Cannizzaro,
D.N.; Naughton, L.F.; Bove, C.
Fluoroquinolones-Associated
Disability: It Is Not All in Your Head.
NeuroSci 2021,2, 235–253. https://
doi.org/10.3390/neurosci2030017
Academic Editor: Lucilla Parnetti
Received: 16 June 2021
Accepted: 13 July 2021
Published: 16 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Department of Biology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA; mzf003@bucknell.edu (M.Z.F.);
dnc008@bucknell.edu (D.N.C.); lfn001@bucknell.edu (L.F.N.)
*Correspondence: cb068@bucknell.edu
Abstract:
Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are a broad class of antibiotics typically prescribed for bacterial
infections, including infections for which their use is discouraged. The FDA has proposed the
existence of a permanent disability (Fluoroquinolone Associated Disability; FQAD), which is yet to
be formally recognized. Previous studies suggest that FQs act as selective GABA
A
receptor inhibitors,
preventing the binding of GABA in the central nervous system. GABA is a key regulator of the vagus
nerve, involved in the control of gastrointestinal (GI) function. Indeed, GABA is released from the
Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius (NTS) to the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the vagus (DMV) to tonically
regulate vagal activity. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on FQs in
the context of the vagus nerve and examine how these drugs could lead to dysregulated signaling to
the GI tract. Since there is sufficient evidence to suggest that GABA transmission is hindered by FQs,
it is reasonable to postulate that the vagal circuit could be compromised at the NTS-DMV synapse
after FQ use, possibly leading to the development of permanent GI disorders in FQAD.
Keywords:
fluoroquinolones; fluoroquinolones-associated-disability; vagus; gastrointestinal;
digestion; DMV; NTS; FQAD
1. Introduction
Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics within
the United States. FQs are typically included in the treatment protocols of several illnesses
such as urinary tract infections, bacterial bronchitis, bacterial gastroenteritis and other
infectious diseases [
1
]. In 2014, FQs were prescribed to 31.5 million people across the
country [
2
]. The most common demographic to receive a prescription for FQs usually
consists of individuals who are 45 years of age or older [
3
]. FQs are extremely efficacious
in treating bacterial infections through inhibition of bacterial type II DNA topoisomerases,
specifically DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV. Physiologically, gyrases and topoisomerase
IV generate double-stranded breaks in the bacterial chromosome, which is essential for
their survival. FQs, by binding these enzymes, increase the concentration of enzyme–
DNA cleavage complexes, resulting in bacterial cell death [
4
]. Based on their antibacterial
efficacy, four generations of FQs have been identified: classes one and two are active against
gram-negative bacteria and have been used to treat common infections such as those to
the urinary tract. Classes three and four have expanded efficacy against gram-positive
bacteria and are typically prescribed to treat respiratory tract infections [
5
]. Within these
four classes, only six FQs are commonly prescribed to date, including ciprofloxacin (second
generation) and levofloxacin (third generation) [6].
While their therapeutic efficacy is clearly recognized and valuable for severe life-
threatening infections, it is now evident that FQs are accompanied by a variety of systemic
side effects, including common (gastrointestinal disturbances, headaches, skin rash, allergic
reactions and others) and uncommon side effects [
7
]. These include QT prolongation [
8
],
seizures [
9
], hallucinations [
10
], depression and anxiety [
10
], peripheral neuropathy [
11
],
tendon rupture [
12
,
13
] and others. While the common side effects tend to disappear shortly
NeuroSci 2021,2, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurosci2030017 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/neurosci
NeuroSci 2021,2236
after the treatment, the rare side effects seem to affect patients for longer, potentially their
entire life time. Due to these side effects, the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) has released a
statement in 2016 warning healthcare providers of the possibility of a “Fluoroquinolones
associated disability” (FQAD) or “Fluoroquinolones toxicity syndrome” [
14
], which pa-
tients colloquially refer to as “being Floxed”. Despite the FDA as well as the European
Medicine Agency (EMA) warnings on FQ use, it was reported in 2018 that 19.9% of all FQ
prescriptions were prescribed for conditions outside the suggested administration protocol.
Indeed, about 6.3 million FQs prescriptions were written for urinary tract infections (UTI),
and about 1.6 million prescriptions were written for bronchitis and the common cold, for
which FQs should not have been selected for treatment [
2
]. Even more concerning is that
in addition to these aforementioned cases, 5.1% of adult ambulatory FQ prescriptions were
issued for conditions that did not require antibiotics at all [
2
]. Even though the Infectious
Diseases Society of America (IDSA) advises avoiding FQs for uncomplicated urinary tract
infections [
15
], FQs were still prescribed in 40% of cases compared to other antibiotics
including penicillins, urinary anti-infectives, and tetracyclines [2].
Despite the FDA proposing the existence of FQAD, this disease has yet to be formally
recognized by healthcare systems worldwide. To date, there is still a degree of dismissal
of FQAD-affected patients by healthcare providers and physicians. This is mainly due
to the fact that there is variability in the presentation of the symptoms, especially the
uncommon ones. Moreover, the lack of compelling evidence of FQAD as a whole, and
of an animal model that is capable of recapitulating the characteristics of the disease in a
research setting contribute to the lack of legitimization of the syndrome. As a consequence,
“floxed” patients go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The majority of their symptoms are still
being unjustly attributed to anxiety and depression, or other umbrella-diseases including
fibromyalgia [16]. While this is currently a problematic aspect of FQAD, plenty of clinical
and laboratory evidence indicates that FQs are strongly associated with cellular toxicity
causing specific side effects.
In this review, we will summarize the current literature on FQs toxicity, with particular
emphasis on the neurological side-effects possibly related to the vagus nerve to introduce a
new perspective that might explain the pathophysiology of FQAD.
2. Overview of Fluoroquinolones Toxicity
Since the late 1980s, twelve FQs have been discontinued due to adverse side effects.
Some of the more notable side effects discussed in this review include photosensitivity, QT
prolongation, hepatotoxicity, tendinopathies and central and peripheral nervous systems
effect [17,18], which will be described more in detail in the next paragraph.
Photosensitivity, which includes photoallergy, is a condition where the skin and eyes
become sensitive to light. In many cases, this results in exaggerated sunburn, blisters
and other skin issues [
19
–
21
]. Indeed, in an albino BALB/c mouse model, a single oral
administration of FQs and UVA irradiation resulted in skin inflammation accompanied by
dermal edema and neutrophil infiltration, which was prevented by the co-administration of
antioxidants such as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), phospholipase A2 (PLA2) and cyclooxy-
genase inhibitors [
20
]. The hypothesized mechanism behind these effects is that FQs react
with UVA light to produce reactive oxygen species which act as triggering factors for the
release of cyclooxygenase products inducing prostaglandin. This biochemical cascade has
effectors in the protein kinase C (PKC) and tyrosine kinase (TK) pathways, which lead to
activation of inflammatory agents as confirmed in BALB/c 3T3 mouse fibroblast cells [
20
].
QT prolongation occurs when there is a prolongation of the time in between each
ventricular repolarization. Both
in vitro
and clinical studies support the idea that FQs are
able to prolong the QT interval with different degrees of intensity [
22
]. It is hypothesized
that FQs can block cardiac voltage-gated potassium channels of the I
Kr
family. In particular,
FQs act as blockers of the rapid component of these channels, causing a delay in repolariza-
tion [
23
]. Different FQs have been associated with an increased risk to develop Torsade de
pointes (TdP), an uncommon and distinctive form of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia
NeuroSci 2021,2237
(VT) resulting from QT prolongation, with sparfloxacin being the most cardiotoxic followed
by grepafloxacin, ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin [
24
]. Regardless of the FQs analyzed, data
suggests that a positive correlation between FQ dose and QT prolongation exists, hence
increasing the risk to develop TdP [
23
]. The extreme cardiotoxicity of sparfloxacin and
grepafloxacin resulted in their withdrawal from the market worldwide [
25
,
26
]. A literature
review on the effect of FQs on QT prolongation and TdP concluded that patients at high risk
for these events should not be treated with moxifloxacin, ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin [
22
].
Hepatotoxicity is a side effect of FQs that has produced some controversial laboratory
and clinical evidence. One microarray study in isolated human hepatocytes from patient
donors found a significant increase in liver-specific gene expression changes following
FQ administration, with trovafloxacin producing the most alarming results [
27
]. Indeed,
trovafloxacin more than other FQs has been shown to induce changes in expression patterns
genes involved in mitochondrial damage, RNA processing, transcription and inflammatory
processes, all of which could potentially lead to hepatotoxicity. Interestingly, the same study
was not able to replicate these findings in the rat, suggesting that perhaps intrinsic human
variability in hepatocytic gene expression, combined with inter-individual differences in
lifestyle are important variables that could determine the outcome [
27
]. Hepatotoxicity is
typically found in patients who have taken moxifloxacin. A rise in aminotransferase level
can be observed with administration of any FQs; however, moxifloxacin is the only FQ that
currently has a warning for its effects on the liver [28].
Tendon ruptures and tendonitis are also common with administration of FQs. This
side-effect has been recognized by clinicians since the 1980s, and recently tendon ruptures
have been added as one of the main symptoms of the FDA-issued black-box label. A
systematic review [
13
] showed that there is a significant association between FQ use
and tendon injury. Of grave concern is the incidence of Achilles tendon rupture and
tendonitis. The incidence of tendinopathy occurs less often, but when it does it tends to
create symptoms within the first month after the treatment. Being over 60 years of age and
the concomitant use of corticosteroids seem to increase the likelihood of developing these
problems [
13
], with other studies reporting diabetes mellitus, renal failure and a history of
musculoskeletal disorders as other risk factors [
29
]. Notably, ciprofloxacin appears to be
the FQ most frequently associated with tendinopathy [
30
,
31
]. It is hypothesized that FQ
associated tendinopathies are caused by disruption of the extracellular matrix of tendon
cells [
30
] as well as toxicity to collagen structures in connective tissue [
32
], which appear
to be not completely reversible in a rodent model [
33
]. To date, no mechanism has been
officially confirmed for this side effect.
Concomitant administration of other drugs and substances contribute to the toxicity
of FQs [
34
]. Notably, theophylline, caffeine and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs) appear to be the major contributors to central nervous system (CNS) adverse
effects following FQ administration, as thoroughly described later in this review. While
other drug-drug interactions seem to be dependent on the chemical structure of FQs [
34
],
the interaction between FQs and theophylline and/or caffeine occurs at the hepatic level,
where FQs bind to and inhibit the cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozyme [
35
]. While the affinity
for this isozyme varies between FQs [
34
–
41
] the resulting impact on theophylline levels
can be remarkable; for instance, ciprofloxacin has been shown to decrease theophylline
clearance by 25–30%, which results in a spike in theophylline plasma levels by up to
308% [
38
,
39
]. The metabolism of caffeine appears to be altered in a similar manner [
39
,
40
].
Additionally, FQs and biphenyl acetic acid (BPAA), a byproduct of the NSAID fen-
bufen showed pharmacological interaction [
34
,
42
]. As highlighted in the next paragraph,
the concurrent administration of fenbufen and FQs results in a reduced binding of
γ
-
aminobutyric acid (GABA) to GABA
A
receptors [
43
–
45
]. A summary of the known drug-
drug interactions can be found on Table 1.
NeuroSci 2021,2238
Table 1. Summary of the interactions between fluoroquinolones and other drugs or molecules.
Interaction Effect References
FQs and cytochrome
P450 isozyme
Reduced clearance of
theophylline and caffeine
Fish 2001, Pharmacotherapy, [34]
Mizuki et al., 1996, J. Antimicrob. Chemother. [35]
Beckmann et al., 1987, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. [36]
Efthymiopoulos et al., 1997, Clin. Pharmacokinet [37]
Marchbanks 1993, Pharmacotherapy [38]
Davis et al., 1996, Drugs [39] Stille et al., 1987, J.
Antimicrob. Chemother. [40]
Okimoto et al., 1992, Chemotherapy [41]
FQs and BPAA Reduced binding of GABA to
GABAAreceptors
Fish 2001, Pharmacotherapy, [34]
Christ 1990, J. Antimicrob. Chemother, [42]
Radandt et al., 1992, Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect.
Dis. Soc. Am [43]
Domagala 1994, J. Antimicrob. Chemother, [44]
Smolders et al., 2002, Antimicrob. Agents
Chemother. [45]
Compared to other syndromes, very little is known about the molecular mecha-
nisms behind FQ toxicity. One known mechanism involves the cation-chelating proper-
ties that is intrinsic to the chemical structure of FQs and essential to their antimicrobial
properties [21,46]
. Indeed, FQs interact with cations such as Cu
2+
, Fe
2+
, Zn
2+
, Mg
2+
, Mn
2+
,
Co
2+
and Ca
2+
[
47
,
48
], with Mg
2+
ions being utilized by FQs to interrupt the activity of
the bacterial gyrases and topoisomerases [
48
]. When FQs are co-administered with a drug
containing one of these elements, chelation occurs and inhibits FQs absorption in the GI
tract [
49
]. While this specific interaction is detrimental to the bioavailability and therapeutic
action of FQs, it is hypothesized that the cation-chelating properties of FQs can cause some
of the side effects experienced by patients with FQAD. Indeed, several studies support
the idea that FQs-cation complexes can remain stable in the human body for a prolonged
period of time, causing possible long-lasting toxicity to several cells and organs [
50
–
54
].
Notably, the binding of FQs to Mg
2+
has been hypothesized to be the main factor behind the
chondrotoxicity underlying tendon ruptures and cartilage damage described above [
55
–
59
].
Furthermore, Zn
2+
is one of the most abundant metals in the brain; this, combined with
the fact that this metal is essential for the reduction of oxidative stress, might imply that
Zn
2+
chelation could potentially be involved in the CNS symptoms of FQAD [
60
]. Fe
2/3+
,
which can be chelated by FQs, is also an important cofactor of cytochromes which, as
described earlier, are impaired by FQs and prevent the normal metabolism of substances
such as theophylline and caffeine, which (as mentioned above) are substrates of cytochrome
P450 [35].
The most concerning consequences of cation chelation are the epigenetic changes
resulting from FQs binding to Fe
2/3+
. Indeed, a study has shown how, by chelating
iron, FQs prevented the activity of
α
-dependent dioxygenases (DOXG), leading to the
accumulation of methylated histones-DNA complexes [
61
]. The ability of FQs to interact
with non-bacterial DNA has been recognized since the early 1990 [
62
]. Since then, several
studies have shown that FQs can alter the expression patterns of genes encoding for several
proteins including IL-1
β
, tumor necrosis factor (TFN), matrix metalloproteinases, tissue
inhibitor of metalloproteinases [
63
], cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors [
64
], cytochrome
P450-associated subunits, glutathione S-transferase and P-glycoprotein [
65
] in cellular and
animal models.
Perhaps the most well-described molecular mechanism associated with FQs adminis-
tration is their ability to increase cellular oxidative stress and induce mitochondrial dam-
age [
66
–
72
]. As an example, FQs treatment has been shown to dramatically decrease the
amount of HIF-1
α
mRNA. HIF-1
α
is a “safety mechanism” which switches cell metabolism
into the anaerobic pathway in order to protect the cell against oxidative stress. It is perhaps
possible that, with this protein not being properly expressed, cells exposed to FQs are
NeuroSci 2021,2239
unable to switch to the anaerobic pathway when necessary, leading to an abuse of the
electron transport chain in the mitochondria which ultimately causes oxidative stress [
61
].
In addition, Zn
2+
, Cu
1/2+
, Se
2+
, Fe
2/3+
and Mn
2+
which, as described earlier, are chelated
by FQs, are important cofactors of antioxidative enzymes [
48
]. In particular, Mn
2+
chela-
tion could have a significant impact on mitochondrial function; indeed, trace amounts of
Mn
2+
are sufficient to ensure protection against mtDNA damage by SOD2 [
48
,
73
]. The
chelation of Mn
2+
by FQs could have profound negative effects on mitochondrial function
by affecting mtDNA. We have also just described how FQs reduce the expression of glu-
tathione S-transferase; indeed, the lack of these protective mechanisms, associated with the
aforementioned chelation of several metals might create the perfect storm for the induction
of oxidative stress and mtDNA damage following FQs treatment. It is crucial to point out
that Michalak and collaborators suggested that the concentrations at which FQs induce
oxidative stress are dangerously close to the therapeutic one [48].
The ability of FQs to inhibit GABA
A
receptors in the CNS will be thoroughly examined
in the following paragraph.
3. Effects on the Central Nervous System
CNS effects that are caused by FQs range from mild reactions such as irritability,
insomnia and dizziness [
10
,
73
], to more concerning and long-lasting side effects includ-
ing anxiety, depression, hallucinations [
73
], convulsions [
42
], seizures [
9
] and peripheral
neuropathy [
10
,
42
,
74
–
76
]. Evidence showed that the peripheral neuropathies that are asso-
ciated with FQs can even lead to patients developing Guillain-Barrésyndrome [
17
]. Clinical
trials have comparatively looked at the adverse effects of FQs on the CNS, and found that
trovafloxacin, norfloxacin, and gatifloxacin caused the most severe reactions while, in com-
parison, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, levofloxacin caused the least severe reactions [18,19,77].
FQs act as selective antagonists of GABA
A
receptors, and therefore inhibit their
function once bound [
78
]. Notably, the side chain substituent in the R7 position of the
FQs nucleus is determining the decreased binding affinity of GABA to its receptor [
44
].
Physiologically, GABA is one of the major inhibitory neurotransmitters of the CNS. In
the presence of FQs, GABA may not properly inhibit its target, potentially leading to
overactivation of the CNS [
79
]. A study conducted in rats suggested that rodents treated
with ciprofloxacin had a significant decrease in GABA levels in brain tissue when compared
to a control group and showed depression and anxiety-like behaviors [80].
At the same time, glutamatergic transmission seems to also be affected by FQs. There
is evidence that FQs impair the Mg
2+
block of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors,
effectively increasing the gating time for this receptor and glutamatergic transmission in
the rat hippocampus [
81
]. If this mechanism holds true in other CNS regions, as well as the
increase in intracellular Ca
2+
concentration resulting from NMDA overactivation, it would
result in a higher excitability of the neuron. This, combined with the reduced GABAergic
inputs due to GABA
A
blockade, strongly suggest that the two main neurotransmitters in the
CNS could be imbalanced when FQs are introduced, resulting in unforeseen consequences
due to the disruption in the fine balance between GABA and glutamate signaling. It
is important to highlight that excessive glutamate transmission due to NMDA receptor
dysregulation is associated with excitotoxicity [
82
–
86
], a molecular pathophysiological
mechanism behind neuronal death in several acute and chronic neurological conditions
including stroke, Alzheimer’s Disease, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis [
87
]. Notably, Zn
2+
is physiologically co-released with
glutamate [
88
] and acts as an inhibitor of both glutamate AMPA and NMDA receptors, a
mechanism important to avoid overexcitation of neurons [
89
,
90
]; given the cation-chelating
properties of FQs, it is possible that synaptic Zn
2+
might be sequestered by FQs, further
contributing to sustained neuronal excitation and, eventually, excitotoxicity. The extent to
which Zn
2+
is chelated in the synaptic cleft is under question; it might be possible that, to
some extent, Zn
2+
might still be available in the extracellular milieu. Whether this unknown
amount of FQ-free Zn
2+
is available to physiologically inhibit AMPA and NMDA receptors
NeuroSci 2021,2240
is not known yet. However, it is important to point out that Zn
2+
itself, in addition to Ca
2+
,
is a contributing factor to the molecular cascade that leads to increased radical oxygen
species (ROS) formation and cell death in excitotoxicity, hence potentially contributing to
the molecular mechanisms of FQs toxicity described earlier (for more information on Zn
2+
role in excitotoxicity, we direct the readers to Granzotto’s review [91]).
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, drug-drug interactions play an important
role in determining FQs toxicity. The anti-inflammatory drug fenbufen byproduct biphenyl
acetic acid (BPAA), heightens the GABA
A
-specific inhibition by FQs [
45
]. Considering that
most of the severe side effects associated with FQs could cause chronic inflammation and
pain in patients affected by FQAD, and that several of these side effects are precipitated by
the concurrent administration of NSAIDs [
34
], it is imperative that FQs prescriptions be
issued with more caution in at-risk subjects, and that health care providers monitor the
therapeutic management of chronic pain more closely, possibly selecting drugs other than
NSAIDs for pain management. In addition to these implications, it is important to point
out that caffeine on its own has important effects on the CNS. Indeed, caffeine exaggerates
the sympathetic nervous system response and decreases heart rate variability, possibly
due to inhibition of the parasympathetic nervous system [
92
–
94
]. Given how FQs decrease
the rate of caffeine clearance, and considering the crucial role of GABAergic transmission
in the regulation of the parasympathetic nervous system through modulation of vagal
nerve activity, we will now introduce how the vagus nerve may play a central role in the
pathophysiology of FQAD.
4. A Vulnerable Target: The Vagus Nerve
The vagus nerve is the major nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system and is
largely responsible for the communication between the brain and multiple visceral organs
that extend into the lower abdomen [95]. The vagus nerve is the forefront of both sensory
and motor integration that plays a role in gastrointestinal (GI) tract function. From the
medulla oblongata in the brainstem, the motor branches of the vagus nerve derive from
the dorsal motor nucleus (DMV) of the vagus and the nucleus ambiguus (NAmb) [
96
].
The vagus nerve extensively innervates the stomach and upper GI tract, while the lower
portions of the GI tract receive fewer vagal projections the more one moves distally in
the intestines [
97
] until the two-thirds of the transverse colon where vagal innervation
terminates [
98
]. DMV motor neurons are preganglionic and utilize acetylcholine (ACh) as
their primary neurotransmitter.
The classical view of vagus nerve function includes many vagal reflexes (Figure 1;
for a detailed description of the CNS regulation of gastric function, we redirect the reader
to Gillis et al. [
99
]). In brief, the walls of the GI tract are lined with mechanoreceptors
and chemoreceptors that, through the afferent branch of the vagus, respond to food in-
gestion and satiety signals [
100
]. These inputs travel through the tractus solitarius and
excite the neurons of the nucleus of the tractus solitarius (NTS) in the medulla oblon-
gata [
101
], which in turn modulate the activity of the neighboring DMV motor neurons
on demand. Indeed, cholinergic preganglionic DMV motor neurons are characterized by
a pacemaking activity, which is mostly tonically and, on demand, phasically inhibited
by NTS neurons [
102
]. This NTS-DMV synapse predominantly relies on GABA release
from the NTS binding to GABA
A
receptors expressed on the DMV neuronal membrane
for the tonic modulation [
103
]; however, several other neurotransmitters can be released
from the NTS including glutamate, catecholamines, glycine, etc. [
100
,
104
]. GABA release
from the NTS ensures that the pacemaking activity of DMV neurons is downregulated,
hence tonically inhibiting vagal output. Upon receiving peripheral signals from the gut
signaling the presence of food, this tonic inhibition is temporarily lifted, allowing the motor
neurons in the DMV to fire action potentials and regulate digestion as needed [
100
]. The
postganglionic parasympathetic neurons innervated by the efferent branch of the vagus
nerve emerging from the DMV constitute two distinct pathways that ultimately modulate
GI motility. The excitatory pathway releases acetylcholine to activate the smooth mus-
NeuroSci 2021,2241
cle/interstitial cells of Cajal by binding to muscarinic receptors [
105
]; the other pathway
relies on non-adrenergic non-cholinergic (NANC) neurotransmitters that promote muscle
relaxation through release of nitric oxide (NO), vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP),
or adenosine triphosphate [
106
]. In contrast to the tonic release of acetylcholine, NANC
transmission is phasic, and counteracts the cholinergic input. Interestingly, DMV neurons
innervating the excitatory cholinergic pathway appear to be located in the medial and
rostral areas of this nucleus, while those engaged with the NANC pathways seem to be
restricted to the caudal DMV [
107
–
110
]. It is important to highlight that the enteric nervous
system (ENS) per se is independent, and as such is able to generate contractile activity
autonomously [
98
]. Therefore, the vagal efferent cholinergic and the NANC pathways
serve to modulate ENS activity, and provide the fine tuning for this intrinsic activity, as
well for the vagal reflexes mentioned earlier. The final GI output depends on the type of
neurotransmitter released by the enteric neurons [
100
]. It is important to acknowledge
that FQs might impact vagal function at both the CNS and enteric level, possibly as a
consequence of vagal nerve dysfunction.
NeuroSci 2021, 2 7
neurons of the nucleus of the tractus solitarius (NTS) in the medulla oblongata [101],
which in turn modulate the activity of the neighboring DMV motor neurons on demand.
Indeed, cholinergic preganglionic DMV motor neurons are characterized by a pacemak-
ing activity, which is mostly tonically and, on demand, phasically inhibited by NTS neu-
rons [102]. This NTS-DMV synapse predominantly relies on GABA release from the NTS
binding to GABA
A
receptors
expressed on the DMV neuronal membrane
for the tonic
modulation [103]; however, several other neurotransmitters can be released from the NTS
including glutamate, catecholamines, glycine, etc. [100,104]. GABA release from the NTS
ensures that the pacemaking activity of DMV neurons is downregulated, hence tonically
inhibiting vagal output. Upon receiving peripheral signals from the gut signaling the pres-
ence of food, this tonic inhibition is temporarily lifted, allowing the motor neurons in the
DMV to fire action potentials and regulate digestion as needed [100]. The postganglionic
parasympathetic neurons innervated by the efferent branch of the vagus nerve emerging
from the DMV constitute two distinct pathways that ultimately modulate GI motility. The
excitatory pathway releases acetylcholine to activate the smooth muscle/interstitial cells
of Cajal by binding to muscarinic receptors [105]; the other pathway relies on non-adren-
ergic non-cholinergic (NANC) neurotransmitters that promote muscle relaxation through
release of nitric oxide (NO), vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), or adenosine triphos-
phate [106]. In contrast to the tonic release of acetylcholine, NANC transmission is phasic,
and counteracts the cholinergic input. Interestingly, DMV neurons innervating the excit-
atory cholinergic pathway appear to be located in the medial and rostral areas of this nu-
cleus, while those engaged with the NANC pathways seem to be restricted to the caudal
DMV [107–110]. It is important to highlight that the enteric nervous system (ENS) per se
is independent, and as such is able to generate contractile activity autonomously [98].
Therefore, the vagal efferent cholinergic and the NANC pathways serve to modulate ENS
activity, and provide the fine tuning for this intrinsic activity, as well for the vagal reflexes
mentioned earlier. The final GI output depends on the type of neurotransmitter released
by the enteric neurons [100]. It is important to acknowledge that FQs might impact vagal
function at both the CNS and enteric level, possibly as a consequence of vagal nerve dys-
function.
Figure 1.
Diagram showing the vagal neurocircuitry regulating gastrointestinal (GI) tract regulation
from the vagus nerve. Sensory signals from the GI tract notify the central nervous system (CNS)
of the presence or absence of food through vagal afferents (pink), whose cell bodies reside in the
nodose ganglion. Once activated, these sensory afferent neurons release glutamate through the
Tractus Solitarius (TS) into the Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius (NTS; light purple). The NTS then
relays the peripheral information to the motor branch of the vagus nerve by modulating the activity
of the pacemaking neurons within the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus (DMV, teal). The main
neurotransmitter released by the NTS is the inhibitory GABA (blue neuron, minus sign), but the
excitatory glutamate can also be released (orange neuron, plus sign). Once activated, DMV neurons
(yellow) release acetylcholine to their targets within the GI tract, namely neurons of the myenteric
plexus. These are either excitatory cholinergic (gold neuron, plus sign) or inhibitory Non-Adrenergic
Non-Cholinergic (NANC; purple neuron, minus sign) neurons. The fine balance between GABA
and glutamate at the NTS to DMV synapse together with the balance of the cholinergic and NANC
signaling in the myenteric plexus ensures that digestion is only activated when food is present in the
GI tract. Abbreviations: ACh, acetylcholine; AP, Area Postrema; CC, Central Canal; CN X, Cranial
Nerve X; DMV, Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus; Glu, glutamate; NANC, Non Adrenergic Non
Cholinergic; NTS, Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius; TS, Tractus Solitarius.
An extreme, yet excellent example of such dysfunction can be observed following
vagotomy. Surgical resection of the vagus has been used in the clinic to treat drug-resistant
NeuroSci 2021,2242
ulcers, and has been proven effective in reducing the incidence of Parkinson’s Disease,
putatively by preventing the spread of
A
-synuclein and Lewy bodies from the periphery
into the CNS [
111
]. Other studies have highlighted the importance of the integrity of
the vagus nerve in maintaining physiological homeostatic functions. For instance, vagus
nerve dysfunction following vagotomy appears to disrupt the physiological control of the
pancreas since vagotomy nearly abolishes pancreatic exocrine secretions. Interestingly,
blocking GABAergic inputs from the NTS to the DMV has the opposite effect [
112
]. Given
the known interaction between FQs and GABA
A
receptors, FQs could have impactful
consequences on pancreas function.
Many environmental factors can lead to vagus nerve dysfunction. For example,
obesity is associated with disruption of vagal neurocircuits, which can affect the signaling
of satiety and reduces gastric motility. Indeed, adult rats that were fed an acute high fat
diet showed upregulated glutamatergic NMDA receptor activity in central vagal neural
circuits, resulting in increased vagal efferent drive to the stomach. As a result, this acute
high fat diet induced plastic changes in the vagal neurocircuitry leading to an increase
in appetite and reduced gastric motility and tone [
113
]. Further studies by the same
group showed that perinatal high fat diet exposure decreases vagal drive to the GI tract
due, in part, to increased GABAergic signaling from the NTS [
114
,
115
]. The increased
GABAergic tone seems to be due to altered development of GABA
A
receptors which,
following perinatal high fat diet exposure, abnormally retain the expression of GABA
A
α2/3
subunits. As a result, the kinetics of GABA
A
receptors is decreased, as well as the
vagal efferent output to the stomach [
116
]. As a consequence of the high fat diet-driven
disruption of vagal neurotransmission, abnormal gastrointestinal reactions often occur,
such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, etc. [
117
]. Incidentally, gastrointestinal reactions are
among the most frequently reported temporary adverse side effects to FQs with incidence
rates of 7.1–8% for nausea, 4–5.9% for diarrhea, 1.7–2.2% for vomiting, 2–2.6% for abdominal
pain, and 1.4–2.5% dyspepsia [
6
]. It could be possible that, given the ability of FQs to
alter gene expression patterns, a similar alteration in GABA
A
subunit expression occurs in
FQAD. The antagonistic effect of FQs on GABA
A
receptors on the DMV combined with the
disruption of the Mg
2+
block on NMDA receptors on the same neurons could explain these
pathological consequences. Interestingly, a study by Sivarao and collaborators [
103
] showed
that micro-injection of the GABA
A
receptor antagonist bicuculline in the DMV significantly
increases intragastric pressure and pylorus motility in a vagally dependent manner. The
gastric effects of GABA
A
receptors blockade was prevented by micro-injection of the NMDA
receptor antagonist kainate prior to the administration of bicuculline, indicating that both
GABA
A
blockade and NMDA activation are responsible for the increase in intragastric
pressure and pylorus motility [
103
]. Considering the activity of FQs on these two classes of
receptors, the possibility that FQs could be the cause of these similar, yet temporary side
effects on the stomach and pylorus cannot be excluded. However, as mentioned earlier,
FQs-cation complexes appear to be fairly stable in human tissue [
50
–
54
], which could cause
the onset of long-lasting GI disorders, possibly due to NMDA receptor overactivation.
FQs could also impact the intrinsic properties of DMV neurons directly due to in-
creased oxidative stress. Whether the source of this oxidative stress comes from the
intrinsic ability of FQs to increase radical oxygen species, or from the possibly increased
glutamatergic signaling via disinhibition of the Mg
2+
block of NMDA receptors is yet to
be investigated. While DMV neurons have been found to be particularly resilient to a
variety of environmental stressors [
118
–
121
], the expression of I
Ca,L
voltage-gated calcium
channels on their membrane could make DMV neurons susceptible to oxidative stress,
which is a known molecular mechanism of FQs toxicity. Ciprofloxacin in particular has
been shown to deplete mitochondrial DNA due to interference with mitochondrial topoiso-
merase type II activity, which in turn causes oxidative stress [
21
]. Excess oxidative stress
can lead to cell, protein, and DNA damage by creating an imbalance of free radicals [122].
Moreover, an excess of free Mg
2+
increases the affinity of this mitochondrial enzyme for
stress hormones, such as norepinephrine [
123
]. Since the vagus nerve sends information to
NeuroSci 2021,2243
the locus coeruleus (LC), the primary source for norepinephrine in the CNS, dysfunction
of the vagus can lead to excess release of this stress hormone [
124
]. Neurons in the LC
are generally activated when fear and anxiety are associated, and can therefore lead to
chronic anxiety, insomnia, or depressive-like states [
125
], all being side effects that have
been reported by “floxed” patients. The dorsal vagal complex (DVC) is a circumventricular
organ and consequently permits substances such as hormones to readily cross the blood
brain barrier [
126
]. With a dysregulated vagus nerve, it is evident that stress hormones can
affect the DVC more readily, and lead to further complications.
While it is entirely possible that oxidative stress plays a role in the putative DMV-
specific neurotoxicity, some reports suggest the opposite [
127
]; indeed, in a recent model of
environmental Parkinson’s Disease, while a combination of neurotoxins induced the loss of
dopaminergic neurons in the Substantia Nigra pars compacta (SNpc) that is characteristic
of this disease, DMV neurons were spared, despite both areas presented with misfolding
of
α
-synuclein; the accumulation of this protein, which leads to oxidative stress, has been
indicated as one of the possible causes of SNpc dopaminergic neurons loss [
128
]. Another
possibility is that neurogenesis can occur in the DVC as shown in the adult rat following
deafferentation [
129
]; whether DMV neurons could endure the insults resulting from FQs
administration, or respond by initiating neurogenesis is still unknown.
Improper vagal activation and inhibition by the NTS is not only affecting the central
nervous system. In a rodent model of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, the reduction of vagal
efferent inputs correlated with an increase in the percentage of nNOS immunoreactivity
in tissue harvested from the small intestine [
130
]. The authors suggest that this change
in the phenotype of myenteric neurons of the GI tract might contribute to a reduction
in gastrointestinal motility by promoting the NANC pathway over the cholinergic path-
way [
100
,
130
]. Interestingly, trovafloxacin has been found to increase the levels of NO in
human hepatocytes [
66
]. It is possible that the same effect could be observed in the enteric
nervous system, and that other FQs might produce similar results.
In addition to its role as the main modulator of the GI tract, the vagus nerve serves as
a regulator of the immune response. Indeed, circulating endotoxins and localized inflam-
mation can suppress the vagus, NTS, and DMV neurons [
131
–
134
]. However, vagotomy
prevents these effects following intraperitoneal endotoxin administration, suggesting that
this response is vagally-dependent [
95
]. One important aspect of the anti-inflammatory
response mediated by the vagus nerve includes attenuating the inflammatory process
associated with aneurysms. There is evidence that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) reduces
aneurysm rupture rate and improves the survival rate when compared with control femoral
nerve stimulation in mice [
135
]. Therefore, vagus nerve dysfunction may then have the
opposite effect: an increased rate of aneurysm development and rupture. Interestingly,
a recent cohort study reported an increased rate of aneurysms at the level of the aorta,
which is innervated by a branch of the vagus nerve [
136
], after use of FQs compared with
alternative antibiotics, especially in adults 35 years or older [137].
The main mechanism by which the vagus regulates the immune response is by activat-
ing the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAIP). Vagal afferents release acetylcholine,
which binds to
α7
nicotinic receptors expressed in different cell populations, including
splenic macrophages, dendritic cells, mast cells, and lymphocytes [
95
]. There is increasing
evidence for the critical role that the gut plays in widespread anti-inflammatory action. For
example, astrocytes expressing the lysosomal protein LAMP1 and the death receptor ligand
TRAIL limit CNS inflammation, and the expression of TRAIL is driven by IFN
γ
, whose
release is induced by some commensals in the gut microbiome [
138
]. Vagal afferents near
the digestive epithelial layer can sense microbiota signals through diffusion of bacterial
compounds or via the relay of information through gut endocrine cell intermediates. With
this connection between the gut microbiome and the vagus nerve, gut microbiota could be
working alongside the vagus nerve to modulate inflammatory responses [
139
]. Although
the details of the microbiota-gut-brain axis are beyond the scope of this review, it is impor-
tant to keep in mind that antibiotics deplete microbes, which could result in the disruption
NeuroSci 2021,2244
of vagus nerve signaling and function. Consistent with this line of thinking, FQs have been
shown to affect the body’s immune response. For example, ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin
specifically impact microglia inflammatory responses by inhibiting LPS-induced secretion
of cytokines involved in the TLR4/NF-kB pathway [
140
]. This mechanism could occur in
the dorsal vagal complex (DVC), hence contributing to vagal dysregulation.
The vagus nerve is also responsible for modulating mood. It is possible, although
the mechanisms are yet to be fully described, that people suffering with depression may
have underlying vagal nerve dysfunction. Indeed, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) was
approved for treatment resistant depression (depression that is not resolved with 4 or more
conventional treatments) in 2005 by the Food and Drug Administration. In many studies,
VNS has demonstrated more efficacy in treating depression compared to conventional
treatment protocols using antidepressants [
141
]. Since VNS shows promise in treating
depression, decreased vagal functioning could be a factor contributing to deflated mood. It
is important to keep in mind that most FQAD-affected individuals have reported a drastic
change in their mood, with increased risk for depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts [
10
].
In animal behavior experiments, rats administered with ciprofloxacin spent less time in
the open arms during the elevated plus-maze test and spent less time swimming in the
forced swim test compared to control groups, which are indicators of increased anxiety
and depression [80].
5. Could Fluoroquinolones Compromise Vagus Nerve Function?
The effects of vagus nerve dysfunction described in the previous section are similar
to some of the symptoms of those suffering from fluoroquinolone-associated disability
(FQAD). Hence, we speculate that FQs compromise vagus nerve function. Specifically, as
stated earlier in this manuscript, the NTS receives afferent projections from the stomach,
which convey information regarding nutrient content and satiety. The NTS sends inhibitory
signals mainly via GABA transmission to the pacemaking DMV motor neurons to inhibit
motor output. Since there is sufficient evidence to suggest that GABA transmission is
hindered by the presence of FQs, it is reasonable to postulate that vagal circuit function
could be compromised at the NTS-DMV synapse. In support of our hypothesis, some
studies have demonstrated the adverse effects of FQs on the vagus nerve specifically. The
application of ciprofloxacin and BPAA to
in vitro
rat vagus nerve preparations resulted
in large decreases in GABA-evoked potentials [
142
]. However, this degree of inhibition
was only observed in vagus nerve preparations, not in the optic nerve controls, which also
rely on GABAAreceptors for their function [78]. This suggests that GABAergic inhibition
by FQs is selective, and the vagus nerve likely falls into this selection. The effects of
FQs on NMDA receptors should also be taken into consideration when observing vagal
dysfunction. If DMV neurons are directly affected by FQs, the reports by Davey and
collaborators [
142
] as well as Green & Halliwell [
78
] showing a direct effect of FQs on
vagus nerve function may only be describing one side of the clinical picture in patients
affected by FQAD. It is important to keep in mind that the aforementioned studies observed
the vagus as an isolated preparation rather than
in vivo
, implying that the contribution
of the NTS-DMV synapse is not taken into account. These results might not translate
accurately to the live animal and, ultimately, in human patients.
One limitation to our hypothesis is that the gastrointestinal issues observed in patients
with FQAD may be a result of collagen synthesis disruption by FQs. In a population-
based study, Hsu and colleagues found that FQs are associated with a higher risk of
gastrointestinal perforation [
143
]. Since FQs are thought to disrupt collagen and impede
collagen synthesis, the integrity of gastrointestinal tissue could be compromised by FQs,
which could explain the adverse gastrointestinal symptoms experienced shortly after
pharmacological intervention. However, with the many adverse side effects on the CNS
and the evidence that the activity of the isolated vagus is inhibited by FQs, it is likely the
case that collagen degradation is not the only mechanism underlying FQAD gastrointestinal
issues; the putative neurochemical imbalance within the NTS-DMV synapse could very
NeuroSci 2021,2245
well be a large contributing factor to some of the less-characterized symptoms of FQAD. To
date, no studies have looked into the long-term consequences of FQs on gastrointestinal
motility; if the NTS-DMV synapse is indeed affected by FQs, it is likely that the functionality
of the vagus is affected long term.
6. Discussion
In this review, we explored some compelling clinical and experimental evidence of
FQs toxicity at large, with emphasis on the possible consequences this class of antibiotics
might have on the functionality of the vagus nerve. The literature presented in this review
highlights two main key points for the understanding of how this cranial nerve might be
affected in FQAD: (1) FQs are selective inhibitors of GABA
A
receptors, and (2) FQs can
chelate Mg
2+
ions, contributing to the disinhibition of NMDA receptors. The consequences
of this neurochemical imbalance at the NTS-DMV synapse could be significant for the
physiology of the GI tract and overall wellness of FQAD-affected individuals.
The GABAergic drive on DMV neurons is mostly tonic, but comprises a phasic
component [
144
]. Both currents seem to play a role in the modulation of gastric tone
and motility in rats [
115
]. The classic view on the microcircuitry regulating GI function
sees the monosynaptic GABAergic signaling to the DMV as the main inhibitor of the
spontaneous activity of DMV neurons. This makes GABA the main regulator of vagal
output, which ultimately regulates postganglionic GI neurons by stimulating either the
excitatory cholinergic or the inhibitory NANC pathways [
145
,
146
]. This view has been
challenged by other researchers proposing that the NANC pathway is not functionally
relevant at least in the stomach [
108
]; moreover, some evidence shows that GABA signaling
is not limited to the NTS-DMV synapse only, but on the contrary might be mainly used by
interneurons within the medial portion of the NTS (mNTS) to determine vagal output [
147
].
Both theories are supported by a wealth of evidence; however, the first theory is considered
the most accredited [
98
,
148
–
151
], despite the anatomical and
in vitro
evidences supporting
the predominance of the GABAergic signaling at the mNTS [
147
,
152
–
154
]. It is important
to highlight that most of our current knowledge on the effects of GABA blockade on vagal
output to the GI come from experimental studies relying on pharmacological antagonists,
such as bicuculline: the actual effects of FQs on NTS and DMV neurophysiology are
yet to be determined. However, based on the results of the aforementioned studies, we
can speculate on the consequences on GI motility in FQAD. A summary of the evidence
provided in this paragraph can be found in Figure 2.
Pharmacological administration of bicuculline in the DVC to decrease GABAergic
signaling has been tested extensively in the laboratory [
115
,
155
]. Blockade of GABA sig-
naling produces an expected increase in gastric tone and motility in a dose-dependent
manner. On the other hand, bicuculline in the mNTS causes the opposite effect [
147
].
With FQs acting similarly to bicuculline [78,79,142], we can conclude that these drugs can
indeed induce motility issues; whether these issues will depend on increased vagal drive,
as observed for example in gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease (GERD; [
103
,
156
])
and diet-induced obesity [
115
], or by a decrease in vagal tone as observed for example in
irritable bowel syndrome [
157
], Crohn’s disease, Necrotizing Enterocolitis [
158
] or func-
tional gastrointestinal disorders [
155
] is yet to be determined. This picture becomes even
more complicated when we consider that GABA is not the only neurotransmitter affected
by FQs; as discussed earlier, NMDA receptors are modulated by FQs as well [
81
], possibly
due to their ability to chelate Mg
2+
ions, hence disinhibiting these
receptors [21,22,47,48]
.
An increase in glutamatergic signaling has been shown as one of the main hallmarks of
vagally-dependent homeostatic dysregulation of feeding patterns and energy expenditure
in a rodent model fed with a high fat diet [
113
], as well as the signal driving an increase in
intragastric pressure and pylorus motility resulting from microinjection of bicuculline in
the DVC [
103
]. The lingering question is whether in the DVC the FQs-mediated inhibition
of GABA
A
receptors would dominate over the increased activation of NMDA receptors.
A report published in 1999 suggests that FQs have a moderate to long elimination half-
NeuroSci 2021,2246
life (
50–98%
) [
159
] and, thanks to their modest liposolubility, can readily enter the brain
through the blood brain barrier [
160
]. Hence, two possibilities exist: one, during therapy
and shortly thereafter, FQs might both inhibit GABA
A
receptors and disinhibit NMDA
receptors, and NMDA receptors only remain overactive even after the therapy is discon-
tinued due to the formation of stable FQs-Mg
2+
complexes; or two, plastic changes in the
expression patterns of GABA
A
receptors occur permanently altering the responsiveness
of neurons to GABA. Considering that the recommended duration of administration for
ciprofloxacin, which is currently one of the most frequently prescribed FQs, ranges between
3 days and 8 weeks [
161
], it is entirely possible that neurons could plastically respond
to the therapy by altering the expression patterns of GABA
A
receptors. Only a focused
examination of the NTS-DMV synapse following FQs administration in the animal model
can address these questions.
NeuroSci 2021, 2 12
speculate on the consequences on GI motility in FQAD. A summary of the evidence pro-
vided in this paragraph can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of our proposed pathophysiological mechanism of vagal dys-
function following FQs administration. Left: If blockade of GABAA receptors occurs in the medial
Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius (mNTS), GABAergic interneurons at this level (blue neurons,
dashed lines) would not be able to properly suppress GABAergic mNTS neurons (blue neuron)
targeting the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus (DMV). As a result, the GABAergic tone coming
from the mNTS to the DMV would be increased, with unknown effects on the glutamatergic signal-
ing from the mNTS (orange neuron). As such, we would expect DMV neurons (yellow, dashed lines)
to be inhibited, causing an hypoactivation of the vagus nerve. In this scenario, we expect little
changes in the activatory myenteric cholinergic neurons (gold), but a drastic overactivation of the
inhibitory Non-Adrenergic Non-Cholinergic (NANC) pathway (purple), possibly leading to a de-
crease in gastric tone and motility. Right: If blockade of GABAA receptors occurs in the DMV, with
Fluoroquinolones simultaneously antagonizing GABAA receptors and reducing the Mg
2+
block on
NMDA receptors, the fine balance between glutamate and GABA signaling from the NTS could
potentially facilitate glutamatergic transmission, hence exciting a bigger population of pregangli-
onic cholinergic neurons within the DMV. As a consequence, we could expect the cholinergic path-
way in the myenteric plexus to be overactivated. Abbreviations: ACh, acetylcholine; AP, Area
Postrema; CC, Central Canal; CN X, Cranial Nerve X; DMV, Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus;
Glu, glutamate; NANC, Non Adrenergic Non Cholinergic; NTS, Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius.
Pharmacological administration of bicuculline in the DVC to decrease GABAergic
signaling has been tested extensively in the laboratory [115,155]. Blockade of GABA sig-
naling produces an expected increase in gastric tone and motility in a dose-dependent
manner. On the other hand, bicuculline in the mNTS causes the opposite effect [147]. With
FQs acting similarly to bicuculline [78,79,142], we can conclude that these drugs can in-
deed induce motility issues; whether these issues will depend on increased vagal drive,
as observed for example in gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease (GERD; [103,156])
and diet-induced obesity [115], or by a decrease in vagal tone as observed for example in
irritable bowel syndrome [157], Crohn’s disease, Necrotizing Enterocolitis [158] or func-
tional gastrointestinal disorders [155] is yet to be determined. This picture becomes even
more complicated when we consider that GABA is not the only neurotransmitter affected
by FQs; as discussed earlier, NMDA receptors are modulated by FQs as well [81], possibly
due to their ability to chelate Mg
2+
ions, hence disinhibiting these receptors [21,22,47,48].
Figure 2.
Schematic representation of our proposed pathophysiological mechanism of vagal dys-
function following FQs administration. Left: If blockade of GABAA receptors occurs in the medial
Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius (mNTS), GABAergic interneurons at this level (blue neurons, dashed
lines) would not be able to properly suppress GABAergic mNTS neurons (blue neuron) targeting
the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus (DMV). As a result, the GABAergic tone coming from the
mNTS to the DMV would be increased, with unknown effects on the glutamatergic signaling from
the mNTS (orange neuron). As such, we would expect DMV neurons (yellow, dashed lines) to be
inhibited, causing an hypoactivation of the vagus nerve. In this scenario, we expect little changes in
the activatory myenteric cholinergic neurons (gold), but a drastic overactivation of the inhibitory
Non-Adrenergic Non-Cholinergic (NANC) pathway (purple), possibly leading to a decrease in gastric
tone and motility. Right: If blockade of GABAA receptors occurs in the DMV, with Fluoroquinolones
simultaneously antagonizing GABAA receptors and reducing the Mg
2+
block on NMDA receptors,
the fine balance between glutamate and GABA signaling from the NTS could potentially facilitate
glutamatergic transmission, hence exciting a bigger population of preganglionic cholinergic neurons
within the DMV. As a consequence, we could expect the cholinergic pathway in the myenteric plexus
to be overactivated. Abbreviations: ACh, acetylcholine; AP, Area Postrema; CC, Central Canal; CN X,
Cranial Nerve X; DMV, Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus; Glu, glutamate; NANC, Non Adrenergic
Non Cholinergic; NTS, Nucleus of the Tractus Solitarius.
Staying in the realm of vagal control of the GI tract, we have previously mentioned
how pharmacological blockade of GABA
A
receptors in the DMV resulted in an increase
in pancreatic exocrine secretions in the rat [
112
]. Physiologically, changes in gut blood
glucose levels are signaled to the brain mainly through the vagus nerve [
162
,
163
]; if FQs
have the ability to induce insulin hypersecretion through vagal activation, it is important to
NeuroSci 2021,2247
consider alterations in energy homeostasis and metabolism when prescribing these drugs.
The healthy vagus nerve is involved in both the short-term and long-term regulation of
satiety and maintenance of body weight; this function is regulated by both vagal afferent
activity as well as gut hormone release [
164
]. With blockade of GABAA receptors by
FQs possibly resulting in vagal hyperactivation, it is safe to assume that the fine balance
between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system would most likely be altered
to favor the parasympathetic tone. However, physiological increases in insulin levels
following carbohydrates consumption normally leads to an increase of glucose metabolism
in dorsomedial hypothalamic neurons, which become ultimately activated and mediate an
increase in sympathetic tone [
165
,
166
]. This mechanism has been extensively investigated
in the context of obesity to explain the rise in sympathetic nervous system activation in
obese individuals, and illustrates how insulin, while unable to exert its functions due to
insulin resistance in obesity, can still act on the sympathetic nervous system in an excitatory
fashion. The results of this sympathetic nervous system hyperactivation have important
consequences on cardiac function, including increase in heart rate, cardiac output, and
a decrease in heart rate variability [
167
]. It is important to recall that FQs on their own
have a significant negative impact on cardiac function [
22
–
24
,
137
]; whether the described
cardiotoxicity is a result of this hypothesized sympathetic nervous system hyperactivation
or an additional side effect, is still unknown. If, instead, FQs administration result in vagal
downregulation due to blockade of GABA
A
receptors at the mNTS, we could expect a
decrease in gastric emptying and pancreatic exocrine secretion which, as proposed in a
recent paper by Russo and collaborators [
166
] could be causing weight loss. Interestingly,
unexplained weight loss has been reported by floxed patients, and described in a clinical
case by Golomb and collaborators [
168
]. This strongly suggests that FQs might indeed
decrease vagal output by blocking GABA transmission at the mNTS, rather than the DMV.
Moreover, if vagal activity is suppressed following FQs we could also expect plastic changes
to occur in the myenteric plexus in a similar fashion described by Meister et al. in their
model of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, with a pathological increase of the NANC pathway
over the cholinergic pathway that caused, or resulted from a decrease of the vagal output
to the GI tract [130,169].
With regards to extra-GI symptoms of FQAD that might involve the vagus nerve, it is
important to recall that FQAD is often accompanied by mood changes, including anxiety
and severe depression [74,75], with the latter being improved by vagus nerve stimulation
in the clinic [
141
]. Taken together, the literature examined in this review strongly points
to the possibility that FQs might cause a decrease in vagal tone in patients with FQAD;
whether or not our speculations hold true, is yet to be determined.
7. Conclusions
Further
in vitro
and
in vivo
studies at the CNS as well as the enteric level are necessary
to better define the risk factors associated with intake of FQs and to mitigate the onset of
FQAD in vulnerable individuals. It is imperative to better educate and train physicians
worldwide about the permanent dangers FQs can induce in vulnerable populations, and to
limit the usage of these drugs to life-threatening infections only. With more research avail-
able on FQs, there is the potential to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms
behind FQAD, legitimize this condition to physicians and insurance companies alike, and
possibly provide preventative measurements or disease modifying approaches that could
dramatically improve the quality of life of these patients.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, C.B., M.Z.F., D.N.C. and L.F.N.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.Z.F., D.N.C. and L.F.N.; writing—review and editing, C.B., M.Z.F., D.N.C. and
L.F.N.; project administration, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
NeuroSci 2021,2248
Acknowledgments:
The authors want to acknowledge the staff and faculty in Biology department at
Bucknell University for their never-ending support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Fluoroquinolones. In LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information
on Drug-Induced Liver Injury; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012.
2.
Kabbani, S.; Hersh, A.L.; Shapiro, D.J.; Fleming-Dutra, K.E.; Pavia, A.T.; Hicks, L.A. Opportunities to Improve Fluoroquinolone
Prescribing in the United States for Adult Ambulatory Care Visits. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am.
2018
,67,
134–136. [CrossRef]
3.
Baggs, J.; Fridkin, S.K.; Pollack, L.A.; Srinivasan, A.; Jernigan, J.A. Estimating National Trends in Inpatient Antibiotic Use Among
US Hospitals from 2006 to 2012. JAMA Intern. Med. 2016,176, 1639. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Aldred, K.J.; Kerns, R.J.; Osheroff, N. Mechanism of Quinolone Action and Resistance. Biochemistry
2014
,53, 1565–1574. [CrossRef]
5.
King, D.E.; Malone, R.; Lilley, S.H. New Classification and Update on the Quinolone Antibiotics. Am. Fam. Physician
2000
,61,
2741–2748. [PubMed]
6. Stahlmann, R.; Lode, H. Safety Considerations of Fluoroquinolones in the Elderly. Drugs Aging 2010,27, 193–209. [CrossRef]
7.
Norrby, S.R. Side-Effects of Quinolones: Comparisons between Quinolones and Other Antibiotics. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect.
Dis. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 1991,10, 378–383. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Stahlmann, R.; Riecke, K. Well tolerated or risky? Adverse effect of quinolones. Pharm. Unserer Zeit
2001
,30, 412–417. [CrossRef]
9.
Chui, C.S.L.; Chan, E.W.; Wong, A.Y.S.; Root, A.; Douglas, I.J.; Wong, I.C.K. Association between Oral Fluoroquinolones and
Seizures. Neurology 2016,86, 1708–1715. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Li, H.; Jiang, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Ding, Y. Adverse Reactions of Fluoroquinolones to Central Nervous System and Rational Drug Use in
Nursing Care. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2019,32, 427–432.
11.
Etminan, M.; Brophy, J.M.; Samii, A. Oral Fluoroquinolone Use and Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy: A Pharmacoepidemiologic
Study. Neurology 2014,83, 1261–1263. [CrossRef]
12.
Lewis, T.; Cook, J. Fluoroquinolones and Tendinopathy: A Guide for Athletes and Sports Clinicians and a Systematic Review of
the Literature. J. Athl. Train. 2014,49, 422–427. [CrossRef]
13.
Stephenson, A.L.; Wu, W.; Cortes, D.; Rochon, P.A. Tendon Injury and Fluoroquinolone Use: A Systematic Review. Drug Saf.
2013
,
36, 709–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Yarrington, M.E.; Anderson, D.J.; Dodds Ashley, E.; Jones, T.; Davis, A.; Johnson, M.; Lokhnygina, Y.; Sexton, D.J.; Moehring,
R.W. Impact of FDA Black Box Warning on Fluoroquinolone and Alternative Antibiotic Use in Southeastern US Hospitals. Infect.
Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2019,40, 1297–1300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Gupta, K.; Hooton, T.M.; Naber, K.G.; Wullt, B.; Colgan, R.; Miller, L.G.; Moran, G.J.; Nicolle, L.E.; Raz, R.; Schaeffer, A.J.; et al.
International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis and Pyelonephritis in Women: A
2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011,52, e103–e120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Ganjizadeh-Zavareh, S.; Sodhi, M.; Spangehl, T.; Carleton, B.; Etminan, M. Oral Fluoroquinolones and Risk of Fibromyalgia. Br. J.
Clin. Pharmacol. 2019,85, 236–239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Ali, A.K. Peripheral Neuropathy and Guillain-BarréSyndrome Risks Associated with Exposure to Systemic Fluoroquinolones: A
Pharmacovigilance Analysis. Ann. Epidemiol. 2014,24, 279–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Stahlmann, R. Safety Profile of the Quinolones. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1990,26, 31–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Lipsky, B.A.; Baker, C.A. Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Profiles: A Review Focusing on Newer Agents. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ.
Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 1999,28, 352–364. [CrossRef]
20. Shimoda, K. Mechanisms of Quinolone Phototoxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 1998,102, 369–373. [CrossRef]
21. Stahlmann, R.; Lode, H. Toxicity of Quinolones. Drugs 1999,58 (Suppl. 2), 37–42. [CrossRef]
22.
Mehrzad, R.; Barza, M. Weighing the Adverse Cardiac Effects of Fluoroquinolones: A Risk Perspective. J. Clin. Pharmacol.
2015
,
55, 1198–1206. [CrossRef]
23. Rubinstein, E.; Camm, J. Cardiotoxicity of Fluoroquinolones. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2002,49, 593–596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Owens, R.C. Risk Assessment for Antimicrobial Agent-Induced QTc Interval Prolongation and Torsades de Pointes. Pharmacother.
J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 2001,21, 301–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Lubasch, A.; Keller, I.; Borner, K.; Koeppe, P.; Lode, H. Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Ciprofloxacin, Gatifloxacin,
Grepafloxacin, Levofloxacin, Trovafloxacin, and Moxifloxacin after Single Oral Administration in Healthy Volunteers. Antimicrob.
Agents Chemother. 2000,44, 2600–2603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Sprandel, K.A.; Rodvold, K.A. Safety and Tolerability of Fluoroquinolones. Clin. Cornerstone 2003,5, S29–S36. [CrossRef]
27.
Liguori, M.J.; Anderson, M.G.; Bukofzer, S.; McKim, J.; Pregenzer, J.F.; Retief, J.; Spear, B.B.; Waring, J.F. Microarray Analysis in
Human Hepatocytes Suggests a Mechanism for Hepatotoxicity Induced by Trovafloxacin. Hepatology
2005
,41, 177–186. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28.
Paterson, J.M.; Mamdani, M.M.; Manno, M.; Juurlink, D.N. Fluoroquinolone Therapy and Idiosyncratic Acute Liver Injury: A
Population-Based Study. CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2012,184, 1565–1570. [CrossRef]
NeuroSci 2021,2249
29. Yu, C.; Giuffre, B. Achilles Tendinopathy after Treatment with Fluoroquinolone. Australas. Radiol. 2005,49, 407–410. [CrossRef]
30. Kim, G.K. The Risk of Fluoroquinolone-Induced Tendinopathy and Tendon Rupture. J. Clin. Aesthetic Dermatol. 2010,3, 49–54.
31.
Williams, R.J.; Attia, E.; Wickiewicz, T.L.; Hannafin, J.A. The Effect of Ciprofloxacin on Tendon, Paratenon, and Capsular
Fibroblast Metabolism. Am. J. Sports Med. 2000,28, 364–369. [CrossRef]
32.
Le Huec, J.C.; Schaeverbeke, T.; Chauveaux, D.; Rivel, J.; Dehais, J.; Le Rebeller, A. Epicondylitis after Treatment with Fluoro-
quinolone Antibiotics. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1995,77, 293–295. [CrossRef]
33.
Förster, C.; Kociok, K.; Shakibaei, M.; Merker, H.J.; Stahlmann, R. Quinolone-Induced Cartilage Lesions Are Not Reversible in
Rats. Arch. Toxicol. 1996,70, 474–481. [CrossRef]
34. Fish, D.N. Fluoroquinolone Adverse Effects and Drug Interactions. Pharmacotherapy 2001,21, 253S–272S. [CrossRef]
35.
Mizuki, Y.; Fujiwara, I.; Yamaguchi, T. Pharmacokinetic Interactions Related to the Chemical Structures of Fluoroquinolones. J.
Antimicrob. Chemother. 1996,37 (Suppl. A), 41–55. [CrossRef]
36.
Beckmann, J.; Elsässer, W.; Gundert-Remy, U.; Hertrampf, R. Enoxacin—A Potent Inhibitor of Theophylline Metabolism. Eur. J.
Clin. Pharmacol. 1987,33, 227–230. [CrossRef]
37.
Efthymiopoulos, C.; Bramer, S.L.; Maroli, A.; Blum, B. Theophylline and Warfarin Interaction Studies with Grepafloxacin. Clin.
Pharmacokinet. 1997,33 (Suppl. 1), 39–46. [CrossRef]
38. Marchbanks, C. Drug-Drug Interactions with Fluoroquinolones. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 1993,13, 23S–28S.
39.
Davis, R.; Markham, A.; Balfour, J.A. Ciprofloxacin. An Updated Review of Its Pharmacology, Therapeutic Efficacy and
Tolerability. Drugs 1996,51, 1019–1074. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Stille, W.; Harder, S.; Mieke, S.; Beer, C.; Shah, P.M.; Frech, K.; Staib, A.H. Decrease of Caffeine Elimination in Man during
Co-Administration of 4-Quinolones. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1987,20, 729–734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Okimoto, N.; Niki, Y.; Soejima, R. Effect of Levofloxacin on Serum Concentration of Theophylline. Chemotherapy
1992
,40
(Suppl. 3), 68–74.
42.
Christ, W. Central Nervous System Toxicity of Quinolones: Human and Animal Findings. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
1990
,26
(Suppl. B), 219–225. [CrossRef]
43.
Radandt, J.M.; Marchbanks, C.R.; Dudley, M.N. Interactions of Fluoroquinolones with Other Drugs: Mechanisms, Variability,
Clinical Significance, and Management. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 1992,14, 272–284. [CrossRef]
44.
Domagala, J.M. Structure-Activity and Structure-Side-Effect Relationships for the Quinolone Antibacterials. J. Antimicrob.
Chemother. 1994,33, 685–706. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Smolders, I.; Gousseau, C.; Marchand, S.; Couet, W.; Ebinger, G.; Michotte, Y. Convulsant and Subconvulsant Doses of Norfloxacin
in the Presence and Absence of Biphenylacetic Acid Alter Extracellular Hippocampal Glutamate but Not Gamma-Aminobutyric
Acid Levels in Conscious Rats. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002,46, 471–477. [CrossRef]
46.
Palù, G.; Valisena, S.; Ciarrocchi, G.; Gatto, B.; Palumbo, M. Quinolone Binding to DNA Is Mediated by Magnesium Ions. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992,89, 9671–9675. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Kawai, Y.; Matsubayashi, K.; Hakusui, H. Interaction of Quinolones with Metal Cations in Aqueous Solution. Chem. Pharm. Bull.
1996,44, 1425–1430. [CrossRef]
48.
Michalak, K.; Sobolewska-Włodarczyk, A.; Włodarczyk, M.; Sobolewska, J.; Wo´zniak, P.; Sobolewski, B. Treatment of the
Fluoroquinolone-Associated Disability: The Pathobiochemical Implications. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2017,2017. [CrossRef]
49.
Spivey, J.M.; Cummings, D.M.; Pierson, N.R. Failure of Prostatitis Treatment Secondary to Probable Ciprofloxacin-Sucralfate
Drug Interaction. Pharmacother. J. Hum. Pharmacol. Drug Ther. 1996,16, 314–316. [CrossRef]
50.
Seedher, N.; Agarwal, P. Effect of Metal Ions on Some Pharmacologically Relevant Interactions Involving Fluoroquinolone
Antibiotics. Drug Metabol. Drug Interact. 2010,25, 17–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Ma, H.H.; Chiu, F.C.; Li, R.C. Mechanistic Investigation of the Reduction in Antimicrobial Activity of Ciprofloxacin by Metal
Cations. Pharm. Res. 1997,14, 366–370. [CrossRef]
52.
Koga, H. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Measurement of Antimicrobial Concentrations in Polymorphonuclear
Leukocytes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1987,31, 1904–1908. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53.
Pascual, A.; García, I.; Ballesta, S.; Perea, E.J. Uptake and Intracellular Activity of Trovafloxacin in Human Phagocytes and
Tissue-Cultured Epithelial Cells. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1997,41, 274–277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Andriole, V.T. The Quinolones, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000.
55.
Egerbacher, M.; Seiberl, G.; Wolfesberger, B.; Walter, I. Ciprofloxacin Causes Cytoskeletal Changes and Detachment of Human
and Rat Chondrocytes in Vitro. Arch. Toxicol. 2000,73, 557–563. [CrossRef]
56.
Shakibaei, M.; Kociok, K.; Förster, C.; Vormann, J.; Günther, T.; Stahlmann, R.; Merker, H.J. Comparative Evaluation of
Ultrastructural Changes in Articular Cartilage of Ofloxacin—Treated and Magnesium—Deficient Immature Rats. Toxicol. Pathol.
1996,24, 580–587. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Egerbacher, M.; Wolfesberger, B.; Walter, I.; Seiberl, G. Integrins Mediate the Effects of Quinolones and Magnesium Deficiency on
Cultured Rat Chondrocytes. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 1999,78, 391–397. [CrossRef]
58.
Egerbacher, M.; Edinger, J.; Tschulenk, W. Effects of Enrofloxacin and Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride on Canine and Equine
Chondrocytes in Culture. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2001,62, 704–708. [CrossRef]
59.
Egerbacher, M.; Wolfesberger, B.; Gabler, C. In Vitro Evidence for Effects of Magnesium Supplementation on Quinolone-Treated
Horse and Dog Chondrocytes. Vet. Pathol. 2001,38, 143–148. [CrossRef]
NeuroSci 2021,2250
60.
Valko, M.; Jomova, K.; Rhodes, C.J.; Kuˇca, K.; Musílek, K. Redox- and Non-Redox-Metal-Induced Formation of Free Radicals and
Their Role in Human Disease. Arch. Toxicol. 2016,90, 1–37. [CrossRef]
61.
Badal, S.; Her, Y.F.; Maher, L.J. Nonantibiotic Effects of Fluoroquinolones in Mammalian Cells. J. Biol. Chem.
2015
,290, 22287–22297.
[CrossRef]
62.
Gootz, T.D.; Barrett, J.F.; Sutcliffe, J.A. Inhibitory Effects of Quinolone Antibacterial Agents on Eucaryotic Topoisomerases and
Related Test Systems. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1990,34, 8–12. [CrossRef]
63.
Fox, A.J.S.; Schär, M.O.; Wanivenhaus, F.; Chen, T.; Attia, E.; Binder, N.B.; Otero, M.; Gilbert, S.L.; Nguyen, J.T.; Chaudhury, S.;
et al. Fluoroquinolones Impair Tendon Healing in a Rat Rotator Cuff Repair Model: A Preliminary Study. Am. J. Sports Med.
2014
,
42, 2851–2859. [CrossRef]
64.
Aranha, O.; Grignon, R.; Fernandes, N.; McDonnell, T.J.; Wood, D.P.; Sarkar, F.H. Suppression of Human Prostate Cancer Cell
Growth by Ciprofloxacin Is Associated with Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis. Int. J. Oncol.
2003
,22, 787–794. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65.
Liang, X.; Wang, L.; Ou, R.; Nie, X.; Yang, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, K. Effects of Norfloxacin on Hepatic Genes Expression of P450 Isoforms
(CYP1A and CYP3A), GST and P-Glycoprotein (P-Gp) in Swordtail Fish (Xiphophorus helleri). Ecotoxicol. Lond. Engl.
2015
,24,
1566–1573. [CrossRef]
66.
Hsiao, C.-J.J.; Younis, H.; Boelsterli, U.A. Trovafloxacin, a Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic with Hepatotoxic Potential, Causes
Mitochondrial Peroxynitrite Stress in a Mouse Model of Underlying Mitochondrial Dysfunction. Chem. Biol. Interact.
2010
,188,
204–213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Qin, P.; Liu, R. Oxidative Stress Response of Two Fluoroquinolones with Catalase and Erythrocytes: A Combined Molecular and
Cellular Study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013,252, 321–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68.
Yu, C.-H.; Liu, Z.-Y.; Sun, L.-S.; Li, Y.-J.; Zhang, D.-S.; Pan, R.-T.; Sun, Z.-L. Effect of Danofloxacin on Reactive Oxygen Species
Production, Lipid Peroxidation and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities in Kidney Tubular Epithelial Cell Line, LLC-PK1. Basic Clin.
Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2013,113, 377–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69.
Pouzaud, F.; Bernard-Beaubois, K.; Thevenin, M.; Warnet, J.-M.; Hayem, G.; Rat, P. In Vitro Discrimination of Fluoroquinolones
Toxicity on Tendon Cells: Involvement of Oxidative Stress. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2004,308, 394–402. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70.
Kumbhar, G.B.; Khan, A.M.; Rampal, S. Evaluation of Gatifloxacin for Its Potential to Induce Antioxidant Imbalance and
Retinopathy in Rabbits. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2015,34, 372–379. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71.
Talla, V.; Veerareddy, P. Oxidative Stress Induced by Fluoroquinolones on Treatment for Complicated Urinary Tract Infections in
Indian Patients. J. Young Pharm. JYP 2011,3, 304–309. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72.
Liu, B.; Cui, Y.; Brown, P.B.; Ge, X.; Xie, J.; Xu, P. Cytotoxic Effects and Apoptosis Induction of Enrofloxacin in Hepatic Cell Line of
Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2015,47, 639–644. [CrossRef]
73.
Holley, A.K.; Bakthavatchalu, V.; Velez-Roman, J.M.; St. Clair, D.K. Manganese Superoxide Dismutase: Guardian of the
Powerhouse. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011,12, 7114–7162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Feinberg, S.S. Fluoroquinolone-Induced Depression. Am. J. Psychiatry 1995,152, 954–955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75.
Kandasamy, A.; Srinath, D. Levofloxacin-Induced Acute Anxiety and Insomnia. J. Neurosci. Rural Pract.
2012
,3, 212–214.
[CrossRef]
76.
Sarro, A.; Sarro, G. Adverse Reactions to Fluroquinolones. An Overview on Mechanistic Aspects. Curr. Med. Chem.
2001
,8,
371–384. [CrossRef]
77. Hooper, D.C.; Wolfson, J.S. Fluoroquinolone Antimicrobial Agents. N. Engl. J. Med. 1991,324, 384–394. [CrossRef]
78.
Green, M.A.; Halliwell, R.F. Selective Antagonism of the GABA(A) Receptor by Ciprofloxacin and Biphenylacetic Acid. Br. J.
Pharmacol. 1997,122, 584–590. [CrossRef]
79.
Halliwell, R.F.; Davey, P.G.; Lambert, J.J. Antagonism of GABAA Receptors by 4-Quinolones. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
1993
,31,
457–462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80.
Ilgin, S.; Can, O.D.; Atli, O.; Ucel, U.I.; Sener, E.; Guven, I. Ciprofloxacin-Induced Neurotoxicity: Evaluation of Possible
Underlying Mechanisms. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2015,25, 374–381. [CrossRef]
81.
Schmuck, G.; Schürmann, A.; Schlüter, G. Determination of the Excitatory Potencies of Fluoroquinolones in the Central Nervous
System by an In Vitro Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1998,42, 1831–1836. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Bano, D.; Ankarcrona, M. Beyond the Critical Point: An Overview of Excitotoxicity, Calcium Overload and the Downstream
Consequences. Neurosci. Lett. 2018,663, 79–85. [CrossRef]
83. Choi, D.W. Excitotoxicity: Still Hammering the Ischemic Brain in 2020. Front. Neurosci. 2020,14, 579953. [CrossRef]
84.
Lee, J.-M.M.; Zipfel, G.J.; Choi, D.W. The Changing Landscape of Ischaemic Brain Injury Mechanisms. Nature
1999
,399, A7–A14.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Lai, T.W.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.T. Excitotoxicity and Stroke: Identifying Novel Targets for Neuroprotection. Prog. Neurobiol.
2014
,
115, 157–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86.
Swanson, R.A.; Wang, J. Superoxide and Non-Ionotropic Signaling in Neuronal Excitotoxicity. Front. Neurosci.
2020
,14. [CrossRef]
87.
Mehta, A.; Prabhakar, M.; Kumar, P.; Deshmukh, R.; Sharma, P.L. Excitotoxicity: Bridge to Various Triggers in Neurodegenerative
Disorders. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2013,698, 6–18. [CrossRef]
88.
Sensi, S.L.; Paoletti, P.; Bush, A.I.; Sekler, I. Zinc in the Physiology and Pathology of the CNS. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
2009
,10, 780–791.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
NeuroSci 2021,2251
89.
Rachline, J.; Perin-Dureau, F.; Le Goff, A.; Neyton, J.; Paoletti, P. The Micromolar Zinc-Binding Domain on the NMDA Receptor
Subunit NR2B. J. Neurosci. 2005,25, 308–317. [CrossRef]
90.
Kalappa, B.I.; Anderson, C.T.; Goldberg, J.M.; Lippard, S.J.; Tzounopoulos, T. AMPA Receptor Inhibition by Synaptically Released
Zinc. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015,112, 15749–15754. [CrossRef]
91.
Granzotto, A.; Canzoniero, L.M.T.; Sensi, S.L. A Neurotoxic Ménage-à-Trois: Glutamate, Calcium, and Zinc in the Excitotoxic
Cascade. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2020,13, 225. [CrossRef]
92.
Yeragani, V.K.; Krishnan, S.; Engels, H.J.; Gretebeck, R. Effects of Caffeine on Linear and Nonlinear Measures of Heart Rate
Variability before and after Exercise. Depress. Anxiety 2005,21, 130–134. [CrossRef]
93.
Yeragani, V.K.; Pohl, R.; Berger, R.; Balon, R.; Ramesh, C.; Glitz, D.; Srinivasan, K.; Weinberg, P. Decreased Heart Rate Variability
in Panic Disorder Patients: A Study of Power-Spectral Analysis of Heart Rate. Psychiatry Res. 1993,46, 89–103. [CrossRef]
94.
Yeragani, V.K.; Sobolewski, E.; Igel, G.; Johnson, C.; Jampala, V.C.; Kay, J.; Hillman, N.; Yeragani, S.; Vempati, S. Decreased
Heart-Period Variability in Patients with Panic Disorder: A Study of Holter ECG Records. Psychiatry Res.
1998
,78, 89–99.
[CrossRef]
95.
Stakenborg, N.; Giovangiulio, M.D.; Boeckxstaens, G.E.; Matteoli, G. The Versatile Role of the Vagus Nerve in the Gastrointestinal
Tract. EMJ Gastroenterol. 2013,1, 106–114.
96. Baker, E.; Lui, F. Neuroanatomy, Vagal Nerve Nuclei. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2020.
97.
Altschuler, S.M.; Escardo, J.; Lynn, R.B.; Miselis, R.R. The Central Organization of the Vagus Nerve Innervating the Colon of the
Rat. Gastroenterology 1993,104, 502–509. [CrossRef]
98.
Browning, K.N.; Travagli, R.A. Central Nervous System Control of Gastrointestinal Motility and Secretion and Modulation of
Gastrointestinal Functions. Compr. Physiol. 2014,4, 1339–1368. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99.
Gillis, R.A.; Dezfuli, G.; Bellusci, L.; Vicini, S.; Sahibzada, N. Brainstem Neuronal Circuitries Controlling Gastric Tonic and Phasic
Contractions: A Review. Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 2021, 1–28. [CrossRef]
100.
Travagli, R.A.; Anselmi, L. Vagal Neurocircuitry and Its Influence on Gastric Motility. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.
2016
,13,
389–401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101.
Fornai, M.; Antonioli, L.; Colucci, R.; Tuccori, M.; Blandizzi, C. Pathophysiology of Gastric Ulcer Development and Healing: Molecular
Mechanisms and Novel Therapeutic Options; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2011.
102.
Travagli, R.A.; Gillis, R.A.; Rossiter, C.D.; Vicini, S. Glutamate and GABA-Mediated Synaptic Currents in Neurons of the Rat
Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus. Am. J. Physiol. 1991,260, G531–G536. [CrossRef]
103.
Sivarao, D.V.; Krowicki, Z.K.; Hornby, P.J. Role of GABAA Receptors in Rat Hindbrain Nuclei Controlling Gastric Motor Function.
Neurogastroenterol. Motil. Off. J. Eur. Gastrointest. Motil. Soc. 1998,10, 305–313. [CrossRef]
104.
Travagli, R.A.; Gillis, R.A. Hyperpolarization-Activated Currents, IH and IKIR, in Rat Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus
Neurons in Vitro. J. Neurophysiol. 1994,71, 1308–1317. [CrossRef]
105. Eglen, R.M. Muscarinic Receptors and Gastrointestinal Tract Smooth Muscle Function. Life Sci. 2001,68, 2573–2578. [CrossRef]
106.
Sanders, K.M.; Ward, S.M. Nitric Oxide and Its Role as a Non-adrenergic, Non-cholinergic Inhibitory Neurotransmitter in the
Gastrointestinal Tract. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2019,176, 212–227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107.
Rogers, R.C.; Hermann, G.E.; Travagli, R.A. Brainstem Pathways Responsible for Oesophageal Control of Gastric Motility and
Tone in the Rat. J. Physiol. 1999,514 Pt 2, 369–383. [CrossRef]
108.
Cruz, M.T.; Murphy, E.C.; Sahibzada, N.; Verbalis, J.G.; Gillis, R.A. A Reevaluation of the Effects of Stimulation of the Dorsal
Motor Nucleus of the Vagus on Gastric Motility in the Rat. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.
2007
,292, R291–R307.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
109.
Krowicki, Z.K.; Sharkey, K.A.; Serron, S.C.; Nathan, N.A.; Hornby, P.J. Distribution of Nitric Oxide Synthase in Rat Dorsal Vagal
Complex and Effects of Microinjection of Nitric Oxide Compounds upon Gastric Motor Function. J. Comp. Neurol.
1997
,377,
49–69. [CrossRef]
110.
Rogers, R.C.; Travagli, R.A.; Hermann, G.E. Noradrenergic Neurons in the Rat Solitary Nucleus Participate in the Esophageal-
Gastric Relaxation Reflex. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2003,285, R479–R489. [CrossRef]
111.
Svensson, E.; Horváth-Puhó, E.; Thomsen, R.W.; Djurhuus, J.C.; Pedersen, L.; Borghammer, P.; Sørensen, H.T. Vagotomy and
Subsequent Risk of Parkinson’s Disease. Ann. Neurol. 2015,78, 522–529. [CrossRef]
112. Babic, T.; Travagli, R.A. Neural Control of the Pancreas. Pancreapedia Exocrine Pancreas Knowl. Base 2016. [CrossRef]
113.
Clyburn, C.; Travagli, R.A.; Browning, K.N. Acute High-Fat Diet Upregulates Glutamatergic Signaling in the Dorsal Motor
Nucleus of the Vagus. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2018,314, G623–G634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114.
Bhagat, R.; Fortna, S.R.; Browning, K.N. Exposure to a High Fat Diet during the Perinatal Period Alters Vagal Motoneurone
Excitability, Even in the Absence of Obesity. J. Physiol. 2015,593, 285–303. [CrossRef]
115.
McMenamin, C.A.; Travagli, R.A.; Browning, K.N. Perinatal High Fat Diet Increases Inhibition of Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the
Vagus Neurons Regulating Gastric Functions. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. Off. J. Eur. Gastrointest. Motil. Soc. 2018,30. [CrossRef]
116.
Clyburn, C.; Howe, C.A.; Arnold, A.C.; Lang, C.H.; Travagli, R.A.; Browning, K.N. Perinatal High-Fat Diet Alters Development
of GABAA Receptor Subunits in Dorsal Motor Nucleus of Vagus. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.
2019
,317, G40–G50.
[CrossRef]
117.
Talley, N.J.; Howell, S.; Poulton, R. Obesity and Chronic Gastrointestinal Tract Symptoms in Young Adults: A Birth Cohort Study.
Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2004,99, 1807–1814. [CrossRef]
NeuroSci 2021,2252
118.
Ballanyi, K.; Doutheil, J.; Brockhaus, J. Membrane Potentials and Microenvironment of Rat Dorsal Vagal Cells in Vitro during
Energy Depletion. J. Physiol. 1996,495 Pt 3, 769–784. [CrossRef]
119.
Dean, J.B.; Mulkey, D.K. Continuous Intracellular Recording from Mammalian Neurons Exposed to Hyperbaric Helium, Oxygen,
or Air. J. Appl. Physiol. 2000,89, 807–822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
120.
Kulik, A.; Trapp, S.; Ballanyi, K. Ischemia but Not Anoxia Evokes Vesicular and Ca(
2+
)-Independent Glutamate Release in the
Dorsal Vagal Complex in Vitro. J. Neurophysiol. 2000,83, 2905–2915. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
121.
Trapp, S.; Lückermann, M.; Brooks, P.A.; Ballanyi, K. Acidosis of Rat Dorsal Vagal Neurons in Situ during Spontaneous and
Evoked Activity. J. Physiol. 1996,496 Pt 3, 695–710. [CrossRef]
122.
Pizzino, G.; Irrera, N.; Cucinotta, M.; Pallio, G.; Mannino, F.; Arcoraci, V.; Squadrito, F.; Altavilla, D.; Bitto, A. Oxidative Stress:
Harms and Benefits for Human Health. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2017,2017, 8416763. [CrossRef]
123.
Bennun, A. Characterization of the Norepinephrine-Activation of Adenylate Cyclase Suggests a Role in Memory Affirmation
Pathways. Biosystems 2010,100, 87–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124.
Roosevelt, R.W.; Smith, D.C.; Clough, R.W.; Jensen, R.A.; Browning, R.A. Increased Extracellular Concentrations of Nore-
pinephrine in Cortex and Hippocampus Following Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Rat. Brain Res.
2006
,1119, 124–132. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
125.
Morris, L.S.; McCall, J.G.; Charney, D.S.; Murrough, J.W. The Role of the Locus Coeruleus in the Generation of Pathological
Anxiety. Brain Neurosci. Adv. 2020,4, 2398212820930321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
126.
Ganong, W. Circumventricular Organs: Definition and Role in the Regulation of Endocrine and Autonomic Function. Clin. Exp.
Pharmacol. Physiol. 2000,27, 422–427. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
127.
Trapp, S.; Ballanyi, K. KATP Channel Mediation of Anoxia-Induced Outward Current in Rat Dorsal Vagal Neurons In Vitro. J.
Physiol. 1995,487, 37–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
128.
Anselmi, L.; Bove, C.; Coleman, F.H.; Le, K.; Subramanian, M.P.; Venkiteswaran, K.; Subramanian, T.; Travagli, R.A. Ingestion of
Subthreshold Doses of Environmental Toxins Induces Ascending Parkinsonism in the Rat. NPJ Park. Dis.
2018
,4. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
129.
Bauer, S.; Hay, M.; Amilhon, B.; Jean, A.; Moyse, E. In Vivo Neurogenesis in the Dorsal Vagal Complex of the Adult Rat Brainstem.
Neuroscience 2005,130, 75–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
130.
Meister, A.L.; Doheny, K.K.; Travagli, R.A. Necrotizing Enterocolitis Attenuates Developmental Heart Rate Variability Increases
in Newborn Rats. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. Off. J. Eur. Gastrointest. Motil. Soc. 2019,31, e13484. [CrossRef]
131.
Tsuchiya, Y.; Nozu, T.; Kumei, S.; Ohhira, M.; Okumura, T. IL-1 Receptor Antagonist Blocks the Lipopolysaccharide-Induced
Inhibition of Gastric Motility in Freely Moving Conscious Rats. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012,57, 2555–2561. [CrossRef]
132.
Ammori, J.B.; Zhang, W.-Z.; Li, J.-Y.; Chai, B.-X.; Mulholland, M.W. Effect of Intestinal Inflammation on Neuronal Survival and
Function in the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus. Surgery 2008,144, 149–158. [CrossRef]
133.
Hermann, G.E.; Tovar, C.A.; Rogers, R.C. Induction of Endogenous Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha: Suppression of Centrally
Stimulated Gastric Motility. Am. J. Physiol. 1999,276, R59–R68. [CrossRef]
134.
Emch, G.S.; Hermann, G.E.; Rogers, R.C. Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Inhibits Physiologically Identified Dorsal Motor Nucleus
Neurons in Vivo. Brain Res. 2002,951, 311–315. [CrossRef]
135.
Suzuki, T.; Takizawa, T.; Kamio, Y.; Qin, T.; Hashimoto, T.; Fujii, Y.; Murayama, Y.; Patel, A.B.; Ayata, C. Noninvasive Vagus
Nerve Stimulation Prevents Ruptures and Improves Outcomes in a Model of Intracranial Aneurysm in Mice. Stroke
2019
,50,
1216–1223. [CrossRef]
136.
Norcliffe-Kaufmann, L. The Vagus and Glossopharyngeal Nerves in Two Autonomic Disorders. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. Publ.
Am. Electroencephalogr. Soc. 2019,36, 443–451. [CrossRef]
137.
Newton, E.R.; Akerman, A.W.; Strassle, P.D.; Kibbe, M.R. Association of Fluoroquinolone use With Short-Term Risk of Develop-
ment of Aortic Aneurysm. JAMA Surg. 2021,156, 264–272. [CrossRef]
138.
Sanmarco, L.M.; Wheeler, M.A.; Gutiérrez-Vázquez, C.; Polonio, C.M.; Linnerbauer, M.; Pinho-Ribeiro, F.A.; Li, Z.; Giovannoni, F.;
Batterman, K.V.; Scalisi, G.; et al. Gut-Licensed IFN
γ
+ NK Cells Drive LAMP1 + TRAIL + Anti-Inflammatory Astrocytes. Nature
2021,590, 473–479. [CrossRef]
139.
Bonaz, B.; Bazin, T.; Pellissier, S. The Vagus Nerve at the Interface of the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis. Front. Neurosci.
2018
,12, 49.
[CrossRef]
140.
Zusso, M.; Lunardi, V.; Franceschini, D.; Pagetta, A.; Lo, R.; Stifani, S.; Frigo, A.C.; Giusti, P.; Moro, S. Ciprofloxacin and
Levofloxacin Attenuate Microglia Inflammatory Response via TLR4/NF-KB Pathway. J. Neuroinflamm.
2019
,16, 148. [CrossRef]
141.
Carreno, F.R.; Frazer, A. Vagal Nerve Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression. Neurother. J. Am. Soc. Exp. Neurother.
2017
,
14, 716–727. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142.
Davey, P.G.; Charter, M.; Kelly, S.; Varma, T.R.; Jacobson, I.; Freeman, A.; Precious, E.; Lambert, J. Ciprofloxacin and Sparfloxacin
Penetration into Human Brain Tissue and Their Activity as Antagonists of GABAA Receptor of Rat Vagus Nerve. Antimicrob.
Agents Chemother. 1994,38, 1356–1362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143.
Hsu, S.-C.; Chang, S.-S.; Lee, M.G.; Lee, S.-H.; Tsai, Y.-W.; Lin, S.-C.; Chen, S.-T.; Weng, Y.-C.; Porta, L.; Wu, J.-Y.; et al. Risk of
Gastrointestinal Perforation in Patients Taking Oral Fluoroquinolone Therapy: An Analysis of Nationally Representative Cohort.
PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0183813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
NeuroSci 2021,2253
144.
Gao, H.; Smith, B.N. Tonic GABAA Receptor-Mediated Inhibition in the Rat Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus. J. Neurophysiol.
2010,103, 904–914. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
145.
Travagli, R.A.; Hermann, G.E.; Browning, K.N.; Rogers, R.C. Musings on the Wanderer: What’s New in Our Understanding
of Vago-Vagal Reflexes? III. Activity-Dependent Plasticity in Vago-Vagal Reflexes Controlling the Stomach. Am. J. Physiol.
Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2003,284, G180–G187. [CrossRef]
146.
Chang, H.Y.; Mashimo, H.; Goyal, R.K. Musings on the Wanderer: What’s New in Our Understanding of Vago-Vagal Reflex?
IV. Current Concepts of Vagal Efferent Projections to the Gut. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.
2003
,284, G357–G366.
[CrossRef]
147.
Herman, M.A.; Cruz, M.T.; Sahibzada, N.; Verbalis, J.; Gillis, R.A. GABA Signaling in the Nucleus Tractus Solitarius Sets the Level
of Activity in Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus Cholinergic Neurons in the Vagovagal Circuit. Am. J. Physiol.-Gastrointest. Liver
Physiol. 2009,296, G101–G111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
148.
Hermann, G.E.; Travagli, R.A.; Rogers, R.C. Esophageal-Gastric Relaxation Reflex in Rat: Dual Control of Peripheral Nitrergic
and Cholinergic Transmission. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2006,290, R1570–R1576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149.
Travagli, R.A.; Hermann, G.E.; Browning, K.N.; Rogers, R.C. Brainstem Circuits Regulating Gastric Function. Annu. Rev. Physiol.
2006,68, 279–305. [CrossRef]
150.
Zhang, X.; Fogel, R. Involvement of Glutamate in Gastrointestinal Vago-Vagal Reflexes Initiated by Gastrointestinal Distention in
the Rat. Auton. Neurosci. Basic Clin. 2003,103, 19–37. [CrossRef]
151.
Zhou, S.-Y.; Lu, Y.-X.; Yao, H.; Owyang, C. Spatial Organization of Neurons in the Dorsal Motor Nucleus of the Vagus Synapsing
with Intragastric Cholinergic and Nitric Oxide/VIP Neurons in the Rat. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol.
2008
,294,
G1201–G1209. [CrossRef]
152.
Fong, A.Y.; Stornetta, R.L.; Foley, C.M.; Potts, J.T. Immunohistochemical Localization of GAD67-Expressing Neurons and
Processes in the Rat Brainstem: Subregional Distribution in the Nucleus Tractus Solitarius. J. Comp. Neurol.
2005
,493, 274–290.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
153.
Glatzer, N.R.; Derbenev, A.V.; Banfield, B.W.; Smith, B.N. Endomorphin-1 Modulates Intrinsic Inhibition in the Dorsal Vagal
Complex. J. Neurophysiol. 2007,98, 1591–1599. [CrossRef]
154.
Kawai, Y.; Senba, E. Organization of Excitatory and Inhibitory Local Networks in the Caudal Nucleus of Tractus Solitarius of Rats
Revealed in in Vitro Slice Preparation. J. Comp. Neurol. 1996,373, 309–321. [CrossRef]
155.
Jiang, Y.; Babic, T.; Travagli, R.A. Sex Differences in GABAergic Neurotransmission to Rat DMV Neurons. Am. J. Physiol.-
Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2019,317, G476–G483. [CrossRef]
156.
Sugerman, H.J. Increased Intra-Abdominal Pressure and GERD/Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology
2007
,133, 2075. [CrossRef]
157.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome|Nature Reviews Disease Primers. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrdp201614
(accessed on 10 June 2021).
158.
Bonaz, B.; Sinniger, V.; Pellissier, S. Vagal Tone: Effects on Sensitivity, Motility, and Inflammation. Neurogastroenterol. Motil.
2016
,
28, 455–462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
159.
Turnidge, J. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Fluoroquinolones. Drugs
1999
,58 (Suppl. 2), 29–36. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
160.
Nau, R.; Sörgel, F.; Eiffert, H. Penetration of Drugs through the Blood-Cerebrospinal Fluid/Blood-Brain Barrier for Treatment of
Central Nervous System Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2010,23, 858–883. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
161.
Federal Drug Agency Highlights of Prescribing Information, CIPRO
©
. Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/
drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/019537s086lbl.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
162.
Fournel, A.; Marlin, A.; Abot, A.; Pasquio, C.; Cirillo, C.; Cani, P.D.; Knauf, C. Glucosensing in the Gastrointestinal Tract: Impact
on Glucose Metabolism. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2016,310, G645–G658. [CrossRef]
163.
Masi, E.B.; Levy, T.; Tsaava, T.; Bouton, C.E.; Tracey, K.J.; Chavan, S.S.; Zanos, T.P. Identification of Hypoglycemia-Specific Neural
Signals by Decoding Murine Vagus Nerve Activity. Bioelectron. Med. 2019,5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
164.
Guarino, D.; Nannipieri, M.; Iervasi, G.; Taddei, S.; Bruno, R.M. The Role of the Autonomic Nervous System in the Pathophysiol-
ogy of Obesity. Front. Physiol. 2017,8, 665. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
165.
Frontoni, S.; Bracaglia, D.; Gigli, F. Relationship between Autonomic Dysfunction, Insulin Resistance and Hypertension, in
Diabetes. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. NMCD 2005,15, 441–449. [CrossRef]
166.
Russo, B.; Menduni, M.; Borboni, P.; Picconi, F.; Frontoni, S. Autonomic Nervous System in Obesity and Insulin-Resistance—The
Complex Interplay between Leptin and Central Nervous System. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021,22, 5187. [CrossRef]
167.
Muscelli, E.; Emdin, M.; Natali, A.; Pratali, L.; Camastra, S.; Gastaldelli, A.; Baldi, S.; Carpeggiani, C.; Ferrannini, E. Autonomic
and Hemodynamic Responses to Insulin in Lean and Obese Humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
1998
,83, 2084–2090. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
168.
Golomb, B.A.; Koslik, H.J.; Redd, A.J. Fluoroquinolone-Induced Serious, Persistent, Multisymptom Adverse Effects. BMJ Case
Rep. 2015,2015, bcr2015209821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
169.
Meister, A.L.; Burkholder, C.R.; Doheny, K.K.; Travagli, R.A. Ghrelin Ameliorates the Phenotype of Newborn Rats Induced with
Mild Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. Off. J. Eur. Gastrointest. Motil. Soc.
2019
,31, e13682. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
