Tag Archives: CB(1) and CB(2) receptors

Self-medication of a cannabinoid CB2 agonist in an animal model of neuropathic pain.

Posted on by
1

“Neuropathic pain is caused by injury to the peripheral or central nervous system (CNS)…”

“…novel approaches for identifying safe and effective analgesics with limited abuse liability are necessary.”

“Cannabinoids share the same target as the psychoactive ingredient in maijuana. Cannabinoids suppress neuropathic nociception through CB1 and CB2 mechanisms. CB1 is predominantly located within the CNS… CB2 activation is not associated with CNS side-effects linked to CB1. However, abuse potential of CB2 agonists is unknown.”

“We used a drug self-administration approach to ask whether rats with a spared nerve injury (SNI) would self-medicate with a CB2 agonist to attenuate a neuropathic pain state…”

 “Our results suggest that cannabinoid CB2 agonists may be exploited to treat neuropathic pain with limited drug abuse liability and central nervous system (CNS) side-effects. These studies validate the use of drug self-administration methods for identifying nonpsychotropic analgesics possessing limited abuse potential…”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157548/

Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial.

Posted on by
Reply

“In 1999, a report of the United States Institute of Medicine recommended further investigations of the possible benefits of cannabis (marijuana) as a medicinal agent for a variety of conditions, including neuropathic pain due to HIV distal sensory polyneuropathy (DSPN). The most abundant active ingredient in cannabis, tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC), and its synthetic derivatives, produce effective analgesia in most animal models of pain. The antinociceptive effects of THC are mediated through cannabinoid receptors (CB1, CB2) in the central and peripheral nervous systems, which in turn interact with noradrenergic and κ-opioid systems in the spinal cord to modulate the perception of painful stimuli. The endogenous ligand of CB1, anandamide, itself is an effective antinociceptive agent. In open-label clinical trials and one recent controlled trial, medicinal cannabis has shown preliminary efficacy in relieving neuropathic pain.”

“We conducted a clinical trial to assess the impact of smoked cannabis on neuropathic pain in HIV. This was a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of analgesia with smoked cannabis in HIV-associated distal sensory predominant polyneuropathy (DSPN).”

 “…pain relief was greater with cannabis than placebo…”

 “Smoked cannabis was generally well tolerated and effective when added to concomitant analgesic therapy in patients with medically refractory pain due to HIV DSPN.”

“Our findings suggest that cannabinoid therapy may be an effective option for pain relief in patients with medically intractable pain due to HIV-associated DSPN.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066045/

Antihyperalgesic effect of a Cannabis sativa extract in a rat model of neuropathic pain: mechanisms involved.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“This study aimed to give a rationale for the employment of phytocannabinoid formulations to treat neuropathic pain. It was found that a controlled cannabis extract, containing multiple cannabinoids, in a defined ratio, and other non-cannabinoid fractions (terpenes and flavonoids) provided better antinociceptive efficacy than the single cannabinoid given alone, when tested in a rat model of neuropathic pain. The results also demonstrated that such an antihyperalgesic effect did not involve the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors, whereas it was mediated by vanilloid receptors TRPV1. The non-psychoactive compound, cannabidiol, is the only component present at a high level in the extract able to bind to this receptor: thus cannabidiol was the drug responsible for the antinociceptive behaviour observed. In addition, the results showed that after chronic oral treatment with cannabis extract the hepatic total content of cytochrome P450 was strongly inhibited as well as the intestinal P-glycoprotein activity. It is suggested that the inhibition of hepatic metabolism determined an increased bioavailability of cannabidiol resulting in a greater effect. However, in the light of the well known antioxidant and antiinflammatory properties of terpenes and flavonoids which could significantly contribute to the therapeutic effects, it cannot be excluded that the synergism observed might be achieved also in the absence of the cytochrome P450 inhibition.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18618522

Smoked cannabis for spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Posted on by
1

“Spasticity is a common and disabling symptom that remains a substantial problem for many patients with multiple sclerosis. Some patients have adverse effects from conventional antispasticity medications; for others, spasticity persists despite treatment. A report from the Institute of Medicine in the United States concluded that the active compounds of cannabis (marijuana) are potentially effective in treating neurologic conditions and “should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.” There is evidence that the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 may be involved in the control of spasticity in multiple sclerosis2 and that the endogenous ligand of CB1, anandamide, is itself an effective antispasticity agent.3 CB1 receptors are primarily presynaptic; their activation inhibits calcium influx and glutamate release, and reduces neuronal excitability by activating somatic and dendritic potassium channels.“

“Although many patients with multiple sclerosis endorse smoking cannabis as therapy, evidence that it relieves spasticity is largely anecdotal, as most trials focus on orally administered cannabinoids. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of smoked cannabis versus placebo in patients with multiple sclerosis who have treatment-resistant spasticity.”

“Smoked cannabis was superior to placebo in symptom and pain reduction in participants with treatment-resistant spasticity. Future studies should examine whether different doses can result in similar beneficial effects with less cognitive impact.”

“No serious adverse events occurred during the trial.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394820/

Cannabinoid Receptor as a Novel Target for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

“Because prostate cancer has become the most common cancer diagnosed in men, developing novel targets and mechanism-based agents for its treatment has become a challenging issue. In recent years cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa Linnaeus (marijuana) and their derivatives have drawn renewed attention because of their diverse pharmacologic activities such as cell growth inhibition, anti-inflammatory effects, and tumor regression . Cannabinoids have been shown to induce apoptosis in gliomas, PC-12 pheochromocytoma, CHP 100 neuroblastoma, and hippocampal neurons in vitro, and most interestingly, regression of C6-cell gliomas in vivo. Further interest in cannabinoid research came from the discovery of specific cannabinoid systems and the cloning of specific cannabinoid receptors. These diversified effects of cannabinoids are now known to be mediated by the activation of specific G protein-coupled receptors that are normally bound by a family of endogenous ligands, the endocannabinoids. Two different cannabinoid receptors have been characterized and cloned from mammalian tissues: the “central” CB1 receptor, and the “peripheral” CB2 receptor.”

“In the present study, we show for the first time that expression levels of both cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, are higher in human prostate cancer cells than in normal cells. Importantly, we also show that WIN-55,212-2 (CB1/CB2 agonist) treatment with androgen-responsive LNCaP cells results in a dose- and time-dependent inhibition of cell growth with a concomitant induction of apoptosis, decrease in protein and mRNA expression of androgen receptor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), decrease in secreted PSA levels, protein expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). We suggest that cannabinoid receptor agonists may be useful in the treatment of human prostate cancer.”

“…non–habit-forming cannabinoid receptor agonists could be developed as novel therapeutic agents for the treatment of prostate cancer.”

“We conclude that cannabinoids should be considered as agents for the management of prostate cancer.”

.http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/5/1635.long

Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist-induced Apoptosis of Human Prostate Cancer Cells LNCaP Proceeds through Sustained Activation of ERK1/2 Leading to G1 Cell Cycle Arrest

Posted on by
1

“Prostate cancer (CaP)2 ranks as the most common noncutaneous malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in American males, with similar trends in many Western countries…The major cause of mortality from this disease is metastasis of hormone refractory cancer cells that fail to respond to hormone ablation therapy. Because surgery and current treatment options have proven to be inadequate in treating and controlling CaP, the search for novel targets and mechanism-based agents for prevention and treatment of this disease has become a priority.”

“In recent years, cannabinoids the active components of Cannabis sativa linnaeus (marijuana) and their derivatives are drawing renewed attention because of their diverse pharmacological activities such as cell growth inhibition, anti-inflammatory effects, and tumor regression. Further interest in cannabinoid research came from the discovery of the cannabinoid system and the cloning of specific cannabinoid receptors. Two cannabinoid receptors have been identified: the “central” CB1 and the “peripheral” CB2 receptor. In a recent study, we have shown that WIN 55,212-2 a mixed CB1/CB2 receptor agonist imparts cell growth inhibitory effects in LNCaP cells via an induction of apoptosis. An important observation of this study was that WIN 55,212-2 treatment did not result in apoptosis of the normal prostate epithelial cell at similar doses.”

“Cannabinoids and their derivatives are drawing considerable attention in the treatment of cancer because of their diverse activities such as cell growth inhibition, anti-inflammatory effects, and tumor regression. Accumulated evidence indicates that cannabinoid receptor(s) could be an important target for the treatment of cancer. We have earlier shown that WIN-55,212-2 induced apoptosis of prostate cancer LNCaP cells is mediated through CB1 and CB2 receptors and suggested that these receptors could be an important targets for the treatment of prostate cancer…”

“Hence, we conclude that cannabinoid receptor agonist should be considered as an effective agent for the treatment of prostate cancer. If our hypothesis is supported by in vivo experiments, the long term implications of our study could be to develop nonhabit-forming cannabinoid agonist (s) for the management of prostate cancer.”

http://www.jbc.org/content/281/51/39480.long

Neuroprotective agents: cannabinoids.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Chronic inflammation and neurodegeneration are the main pathological traits of multiple sclerosis that coexist in all stages of the disease course, with complex and still nonclarified relationships. Currently licensed medications have efficacy to control aspects related to inflammation, but have been unable to modify pure progression. Experimental work has provided robust evidence of the immunomodulatory and neuroprotective properties that cannabinoids exert in animal models of multiple sclerosis. Through activation of the CB2 receptor, cannabinoids modulate peripheral blood lymphocytes, interfere with migration across the blood-brain barrier and control microglial/macrophage activation. CB1 receptors present in neural cells have a fundamental role in direct neuroprotection against several insults, mainly excitotoxicity. In multiple sclerosis, several reports have documented the disturbance of the endocannabinoid system. Considering the actions demonstrated experimentally, cannabinoids might be promising agents to target the main aspects of the human disease.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365

The neuroprotective effect of cannabidiol in an in vitro model of newborn hypoxic-ischemic brain damage in mice is mediated by CB(2) and adenosine receptors.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“To investigate the mechanisms involved in cannabidiol (CBD)-induced neuroprotection in hypoxic-ischemic (HI) immature brain, forebrain slices from newborn mice underwent oxygen and glucose deprivation in the presence of vehicle, or CBD alone or with selective antagonists of cannabinoid CB(1) and CB(2), and adenosine A(1) and A(2) receptors. CBD reduced acute (LDH efflux to the incubation medium) and apoptotic (caspase-9 concentration in tissue) HI brain damage by reducing glutamate and IL-6 concentration, and TNFalpha, COX-2, and iNOS expression. CBD effects were reversed by the CB(2) antagonist AM630 and by the A(2A) antagonist SCH58261. The A(1A) antagonist DPCPX only counteracted the CBD reduction of glutamate release, while the CB(1) antagonist SR141716 did not modify any effect of CBD. In conclusion, CBD induces robust neuroprotection in immature brain, by acting on some of the major mechanisms underlying HI cell death; these effects are mediated by CB(2) and adenosine, mainly A(2A), receptors.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19900555

Cannabinoids provide neuroprotection against 6-hydroxydopamine toxicity in vivo and in vitro: relevance to Parkinson’s disease.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Cannabinoids have been reported to provide neuroprotection in acute and chronic neurodegeneration. In this study, we examined whether they are also effective against the toxicity caused by 6-hydroxydopamine, both in vivo and in vitro, which may be relevant to Parkinson’s disease (PD). First, we evaluated whether the administration of cannabinoids in vivo reduces the neurodegeneration produced by a unilateral injection of 6-hydroxydopamine into the medial forebrain bundle. As expected, 2 weeks after the application of this toxin, a significant depletion of dopamine contents and a reduction of tyrosine hydroxylase activity in the lesioned striatum were noted, and were accompanied by a reduction in tyrosine hydroxylase-mRNA levels in the substantia nigra. None of these events occurred in the contralateral structures. Daily administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC) during these 2 weeks produced a significant waning in the magnitude of these reductions, whereas it failed to affect dopaminergic parameters in the contralateral structures. This effect of delta9-THC appeared to be irreversible since interruption of the daily administration of this cannabinoid after the 2-week period did not lead to the re-initiation of the 6-hydroxydopamine-induced neurodegeneration. In addition, the fact that the same neuroprotective effect was also produced by cannabidiol (CBD), another plant-derived cannabinoid with negligible affinity for cannabinoid CB1 receptors, suggests that the antioxidant properties of both compounds, which are cannabinoid receptor-independent, might be involved in these in vivo effects, although an alternative might be that the neuroprotection exerted by both compounds might be due to their anti-inflammatory potential. As a second objective, we examined whether cannabinoids also provide neuroprotection against the in vitro toxicity of 6-hydroxydopamine. We found that the non-selective cannabinoid agonist HU-210 increased cell survival in cultures of mouse cerebellar granule cells exposed to this toxin. However, this effect was significantly lesser when the cannabinoid was directly added to neuronal cultures than when these cultures were exposed to conditioned medium obtained from mixed glial cell cultures treated with HU-210, suggesting that the cannabinoid exerted its major protective effect by regulating glial influence to neurons. In summary, our results support the view of a potential neuroprotective action of cannabinoids against the in vivo and in vitro toxicity of 6-hydroxydopamine, which might be relevant for PD. Our data indicated that these neuroprotective effects might be due, among others, to the antioxidant properties of certain plant-derived cannabinoids, or exerted through the capability of cannabinoid agonists to modulate glial function, or produced by a combination of both mechanisms.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15837565

The seek of neuroprotection: introducing cannabinoids.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The cannabinoid system is constituted by some endogenous ligands (endocannabinoids), usually arachydonic acid derivatives, and their specific receptors. The endogenous cannabinoid system (ECS) is involved in the control of synaptic transmission, modulating memory, motivation, movement, nociception, appetite and thermoregulation. ECS also exert extraneural effects, mainly immunomodulation and vasodilation. Two cannabinoid receptors have been cloned so far: CB(1) receptors are expressed in the central nervous system (CNS) but can also be found in glial cells and in peripheral tissues; CB(1) receptors are Gi/o protein coupled receptors that modulate the activity of several plasma membrane proteins and intracellular signaling pathways. CB(2) receptors are also Gi/o protein-coupled receptors; although it is accepted that CB(2) receptors are not expressed in forebrain neurons, they have been described in activated glia. Some of the cannabinoids activate other receptors, for instance vanilloid receptors (TRPV1). Lately, the ECS is emerging as a natural system of neuroprotection. This consideration is based on some properties of cannabinoids as their vasodilatory effect, the inhibition of the release of excitotoxic amino acids and cytokines, and the modulation of oxidative stress and toxic production of nitric oxide. Such effects have been demonstrated in adult and newborn animal models of acute and chronic neurodegenerative conditions, and postulate cannabinoids as valuable neuroprotective agents. Patents related to cannabinoid receptors are also discussed.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18221224