Tag Archives: CB1

Cannabinoid (CB1) Receptor Activation Inhibits Trigeminovascular Neurons

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disorder that involves activation or the perception of activation of the trigeminovascular system. Cannabinoid (CB) receptors are present in brain and have been suggested to be antinociceptive. Here we determined the effect of cannabinoid receptor activation on neurons with trigeminovascular nociceptive input in the rat. Neurons in the trigeminocervical complex (TCC) were studied using extracellular electrophysiological techniques. Responses to both dural electrical stimulation and cutaneous facial receptive field activation of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve and the effect of cannabinoid agonists and antagonists were studied. Nonselective CB receptor activation with R(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-[(morpholinyl)methyl]pyrrolo[1,2, 3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-yl]-(1-naphthalenyl) (WIN55,212; 1 mg kg(-1)) inhibited neuronal responses to A-(by 52%) and C-fiber (by 44%) afferents, an effect blocked by the CB(1) receptor antagonist SR141716 [N-(piperidin-1-yl)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide; 3 mg kg(-1)] but not the CB2 receptor antagonist AM630 (6-iodopravadoline; 3 mg kg(-1)). Anandamide (10 mg kg(-1)) was able to inhibit both A- and C-fiber-elicited TCC firing, only after transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 receptor inhibition. Activation of cannabinoid receptors had no effect on cutaneous receptive fields when recorded from TCC neurons. The data show that manipulation of CB1 receptors can affect the responses of trigeminal neurons with A- and C-fiber inputs from the dura mater. This may be a direct effect on neurons in the TCC itself or an effect in discrete areas of the brain that innervate these neurons. The data suggest that CB receptors may have therapeutic potential in migraine, cluster headache, or other primary headaches, although the potential hazards of psychoactive side effects that accompany cannabinoid treatments may be complex to overcome.”

“In conclusion, activation of CB1 receptors is able to inhibit trigeminal neurons with A-fiber and C-fiber input in the TCC in response to activation of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. Anandamide was only able to inhibit neurons with A-fiber inputs after inhibition of the TRPV1 receptor, highlighting the dual agonist properties of anandamide in the brain. These results support an involvement of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor and TRPV1 receptors in trigeminal neuronal firing, helping to further understand the pathophysiology of the trigeminovascular system and indicate potential directions for the development of new therapeutic agents, notwithstanding the potential difficulties of the psychoactive side effects accompanying cannabinoid treatments.”

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/320/1/64.long

The endocannabinoid system and migraine.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The recently discovered endocannabinoid system (ECS), which includes endocannabinoids and the proteins that metabolize and bind them, has been implicated in multiple regulatory functions both in health and disease. Several studies have suggested that ECS is centrally and peripherally involved in the processing of pain signals. This finding is corroborated by the evidence that endocannabinoids inhibit, through a cannabinoid type-1 receptor (CB1R)-dependent retrograde mechanism, the release of neurotransmitters controlling nociceptive inputs and that the levels of these lipids are high in those regions (such as sensory terminals, skin, dorsal root ganglia) known to be involved in transmission and modulation of pain signals. In this review we shall describe experimental and clinical data that, intriguingly, demonstrate the link between endocannabinoids and migraine, a neurovascular disorder characterized by recurrent episodic headaches and caused by abnormal processing of sensory information due to peripheral and/or central sensitization. Although the exact ECS-dependent mechanisms underlying migraine are not fully understood, the available results strongly suggest that activation of ECS could represent a promising therapeutical tool for reducing both the physiological and inflammatory components of pain that are likely involved in migraine attacks.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353780

Endocannabinoids in Chronic Migraine: CSF Findings Suggest a System Failure

Posted on by
1

Abstract

“Based on experimental evidence of the antinociceptive action of endocannabinoids and their role in the modulation of trigeminovascular system activation, we hypothesized that the endocannabinoid system may be dysfunctional in chronic migraine (CM). We examined whether the concentrations of N-arachidonoylethanolamide (anandamide, AEA), palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) in the CSF of patients with CM and with probable CM and probable analgesic-overuse headache (PCM+PAOH) are altered compared with control subjects. The above endocannabinoids were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and quantified by isotope dilution gas-chromatography/mass-spectrometry. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) levels were also determined by RIA method and the end products of nitric oxide (NO), the nitrites, by HPLC. CSF concentrations of AEA were significantly lower and those of PEA slightly but significantly higher both in patients with CM and PCM+PAOH than in nonmigraineur controls (p<0.01 and p<0.02, respectively). A negative correlation was found between AEA and CGRP levels in CM and PCM+PAOH patients (r=0.59, p<0.01 and r=-0.65, p<0.007; respectively). A similar trend was observed between this endocannabinoid and nitrite levels. Reduced levels of AEA in the CSF of CM and PCM+PAOH patients may reflect an impairment of the endocannabinoid system in these patients, which may contribute to chronic head pain and seem to be related to increased CGRP and NO production. These findings support the potential role of the cannabinoid (CB)1 receptor as a possible therapeutic target in CM.

A clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD) has been hypothesized to underlie the pathophysiology of migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and other functional conditions alleviated by clinical cannabis but no clear evidence to support this deficiency has been reported until now in this regard (Russo, 2004).”

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n6/full/1301246a.html

Interictal type 1 cannabinoid receptor binding is increased in female migraine patients.

Posted on by
1

“BACKGROUND:

It has been suggested that endocannabinoid deficiency may play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Nonetheless, biochemical studies substantiating this idea remain scarce and are faced with methodological shortcomings partly because of the difficulty to perform measurements of endocannabinoids within the central nervous system itself.

CONCLUSION:

The increased interictal CB1R binding, especially in brain regions that exert top-down influences to modulate pain, supports the idea that endocannibinoid deficiency is present in female patients suffering from episodic migraine.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22077199

 

Cannabimimetic fatty acid derivatives in cancer and inflammation.

Posted on by
1

“Evidence for the role of the cannabimimetic fatty acid derivatives (CFADs), i.e. anandamide (arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA), 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in the control of inflammation and of the proliferation of tumor cells is reviewed here. The biosynthesis of AEA, PEA, or 2-AG can be induced by stimulation with either Ca(2+) ionophores, lipopolysaccharide, or platelet activating factor in macrophages, and by ionomycin or antigen challenge in rat basophilic leukemia (RBL-2H3) cells (a widely used model for mast cells). These cells also inactivate CFADs through re-uptake and/or hydrolysis and/or esterification processes. AEA and PEA modulate cytokine and/or arachidonate release from macrophages in vitro, regulate serotonin secretion from RBL-2H3 cells, and are analgesic in some animal models of inflammatory pain. However, the involvement of endogenous CFADs and cannabinoid CB(1) and CB(2) receptors in these effects is still controversial. In human breast and prostate cancer cells, AEA and 2-AG, but not PEA, potently inhibit prolactin and/or nerve growth factor (NGF)-induced cell proliferation. Vanillyl-derivatives of anandamide, such as olvanil and arvanil, exhibit even higher anti-proliferative activity. These effects are due to suppression of the levels of the 100 kDa prolactin receptor or of the high affinity NGF receptors (trk), are mediated by CB(1)-like cannabinoid receptors, and are enhanced by other CFADs. Inhibition of adenylyl cyclase and activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase underlie the anti-mitogenic actions of AEA. The possibility that CFADs act as local inhibitors of the proliferation of human breast cancer is discussed here.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10785541

The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation

Posted on by
Reply

“Anandamide was the first brain metabolite shown to act as a ligand of “central” CB1 cannabinoid receptors. Here we report that the endogenous cannabinoid potently and selectively inhibits the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in vitro. Anandamide dose-dependently inhibited the proliferation of MCF-7 and EFM-19 cells with IC50 values between 0.5 and 1.5 microM and 83-92% maximal inhibition at 5-10 microM. The proliferation of several other nonmammary tumoral cell lines was not affected by 10 microM anandamide. The anti-proliferative effect of anandamide was not due to toxicity or to apoptosis of cells but was accompanied by a reduction of cells in the S phase of the cell cycle. A stable analogue of anandamide (R)-methanandamide, another endogenous cannabinoid, 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and the synthetic cannabinoid HU-210 also inhibited EFM-19 cell proliferation, whereas arachidonic acid was much less effective. These cannabimimetic substances displaced the binding of the selective cannabinoid agonist [3H]CP 55, 940 to EFM-19 membranes with an order of potency identical to that observed for the inhibition of EFM-19 cell proliferation. Moreover, anandamide cytostatic effect was inhibited by the selective CB1 receptor antagonist SR 141716A. Cell proliferation was arrested by a prolactin mAb and enhanced by exogenous human prolactin, whose mitogenic action was reverted by very low (0.1-0.5 microM) doses of anandamide. Anandamide suppressed the levels of the long form of the prolactin receptor in both EFM-19 and MCF-7 cells, as well as a typical prolactin-induced response, i.e., the expression of the breast cancer cell susceptibility gene brca1. These data suggest that anandamide blocks human breast cancer cell proliferation through CB1-like receptor-mediated inhibition of endogenous prolactin action at the level of prolactin receptor.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20983/

Anandamide inhibits adhesion and migration of breast cancer cells.

Posted on by
Reply

“The endocannabinoid system regulates cell proliferation in human breast cancer cells. We reasoned that stimulation of cannabinoid CB1 receptors could induce a non-invasive phenotype in breast metastatic cells. In a model of metastatic spreading in vivo, the metabolically stable anandamide analogue, 2-methyl-2′-F-anandamide (Met-F-AEA), significantly reduced the number and dimension of metastatic nodes, this effect being antagonized by the selective CB1 antagonist SR141716A. In MDA-MB-231 cells, a highly invasive human breast cancer cell line, and in TSA-E1 cells, a murine breast cancer cell line, Met-F-AEA inhibited adhesion and migration on type IV collagen in vitro without modifying integrin expression: both these effects were antagonized by SR141716A. In order to understand the molecular mechanism involved in these processes, we analyzed the phosphorylation of FAK and Src, two tyrosine kinases involved in migration and adhesion. In Met-F-AEA-treated cells, we observed a decreased tyrosine phosphorylation of both FAK and Src, this effect being attenuated by SR141716A. We propose that CB1 receptor agonists inhibit tumor cell invasion and metastasis by modulating FAK phosphorylation, and that CB1 receptor activation might represent a novel therapeutic strategy to slow down the growth of breast carcinoma and to inhibit its metastatic diffusion in vivo.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16343481

Cannabinoid receptor 1 is a potential drug target for treatment of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma

Posted on by
3

“Because cannabinoid receptor agonists are capable of reducing proliferation and inducing apoptosis (cell death) in diverse cancer cells such as glioma, breast cancer, and melanoma, we evaluated whether CB1 is a potential drug target in rhabdomyosarcoma.

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft-tissue sarcoma in children…

 Our study shows that treatment with the cannabinoid receptor agonists HU210 (cloned THC from Hebrew University) and Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC from cannabis) lowers the viability of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma cells through the induction of apoptosis…

These results support the notion that cannabinoid receptor agonists could represent a novel targeted approach for treatment of translocation-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.”

Full text: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/8/7/1838.long