Tag Archives: cannabinoid receptors

Cannabis and cannabinoid receptors.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Cannabis and cannabinoids exert many of their biological functions through receptor-mediated mechanisms. Two types of cannabinoid receptors have been identified, namely CB(1) and CB(2), both coupled to a G protein. CB(1) receptors have been detected in the central nervous system (where they are responsible for the characteristic effects of Cannabis, including catalepsy, depression of motor activity, analgesia and feelings of relaxation and well being) and in peripheral neurons (where their activation produces a suppression in neurotransmitter release in the heart, bladder, intestine and vas deferens). Cannabinoid CB(2) receptors have only been detected outside the central nervous system, mostly in cells of the immune system, presumably mediating cannabinoid-induced immunosuppression and antinflammatory effects. With the discovery of cannabinoid receptors for exogenous cannabinoids, also endogenous cannabinoids (anandamide, 2-arachidonylglycerol) have been described.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10930707

CB₁-independent mechanisms of Δ⁹-THCV, AM251 and SR141716 (rimonabant).

Posted on by

Abstract

“WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE:

The potential beneficial therapeutic effects of cannabinoid CB₁ receptor antagonists or partial agonists have driven drug discovery and development efforts and have led to clinical candidates. It is generally assumed that these compounds are CB₁ ‘selective’ and produce their effects exclusively via CB₁ receptors.

METHODS:

A literature search was conducted of preclinical publications containing information about non-CB₁ receptor pharmacology of these agents. The information was summarized and evaluated from the perspective of contribution to a fuller understanding of this aspect of these compounds.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

A number of recent studies have revealed that these compounds have CB₁-independent pharmacological actions. We highlight the evidence regarding effects produced in cells lacking CB₁ receptors, effects on neuronal membranes from CB₁ receptor-deficient mutant KO ‘knockout’ mice and affinity for μ-opioid receptors.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION:

CB₁ ‘selective’ antagonists and partial agonists have been studied for their anorexigenic and other potential therapeutic uses. An awareness of CB₁-independent mechanism(s) of these agents might contribute to a better understanding of the pharmacologic and toxicologic profiles of these agents.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21740450

Cannabis reinforcement and dependence: role of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Awareness of cannabis dependence as a clinically relevant issue has grown in recent years. Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that chronic marijuana smokers can experience withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of marijuana smoking and have difficulty abstaining from marijuana use. This paper will review data implicating the cannabinoid CB1 receptor in regulating the behavioral effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannobinol (THC), the primary psycho-active component of cannabis, across a range of species. The behavioral effects that will be discussed include those that directly contribute to the maintenance of chronic marijuana smoking, such as reward, subjective effects, and the positive and negative reinforcing effects of marijuana, THC and synthetic cannabinoids. The role of the CB1 receptor in the development of marijuana dependence and expression of withdrawal will also be discussed. Lastly, treatment options that may alleviate withdrawal symptoms and promote marijuana abstinence will be considered.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731704/

Substitution profile of the cannabinoid agonist nabilone in human subjects discriminating δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Posted on by

Abstract

“OBJECTIVES:

The central effects of Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-THC), the primary active constituent of cannabis, are attributed to cannabinoid CB1 receptor activity, although clinical evidence is limited. Drug discrimination has proven useful for examining the neuropharmacology of drugs, as data are concordant with the actions of a drug at the receptor level. The aim of this study was to determine the profile of behavioral and physiological effects of the cannabinoid agonist nabilone in humans trained to discriminate Δ-THC.

METHODS:

Six cannabis users learned to identify when they received oral Δ-THC (25 mg) or placebo and then received a range of doses of the cannabinoid agonists nabilone (1, 2, 3, and 5 mg) and Δ-THC (5, 10, 15, and 25 mg). The dopamine reuptake inhibitor methylphenidate (5, 10, 20, and 30 mg) was included as a negative control. Subjects completed the Multiple-Choice Procedure, and self-report, task performance, and physiological measures were collected.

RESULTS:

Nabilone shared discriminative-stimulus effects with the training dose of Δ-THC, produced subject-rated drug effects that were comparable to those of Δ-THC, and increased heart rate. Methylphenidate did not engender Δ-THC-like discriminative-stimulus effects.

CONCLUSIONS:

These data demonstrate that the interoceptive effects of nabilone are similar to Δ-THC in cannabis users. The overlap in their behavioral effects is likely due to their shared mechanism as CB1 receptor agonists. Given the relative success of agonist replacement therapy to manage opioid, tobacco, and stimulant dependence, these results also support the evaluation of nabilone as a potential medication for cannabis-use disorders.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838217

Recent advantages in cannabinoid research.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Although the active component of cannabis Delta9-THC was isolated by our group 35 years ago, until recently its mode of action remained obscure. In the last decade it was established that Delta9-THC acts through specific receptors – CB1 and CB2 – and mimics the physiological activity of endogenous cannabinoids of two types, the best known representatives being arachidonoylethanolamide (anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG). THC is officially used against vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy and for enhancing appetite, particularly in AIDS patients. Illegally, usually by smoking marijuana, it is used for ameliorating the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, against pain, and in a variety of other diseases. A synthetic cannabinoid, HU-211, is in advanced clinical tests against brain damage caused by closed head injury. It may prove to be valuable against stroke and other neurological diseases.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10575284

Central and peripheral mechanisms contribute to the antiemetic actions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol against 5-hydroxytryptophan-induced emesis.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) prevents cisplatin-induced emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. Whether central and/or peripheral cannabinoid CB(1) receptors account for the antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC remains to be investigated. The 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT=serotonin) precursor, 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP), is an indirect 5-HT agonist and simultaneously produces the head-twitch response (a centrally mediated serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptor-induced behavior) and emesis (a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor-induced response, mediated by both peripheral and central mechanisms) in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva). The peripheral amino acid decarboxylase inhibitor, carbidopa, prevents the conversion of 5-HTP to 5-HT in the periphery and elevates 5-HTP levels in the central nervous system (CNS). When administered i.p. alone, a 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP failed to induce either behaviour while its 100 mg/kg dose produced robust frequencies of both head-twitch response and emesis. Pretreatment with carbidopa (0, 10, 20 and 40 mg/kg) potentiated the ability of both doses of 5-HTP to produce the head-twitch response in a dose-dependent but bell-shaped manner, with maximal potentiation occurring at 20 mg/kg carbidopa. Carbidopa dose-dependently reduced the frequency of 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced emesis, whereas the 10 mg/kg dose potentiated, and the 20 and 40 mg/kg doses suppressed the frequency of vomits produced by the 50 mg/kg dose of 5-HTP. The peripheral and/or central antiemetic action(s) of delta-9-THC (0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg) against 5-HTP (100 mg/kg)-induced head-twitch response and emesis were investigated in different groups of carbidopa (0, 10 and 20 mg/kg) pretreated shrews. Irrespective of carbidopa treatment, delta-9-THC attenuated the frequency of 5-HTP-induced head-twitch response in a dose-dependent manner with similar ID(50) values. Although delta-9-THC also reduced the frequency of 5-HTP-induced emesis with similar ID(50s), at the 5 mg/kg delta-9-THC dose however, 5-HTP induced significantly less vomits in the 10 and 20 mg/kg carbidopa-treated groups relative to its 0 mg/kg control group. Moreover, increasing doses of carbidopa significantly shifted the inhibitory dose-response effect of delta-9-THC in protecting shrews from 5-HTP-induced emesis to the left. Relatively, a large dose of delta-9-THC (20 mg/kg) was required to significantly reduce the number of vomits produced by direct acting serotonergic 5-HT(3) receptor agonists, serotonin and 2-methylserotonin. Low doses of delta-9-THC (0.1-1 mg/kg) nearly completely prevented 2-methylserotonin-induced, centrally mediated, head-twitch and ear-scratch responses. The results indicate that delta-9-THC probably acts pre- and postsynaptically to attenuate emesis produced by indirect and direct acting 5-HT(3) receptor agonists via both central and peripheral mechanisms. In addition, delta-9-THC prevents 5-HTP-induced head-twitch and emesis via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors since the CB(1) receptor antagonist, SR 141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide], countered the inhibitory actions of an effective dose of delta-9-THC against both behaviours.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15044052

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol differentially suppresses cisplatin-induced emesis and indices of motor function via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew.

Posted on by

“The present study investigates the cannabinoid receptor mechanisms by which Delta(9)-THC produces its antiemetic effects against cisplatin -induced emesis as well as its cannabimimetic activity profile (motor reduction) in the least shrew.

Intraperitoneal administration of Delta(9)-THC (1, 2.5, 5 and 10 mg/kg) dose-dependently reduced both the percentage of animals vomiting (ID(50)=1.8+/-1.6 mg/kg) and the frequency of vomits (ID(50)=0.36+/-1.18 mg/kg) in a potent manner.

The lowest significantly effective antiemetic dose of Delta(9)-THC for the latter emesis parameters was 2.5 mg/kg. Although Delta(9)-THC reduced the frequency of vomits up to 98%, it failed to completely protect all tested shrews from vomiting (80% protection). The cannabinoid CB(1) antagonist (SR 141716A) and not the CB(2) antagonist (SR 144528), reversed the antiemetic effects of Delta(9)-THC in a dose-dependent fashion. Delta(9)-THC (1, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg, ip) suppressed locomotor parameters (spontaneous locomotor activity, duration of movement and rearing frequency) in a biphasic manner and only the 20-mg/kg dose simultaneously suppressed the triad of locomotor parameters to a significant degree. Subcutaneous (1-10 mg/kg) and intraperitoneal (0.05-40 mg/kg) injection of some doses of SR 141716A caused significant reductions in one or more components of the triad of locomotor parameters but these reductions were not dose dependent. Subcutaneous injection of SR 141716A (0.2, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) reversed the motor suppressant effects of a 20-mg/kg dose of Delta(9)-THC (ip) in a dose-dependent manner. Relative to its motor suppressant effects,

Delta(9)-THC is a more potent antiemetic agent. Both effects are probably mediated via CB(1) receptors in distinct loci.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11420092

http://www.thctotalhealthcare.com/category/nauseavomiting/

Antiemetic and motor-depressive actions of CP55,940: cannabinoid CB1 receptor characterization, distribution, and G-protein activation.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Dibenzopyran (Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol) and aminoalkylindole [R(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-[(morpholinyl)methyl]pyrolol[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-yl]-(1-naphthalenyl) methanone mesylate; (WIN55,212-2)] cannabinoids suppress vomiting produced by cisplatin via cannabinoid CB(1) receptors. This study investigates the antiemetic potential of the “nonclassical” cannabinoid CP55,940 [1alpha,2beta-(R)-5alpha]-(-)-5-(1,1-dimethyl)-2-[5-hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl) cyclohexyl-phenol] against cisplatin-induced vomiting and assesses the presence and functionality of cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva) brain. CP55,940 (0.025-0.3 mg/kg) reduced both the frequency of cisplatin-induced emesis (ID(50)=0.025 mg/kg) and the percentage of shrews vomiting (ID(50)=0.09 mg/kg). CP55,940 also suppressed shrew motor behaviors (ID(50)=0.06- 0.21 mg/kg) at such doses. The antiemetic and motor-suppressant actions of CP55,940 were countered by SR141716A [N-piperidino-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methylpyrazole-3-carboxamide], indicating both effects are cannabinoid CB(1) receptor-mediated. Autoradiographic studies with [3H]-SR141716A and [35S]-GTPgammaS binding revealed that the distribution of the cannabinoid CB(1) receptor and its activation pattern are similar to rodent brain and significant levels are present in brain loci (e.g., nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS)) that control emesis. The affinity rank order of structurally diverse cannabinoid ligands for cannabinoid CB(1) receptor in shrew brain is similar to rodent brain: HU-210=CP55,940=SR141716A>/=WIN55,212-2>/=delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol>methanandamide=HU-211=cannabidiol=2-arachidonoylglycerol. This affinity order is also similar and is highly correlated to the cannabinoid EC(50) potency rank order for GTPgammaS stimulation except WIN55,212-2 and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency order were reversed. The affinity and the potency rank order of tested cannabinoids were significantly correlated with their antiemetic ID(50) potency order against cisplatin-induced vomiting (CP55,940>WIN55,212-2=delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) as well as emesis produced by 2-arachidonoylglycerol or SR141716A (CP55,940>WIN55,212-2>delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12505537

Regulation of nausea and vomiting by cannabinoids.

Posted on by

“Anti-emetic effects of cannabinoids in human clinical trials”

  “Considerable evidence demonstrates that manipulation of the endocannabinoid system regulates nausea and vomiting in humans and other animals. The anti-emetic effect of cannabinoids has been shown across a wide variety of animals that are capable of vomiting in response to a toxic challenge. CB1 agonism suppresses vomiting, which is reversed by CB1 antagonism, and CB1 inverse agonism promotes vomiting. Recently, evidence from animal experiments suggests that cannabinoids may be especially useful in treating the more difficult to control symptoms of nausea and anticipatory nausea in chemotherapy patients, which are less well controlled by the currently available conventional pharmaceutical agents. Although rats and mice are incapable of vomiting, they display a distinctive conditioned gaping response when re-exposed to cues (flavours or contexts) paired with a nauseating treatment. Cannabinoid agonists (Δ9-THC, HU-210) and the fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitor, URB-597, suppress conditioned gaping reactions (nausea) in rats as they suppress vomiting in emetic species. Inverse agonists, but not neutral antagonists, of the CB1 receptor promote nausea, and at subthreshold doses potentiate nausea produced by other toxins (LiCl). The primary non-psychoactive compound in cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD), also suppresses nausea and vomiting within a limited dose range. The anti-nausea/anti-emetic effects of CBD may be mediated by indirect activation of somatodendritic 5-HT1A receptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus; activation of these autoreceptors reduces the release of 5-HT in terminal forebrain regions. Preclinical research indicates that cannabinioids, including CBD, may be effective clinically for treating both nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy or other therapeutic treatments.”

“The cannabis plant has been used for several centuries for a number of therapeutic applications, including the attenuation of nausea and vomiting. Ineffective treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prompted oncologists to investigate the anti-emetic properties of cannabinoids in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the discovery of the 5-HT3 antagonists. The first cannabinoid agonist, nabilone (Cesamet), which is a synthetic analogue of Δ9-THC was specifically licensed for the suppression of nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy. Furthermore, synthetic Δ9-THC, dronabinol, entered the clinic as Marinol in 1985 as an anti-emetic and in 1992 as an appetite stimulant. In these early studies, several clinical trials compared the effectiveness of Δ9-THC with placebo or other anti-emetic drugs. Comparisons of oral Δ9-THC with existing anti-emetic agents generally indicated that Δ9-THC was at least as effective as the dopamine antagonists, such as prochlorperazine.”

“There is some evidence that cannabis-based medicines may be effective in treating the more difficult to control symptoms of nausea and delayed nausea and vomiting in children. Abrahamov et al. (1995) evaluated the anti-emetic effectiveness of Δ8-THC, a close but less psychoactive relative of Δ9-THC, in children receiving chemotherapy treatment. Two hours before the start of each cancer treatment and every six hours thereafter for 24 h, the children were given Δ8-THC as oil drops on the tongue or in a bite of food. After a total of 480 treatments, the only side effects reported were slight irritability in two of the youngest children (3.5 and 4 years old); both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting were controlled.”

“Chemotherapy-induced vomiting is well controlled in most patients by conventionally available drugs, nausea (acute, delayed and anticipatory) continues to be a challenge. Nausea is often reported as more distressing than vomiting, because it is a continuous sensation. Indeed, this distressing symptom of chemotherapy treatment (even when vomiting is pharmacologically controlled) can become so severe that as many as 20% of patients discontinue the treatment. Both preclinical and human clinical research suggests that cannabinoid compounds may have promise in treating nausea in chemotherapy patients.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165951/

The emerging role of cannabinoid neuromodulators in symptom management.

Posted on by

Abstract

“INTRODUCTION:

The cannabinoids nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol) are indicated for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic therapy.

DISCUSSION:

The endocannabinoid (CB) system interacts with numerous other systems and pharmaceutical cannabinoids target ubiquitous CB1 and CB2 receptors in the central nervous system and periphery, relieving nausea and vomiting and pain.

SUMMARY:

The benefits of this novel class of medications in cancer may extend beyond CINV, as indicated by data from preclinical studies and animal models.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17139494