Category Archives: Uncategorized

The endocannabinoid-CB(1) receptor system in pre- and postnatal life.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Recent research suggests that the endogenous cannabinoids (“endocannabinoids”) and their cannabinoid receptors have a major influence during pre- and postnatal development. First, high levels of the endocannaboid anandamide and cannabinoid receptors are present in the preimplantation embryo and in the uterus, while a temporary reduction of anandamide levels is essential for embryonal implantation. In women accordingly, an inverse association has been reported between fatty acid amide hydrolase (the anandamide degrading enzyme) in human lymphocytes and miscarriage. Second, CB(1) receptors display a transient presence in white matter areas of the pre- and postnatal nervous system, suggesting a role for CB(1) receptors in brain development. Third, endocannabinoids have been detected in maternal milk and activation of CB(1) receptors appears to be critical for milk sucking by newborn mice, apparently activating oral-motor musculature. Fourth, anandamide has neuroprotectant properties in the developing postnatal brain. Finally, prenatal exposure to the active constituent of marihuana (Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol) or to anandamide affects prefrontal cortical functions, memory and motor and addictive behaviors, suggesting a role for the endocannabinoid CB(1) receptor system in the brain structures which control these functions. Further observations suggest that children may be less prone to psychoactive side effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol or endocannabinoids than adults. The medical implications of these novel developments are far reaching and suggest a promising future for cannabinoids in pediatric medicine for conditions including “non-organic failure-to-thrive” and cystic fibrosis.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15464041

The phylogenetic distribution and evolutionary origins of endocannabinoid signalling.

Posted on by

Abstract

“The endocannabinoid signalling system in mammals comprises several molecular components, including cannabinoid receptors (e.g. CB1, CB2), putative endogenous ligands for these receptors [e.g. anandamide, 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG)] and enzymes involved in the biosynthesis and inactivation of anandamide (e.g. NAPE-PLD, FAAH) and 2-AG (e.g. DAG lipase, MGL). In this review we examine the occurrence of these molecules in non-mammalian organisms (in particular, animals and plants) by surveying published data and by basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) analysis of the GenBank database and of genomic sequence data from several vertebrate and invertebrate species. We conclude that the ability of cells to synthesise molecules that are categorised as “endocannabinoids” in mammals is an evolutionarily ancient phenomenon that may date back to the unicellular common ancestor of animals and plants. However, exploitation of these molecules for intercellular signalling may have occurred independently in different lineages during the evolution of the eukaryotes. The CB1- and CB2-type receptors that mediate effects of endocannabinoids in mammals occur throughout the vertebrates, and an orthologue of vertebrate cannabinoid receptors was recently identified in the deuterostomian invertebrate Ciona intestinalis (CiCBR). However, orthologues of the vertebrate cannabinoid receptors are not found in protostomian invertebrates (e.g. Drosophila, Caenorhabditis elegans). Therefore, it is likely that a CB1/CB2-type cannabinoid receptor originated in a deuterostomian invertebrate. This phylogenetic information provides a basis for exploitation of selected non-mammalian organisms as model systems for research on endocannabinoid signalling”

.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596778

Cannabinoid signalling in the enteric nervous system.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Cannabinoid signalling is an important mechanism of synaptic modulation in the nervous system. Endogenous cannabinoids (anandamide and 2-arachidonyl-glycerol) are synthesized and released via calcium-activated biosynthetic pathways. Exogenous cannabinoids and endocannabinoids act on CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1 receptors are neuronal receptors which couple via G-proteins to inhibition of adenylate cyclase or to activation or inhibition of ion channels. CB2 receptors are expressed by immune cells and cannabinoids can suppress immune function. In the central nervous system, the endocannabinoids may function as retrograde signals released by the postsynaptic neuron to inhibit neurotransmitter release from presynaptic nerve terminals. Enteric neurons also express CB receptors. Exogenously applied CB receptor agonists inhibit enteric neuronal activity but it is not clear if endocannabinoids released by enteric neurons can produce similar responses in the enteric nervous system (ENS). In this issue of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Boesmans et al. show that CB1 receptor activation on myenteric neurons maintained in primary culture can suppress neuronal activity, inhibit synaptic transmission and mitochondrial transport along axons. They also provide initial evidence that myenteric neurons (or other cell types present in the cultures) release endocannabinoids and which activate CB1 receptors constitutively. These data provide new information about targets for cannabinoid signalling in the ENS and highlight the potential importance of CB receptors as drug targets. It is necessary that future work extends these interesting findings to intact tissues and ideally to the in vivo setting.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19689654

The neurobiology and evolution of cannabinoid signalling.

Posted on by

Abstract

“The plant Cannabis sativa has been used by humans for thousands of years because of its psychoactivity. The major psychoactive ingredient of cannabis is Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, which exerts effects in the brain by binding to a G-protein-coupled receptor known as the CB1 cannabinoid receptor. The discovery of this receptor indicated that endogenous cannabinoids may occur in the brain, which act as physiological ligands for CB1. Two putative endocannabinoid ligands, arachidonylethanolamide (‘anandamide’) and 2-arachidonylglycerol, have been identified, giving rise to the concept of a cannabinoid signalling system. Little is known about how or where these compounds are synthesized in the brain and how this relates to CB1 expression. However, detailed neuroanatomical and electrophysiological analysis of mammalian nervous systems has revealed that the CB1 receptor is targeted to the presynaptic terminals of neurons where it acts to inhibit release of ‘classical’ neurotransmitters. Moreover, an enzyme that inactivates endocannabinoids, fatty acid amide hydrolase, appears to be preferentially targeted to the somatodendritic compartment of neurons that are postsynaptic to CB1-expressing axon terminals. Based on these findings, we present here a model of cannabinoid signalling in which anandamide is synthesized by postsynaptic cells and acts as a retrograde messenger molecule to modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic terminals. Using this model as a framework, we discuss the role of cannabinoid signalling in different regions of the nervous system in relation to the characteristic physiological actions of cannabinoids in mammals, which include effects on movement, memory, pain and smooth muscle contractility. The discovery of the cannabinoid signalling system in mammals has prompted investigation of the occurrence of this pathway in non-mammalian animals. Here we review the evidence for the existence of cannabinoid receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates and invertebrates and discuss the evolution of the cannabinoid signalling system. Genes encoding orthologues of the mammalian CB1 receptor have been identified in a fish, an amphibian and a bird, indicating that CB1 receptors may occur throughout the vertebrates. Pharmacological actions of cannabinoids and specific binding sites for cannabinoids have been reported in several invertebrate species, but the molecular basis for these effects is not known. Importantly, however, the genomes of the protostomian invertebrates Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans do not contain CB1 orthologues, indicating that CB1-like cannabinoid receptors may have evolved after the divergence of deuterostomes (e.g. vertebrates and echinoderms) and protostomes. Phylogenetic analysis of the relationship of vertebrate CB1 receptors with other G-protein-coupled receptors reveals that the paralogues that appear to share the most recent common evolutionary origin with CB1 are lysophospholipid receptors, melanocortin receptors and adenosine receptors. Interestingly, as with CB1, each of these receptor types does not appear to have Drosophila orthologues, indicating that this group of receptors may not occur in protostomian invertebrates. We conclude that the cannabinoid signalling system may be quite restricted in its phylogenetic distribution, probably occurring only in the deuterostomian clade of the animal kingdom and possibly only in vertebrates.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11316486

Cannabinoid receptors: nomenclature and pharmacological principles.

Posted on by

Abstract

“The CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors are members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family that are pharmacologically well defined. However, the discovery of additional sites of action for endocannabinoids as well as synthetic cannabinoid compounds suggests the existence of additional cannabinoid receptors. Here we review this evidence, as well as the current nomenclature for classifying a target as a cannabinoid receptor. Basic pharmacological definitions, principles and experimental conditions are discussed in order to place in context the mechanisms underlying cannabinoid receptor activation. Constitutive (agonist-independent) activity is observed with the overexpression of many GPCRs, including cannabinoid receptors. Allosteric modulators can alter the pharmacological responses of cannabinoid receptors. The complex molecular architecture of each of the cannabinoid receptors allows for a single receptor to recognize multiple classes of compounds and produce an array of distinct downstream effects. Natural polymorphisms and alternative splice variants may also contribute to their pharmacological diversity. As our knowledge of the distinct differences grows, we may be able to target select receptor conformations and their corresponding pharmacological responses. Importantly, the basic biology of the endocannabinoid system will continue to be revealed by ongoing investigations.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22421596

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

The cannabis withdrawal syndrome.

Posted on by

Abstract

“PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

The demand for treatment for cannabis dependence has grown dramatically. The majority of the people who enter the treatment have difficulty in achieving and maintaining abstinence from cannabis. Understanding the impact of cannabis withdrawal syndrome on quit attempts is of obvious importance. Cannabis, however, has long been considered a ‘soft’ drug, and many continue to question whether one can truly become dependent on cannabis. Skepticism is typically focused on whether cannabis use can result in ‘physiological’ dependence or withdrawal, and whether withdrawal is of clinical importance.

RECENT FINDINGS:

The neurobiological basis for cannabis withdrawal has been established via discovery of an endogenous cannabinoid system, identification of cannabinoid receptors, and demonstrations of precipitated withdrawal with cannabinoid receptor antagonists. Laboratory studies have established the reliability, validity, and time course of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome and have begun to explore the effect of various medications on such withdrawal. Reports from clinical samples indicate that the syndrome is common among treatment seekers.

SUMMARY:

A clinically important withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis dependence has been established. Additional research must determine how cannabis withdrawal affects cessation attempts and the best way to treat its symptoms.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16612207

Adverse effects of cannabis. (2011)

Posted on by

Abstract

“Cannabis, Cannabis sativa L., is used to produce a resin that contains high levels of cannabinoids, particularly delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which are psychoactive substances. Although cannabis use is illegal in France and in many other countries, it is widely used for its relaxing or euphoric effects, especially by adolescents and young adults. What are the adverse effects of cannabis on health? During consumption? And in the long term? Does cannabis predispose users to the development of psychotic disorders? To answer these questions, we reviewed the available evidence using the standard Prescrire methodology. The long-term adverse effects of cannabis are difficult to evaluate. Since and associated substances, with or without the user’s knowledge. Tobacco and alcohol consumption, and particular lifestyles and behaviours are often associated with cannabis use. Some traits predispose individuals to the use of psychoactive substances in general. The effects of cannabis are dosedependent.The most frequently report-ed adverse effects are mental slowness, impaired reaction times, and sometimes accentuation of anxiety. Serious psychological disorders have been reported with high levels of intoxication. The relationship between poor school performance and early, regular, and frequent cannabis use seems to be a vicious circle, in which each sustains the other. Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations. In Australia, the marked increase in cannabis use has not been accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia. On the basis of the available data, we cannot reach firm conclusions on whether or not cannabis use causes psychosis. It seems prudent to inform apparently vulnerable individuals that cannabis may cause acute psychotic decompensation, especially at high doses. Users can feel dependent on cannabis, but this dependence is usually psychological. Withdrawal symptoms tend to occur within 48 hours following cessation of regular cannabis use, and include increased irritability, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, sleep difficulties and aggression. Symptoms subside within 2 to 12 weeks. Driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of causing a fatal road accident. Alcohol consumption plays an even greater role. A few studies and a number of isolated reports suggest that cannabis has a role in the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse effects, especially in patients with coronary heart disease. Numerous case-control studies have investigated the role of cannabis in the incidence of some types of cancer. Its role has not been ruled out, but it is not possible to determine whether the risk is distinct from that of the tobacco with which it is often smoked. Studies that have examined the influence of cannabis use on the clinical course of hepatitis C are inconclusive. Alcohol remains the main toxic agent that hepatitis C patients should avoid. In practice, the adverse effects of low-level, recreational cannabis use are generally minor, although they can apparently be serious in vulnerable individuals. The adverse effects of cannabis appear overall to be less serious than those of alcohol, in terms of neuropsychological and somatic effects, accidents and violence.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21462790

Cannabis–1988.

Posted on by

Abstract

“In this updating review of research on cannabis particular attention has been paid to the increasing number of studies of the disposition of the components of cannabis in man, as well as possible effects on health. Specific binding sites for cannaboids have not been demonstrated. Approximately 80 metabolites of tetrahydrocannabiol (THC) have been discovered, of which 11-OH-THC is the main metabolite, but it contributes little to the overall effect when the drug is smoked or given intravenously. The minimum plasma level of THC associated with the psychotropic effect is 25 ng/ml. Cannabis may produce directly an acute panic reaction, a toxic delirium, and acute paranoid state, or acute mania. Cannabis use may aggrevate schizophrenia, but it is much less certain whether it can lead to sociopathy or even to “amotivational syndrome”. Despite widespread use of cannabis in virtually all parts of the world, no catastrophic effects on health have been noted. Cannabis appears to be relatively safe as compared with current social drugs. It is, however, still too early in the history of the present episode of cannabis use to be sanguine about possible bad effects.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2852450

Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Posted on by

Abstract

“Eighty evaluable patients receiving chemotherapy were entered on a random prospective double-blind study to evaluate the effectiveness of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, compared to prochlorperazine. Most of these patients received cisplatin, a drug that universally produces severe nausea and vomiting, as part of a combination chemotherapy regimen. The patients served as their own controls, receiving either nabilone or prochlorperazine during two consecutive treatment courses with the identical chemotherapy. Side effects consisting of hypotension and lethargy were more pronounced with nabilone. Toxicity, in general, did not preclude antiemetic treatment and in no way interfered with chemotherapy. Sixty patients (75 per cent) reported nabilone to be more effective than prochlorperazine for relief of nausea and vomiting. Of these 60 patients, 46 required further chemotherapy and continued taking nabilone as the antiemetic of choice.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6271844