BACKGROUND: Anesthetic mechanisms of nonhalogenated alkanes cyclopropane and butane are not understood. This study was designed to look at which neurotransmitter receptors are possible targets for these anesthetics. METHODS: Effects of cyclopropane and butane on eight recombinant receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes were examined electrophysiologically. To address molecular mechanisms of interaction with glycine and gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA(A)) receptors, cyclopropane was further tested on alpha1(S267C) glycine receptor and alpha2(S270X)beta1 GABA(A) receptors that were mutated to amino acids with larger side chains. RESULTS: Cyclopropane (1, 2, and 5 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]) potentiated glycine responses by 39, 62, and 161%, respectively, and butane (1 MAC) potentiated by 64% with an increase in apparent affinity for glycine, but yielded barely detectable potentiation of GABA(A) receptors. The efficacy of cyclopropane for glycine receptors was less than isoflurane and halothane. The potentiation by cyclopropane was eliminated for the alpha1(S267C) glycine receptor. Mutant GABA(A) receptors in which the corresponding amino acid was substituted with larger amino acids did not produce significant potentiation. Cyclopropane and butane inhibited nicotinic acetylcholine and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, potentiated G-protein-coupled inwardly rectifying potassium channels, and did not change 5-hydroxytryptamine(3A) or muscarinic(1) receptor function. Only cyclopropane markedly inhibited alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptors. CONCLUSIONS: Glycine, nicotinic acetylcholine, and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors are sensitive to nonhalogenated alkanes, and the authors propose that glycine and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors are good candidates for anesthetic immobility. The authors also suggest that the distinct effects on glycine and GABA(A) receptors are not due to the small volumes of these anesthetics.
BACKGROUND: Anesthetic mechanisms of nonhalogenated alkanes cyclopropane and butane are not understood. This study was designed to look at which neurotransmitter receptors are possible targets for these anesthetics. METHODS: Effects of cyclopropane and butane on eight recombinant receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes were examined electrophysiologically. To address molecular mechanisms of interaction with glycine and gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA(A)) receptors, cyclopropane was further tested on alpha1(S267C) glycine receptor and alpha2(S270X)beta1 GABA(A) receptors that were mutated to amino acids with larger side chains. RESULTS:Cyclopropane (1, 2, and 5 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]) potentiated glycine responses by 39, 62, and 161%, respectively, and butane (1 MAC) potentiated by 64% with an increase in apparent affinity for glycine, but yielded barely detectable potentiation of GABA(A) receptors. The efficacy of cyclopropane for glycine receptors was less than isoflurane and halothane. The potentiation by cyclopropane was eliminated for the alpha1(S267C) glycine receptor. Mutant GABA(A) receptors in which the corresponding amino acid was substituted with larger amino acids did not produce significant potentiation. Cyclopropane and butane inhibited nicotinic acetylcholine and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, potentiated G-protein-coupled inwardly rectifying potassium channels, and did not change 5-hydroxytryptamine(3A) or muscarinic(1) receptor function. Only cyclopropane markedly inhibited alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptors. CONCLUSIONS:Glycine, nicotinic acetylcholine, and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors are sensitive to nonhalogenated alkanes, and the authors propose that glycine and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors are good candidates for anesthetic immobility. The authors also suggest that the distinct effects on glycine and GABA(A) receptors are not due to the small volumes of these anesthetics.
Authors: Lana J Mawhinney; Juan Pablo de Rivero Vaccari; Ofelia F Alonso; Christopher A Jimenez; Concepción Furones; W Javier Moreno; Michael C Lewis; W Dalton Dietrich; Helen M Bramlett Journal: Brain Res Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Karl F Herold; R Lea Sanford; William Lee; Olaf S Andersen; Hugh C Hemmings Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Cecilia M Borghese; Wei Xiong; S Irene Oh; Angel Ho; S John Mihic; Li Zhang; David M Lovinger; Gregg E Homanics; Edmond I Eger; R Adron Harris Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.892