BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously reported the development of CB-25 and CB-52, two ligands of CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. We assessed here their functional activity. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The effect of the two compounds on forskolin-induced cAMP formation in intact cells or GTP-gamma-S binding to cell membranes, and their action on nociception in vivo was determined. KEY RESULTS: CB-25 enhanced forskolin-induced cAMP formation in N18TG2 cells (EC50 approximately 20 nM, max. stimulation = 48%), behaving as an inverse CB1 agonist, but it stimulated GTP-gamma-S binding to mouse brain membranes, behaving as a partial CB1 agonist (EC50 =100 nM, max. stimulation = 48%). At human CB1 receptors, CB-25 inhibited cAMP formation in hCB1-CHO cells (EC50 = 1600 nM, max. inhibition = 68% of CP-55,940 effect). CB-52 inhibited forskolin-induced cAMP formation by N18TG2 cells (IC50 = 450 nM, max. inhibition = 40%) and hCB1-CHO cells (EC50 = 2600 nM, max. inhibition = 62% of CP-55,940 effect), and stimulated GTP-gamma-S binding to mouse brain membranes (EC50 = 11 nM, max. stimulation approximately 16%). Both CB-25 and CB-52 showed no activity in all assays of CB2-coupled functional activity and antagonized CP55940-induced stimulation of GTP-gamma-S binding to hCB2-CHO cell membranes. In vivo, both compounds, administered i.p., produced dose-dependent nociception in the plantar test carried out in healthy rats, and antagonised the anti-nociceptive effect of i.p. WIN55,212-2. In the formalin test in mice, however, the compounds counteracted both phases of formalin-induced nociception. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: CB-25 and CB-52 behave in vitro mostly as CB1 partial agonists and CB2 neutral antagonists, whereas their activity in vivo might depend on the tonic activity of cannabinoid receptors.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously reported the development of CB-25 and CB-52, two ligands of CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. We assessed here their functional activity. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The effect of the two compounds on forskolin-induced cAMP formation in intact cells or GTP-gamma-S binding to cell membranes, and their action on nociception in vivo was determined. KEY RESULTS:CB-25 enhanced forskolin-induced cAMP formation in N18TG2 cells (EC50 approximately 20 nM, max. stimulation = 48%), behaving as an inverse CB1 agonist, but it stimulated GTP-gamma-S binding to mouse brain membranes, behaving as a partial CB1 agonist (EC50 =100 nM, max. stimulation = 48%). At humanCB1 receptors, CB-25 inhibited cAMP formation in hCB1-CHO cells (EC50 = 1600 nM, max. inhibition = 68% of CP-55,940 effect). CB-52 inhibited forskolin-induced cAMP formation by N18TG2 cells (IC50 = 450 nM, max. inhibition = 40%) and hCB1-CHO cells (EC50 = 2600 nM, max. inhibition = 62% of CP-55,940 effect), and stimulated GTP-gamma-S binding to mouse brain membranes (EC50 = 11 nM, max. stimulation approximately 16%). Both CB-25 and CB-52 showed no activity in all assays of CB2-coupled functional activity and antagonized CP55940-induced stimulation of GTP-gamma-S binding to hCB2-CHO cell membranes. In vivo, both compounds, administered i.p., produced dose-dependent nociception in the plantar test carried out in healthy rats, and antagonised the anti-nociceptive effect of i.p. WIN55,212-2. In the formalin test in mice, however, the compounds counteracted both phases of formalin-induced nociception. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: CB-25 and CB-52 behave in vitro mostly as CB1 partial agonists and CB2 neutral antagonists, whereas their activity in vivo might depend on the tonic activity of cannabinoid receptors.
Authors: V Di Marzo; T Bisogno; L De Petrocellis; I Brandi; R G Jefferson; R L Winckler; J B Davis; O Dasse; A Mahadevan; R K Razdan; B R Martin Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2001-02-23 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: E Palazzo; I Marabese; V de Novellis; P Oliva; F Rossi; L Berrino; F Rossi; S Maione Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Eduardo Cosendey Bockmann; Rafael Brito; Lucianne Fragel Madeira; Luzia da Silva Sampaio; Ricardo Augusto de Melo Reis; Guilherme Rapozeiro França; Karin da Costa Calaza Journal: Cell Mol Neurobiol Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 4.231
Authors: B Bingham; P G Jones; A J Uveges; S Kotnis; P Lu; V A Smith; S-C Sun; L Resnick; M Chlenov; Y He; B W Strassle; T A Cummons; M J Piesla; J E Harrison; G T Whiteside; J D Kennedy Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Lisa K Brents; Emily E Reichard; Sarah M Zimmerman; Jeffery H Moran; William E Fantegrossi; Paul L Prather Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniela Cerretani; Giulia Collodel; Antonella Brizzi; Anna Ida Fiaschi; Andrea Menchiari; Elena Moretti; Laura Moltoni; Lucia Micheli Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Nagina Mangal; Simon Erridge; Nagy Habib; Anguraj Sadanandam; Vikash Reebye; Mikael Hans Sodergren Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.553