BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cannabinoids are used therapeutically for the palliation of the adverse side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy. However, cannabinoids also inhibit both the activity and expression of the multidrug transporter, P-glycoprotein in vitro. Here we address the interaction of cannabinol (CBN), cannabidiol (CBD) and delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with the related multidrug transporter, ABCG2. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Cannabinoid inhibition of Abcg2/ABCG2 was assessed using flow cytometric analysis of substrate accumulation and ATPase activity assays. The cytotoxicity and chemosensitization by cannabinoids was determined with cell viability assays. Expression of cannabinoid and vanilloid receptors was assessed using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and cannabinoid modulation of ABCG2 expression was examined using immunoblotting. KEY RESULTS: CBN, CBD and THC increased the intracellular accumulation of the Abcg2/ABCG2 substrate, mitoxantrone, in an over-expressing cell line. The THC metabolite, (-)-11-nor-9-carboxy-delta 9-THC was much less potent. The plant cannabinoids inhibited both basal and substrate stimulated ATPase activity of human ABCG2. Cannabinoid cytotoxicity occurred in the absence of known cannabinoid cell surface receptors, and only at concentrations higher than those required for Abcg2/ABCG2 inhibition. Sub-toxic concentrations of the cannabinoids resensitized the overexpressing cell line to the cytotoxic effect of Abcg2/ABCG2 substrates, mitoxantrone and topotecan. This occurred in the absence of any effect on ABCG2 expression. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Cannabinoids are novel Abcg2/ABCG2 inhibitors, reversing the Abcg2-mediated multidrug-resistant phenotype in vitro. This finding may have implications for the co-administration of cannabinoids with pharmaceuticals that are ABCG2 substrates.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Cannabinoids are used therapeutically for the palliation of the adverse side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy. However, cannabinoids also inhibit both the activity and expression of the multidrug transporter, P-glycoprotein in vitro. Here we address the interaction of cannabinol (CBN), cannabidiol (CBD) and delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with the related multidrug transporter, ABCG2. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Cannabinoid inhibition of Abcg2/ABCG2 was assessed using flow cytometric analysis of substrate accumulation and ATPase activity assays. The cytotoxicity and chemosensitization by cannabinoids was determined with cell viability assays. Expression of cannabinoid and vanilloid receptors was assessed using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and cannabinoid modulation of ABCG2 expression was examined using immunoblotting. KEY RESULTS:CBN, CBD and THC increased the intracellular accumulation of the Abcg2/ABCG2 substrate, mitoxantrone, in an over-expressing cell line. The THC metabolite, (-)-11-nor-9-carboxy-delta 9-THC was much less potent. The plant cannabinoids inhibited both basal and substrate stimulated ATPase activity of humanABCG2. Cannabinoidcytotoxicity occurred in the absence of known cannabinoid cell surface receptors, and only at concentrations higher than those required for Abcg2/ABCG2 inhibition. Sub-toxic concentrations of the cannabinoids resensitized the overexpressing cell line to the cytotoxic effect of Abcg2/ABCG2 substrates, mitoxantrone and topotecan. This occurred in the absence of any effect on ABCG2 expression. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Cannabinoids are novel Abcg2/ABCG2 inhibitors, reversing the Abcg2-mediated multidrug-resistant phenotype in vitro. This finding may have implications for the co-administration of cannabinoids with pharmaceuticals that are ABCG2 substrates.
Authors: M Maliepaard; G L Scheffer; I F Faneyte; M A van Gastelen; A C Pijnenborg; A H Schinkel; M J van De Vijver; R J Scheper; J H Schellens Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: S Kawabata; M Oka; K Shiozawa; K Tsukamoto; K Nakatomi; H Soda; M Fukuda; Y Ikegami; K Sugahara; Y Yamada; S Kamihira; L A Doyle; D D Ross; S Kohno Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2001-02-09 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: R W Robey; W Y Medina-Pérez; K Nishiyama; T Lahusen; K Miyake; T Litman; A M Senderowicz; D D Ross; S E Bates Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Zhou; J D Schuetz; K D Bunting; A M Colapietro; J Sampath; J J Morris; I Lagutina; G C Grosveld; M Osawa; H Nakauchi; B P Sorrentino Journal: Nat Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: J W Jonker; J W Smit; R F Brinkhuis; M Maliepaard; J H Beijnen; J H Schellens; A H Schinkel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mason M Silveira; Jonathon C Arnold; Steven R Laviolette; Cecilia J Hillard; Marta Celorrio; María S Aymerich; Wendy K Adams Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Stevie C Britch; Jenny L Wiley; Zhihao Yu; Brian H Clowers; Rebecca M Craft Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Nicholas Z Greene; Jenny L Wiley; Zhihao Yu; Brian H Clowers; Rebecca M Craft Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Emily J Cox; Neha Maharao; Gabriela Patilea-Vrana; Jashvant D Unadkat; Allan E Rettie; Jeannine S McCune; Mary F Paine Journal: Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 12.310
Authors: T Fisher; H Golan; G Schiby; S PriChen; R Smoum; I Moshe; N Peshes-Yaloz; A Castiel; D Waldman; R Gallily; R Mechoulam; A Toren Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.677