BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We recently found that PKCε was required for spinal analgesic synergy between two GPCRs, δ opioid receptors and α2 A adrenoceptors, co-located in the same cellular subpopulation. We sought to determine if co-delivery of μ and δ opioid receptor agonists would similarly result in synergy requiring PKCε. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Combinations of μ and δ opioid receptor agonists were co-administered intrathecally by direct lumbar puncture to PKCε-wild-type (PKCε-WT) and -knockout (PKCε-KO) mice. Antinociception was assessed using the hot-water tail-flick assay. Drug interactions were evaluated by isobolographic analysis. KEY RESULTS: All agonists produced comparable antinociception in both PKCε-WT and PKCε-KO mice. Of 19 agonist combinations that produced analgesic synergy, only 3 required PKCε for a synergistic interaction. In these three combinations, one of the agonists was morphine, although not all combinations involving morphine required PKCε. Morphine + deltorphin II and morphine + deltorphin I required PKCε for synergy, whereas a similar combination, morphine + deltorphin, did not. Additionally, morphine + oxymorphindole required PKCε for synergy, whereas a similar combination, morphine + oxycodindole, did not. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We discovered biased agonism for a specific signalling pathway at the level of spinally co-delivered opioid agonists. As the bias is only revealed by an appropriate ligand combination and cannot be accounted for by a single drug, it is likely that the receptors these agonists act on are interacting with each other. Our results support the existence of μ and δ opioid receptor heteromers at the spinal level in vivo. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We recently found that PKCε was required for spinal analgesic synergy between two GPCRs, δ opioid receptors and α2 A adrenoceptors, co-located in the same cellular subpopulation. We sought to determine if co-delivery of μ and δ opioid receptor agonists would similarly result in synergy requiring PKCε. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Combinations of μ and δ opioid receptor agonists were co-administered intrathecally by direct lumbar puncture to PKCε-wild-type (PKCε-WT) and -knockout (PKCε-KO) mice. Antinociception was assessed using the hot-water tail-flick assay. Drug interactions were evaluated by isobolographic analysis. KEY RESULTS: All agonists produced comparable antinociception in both PKCε-WT and PKCε-KO mice. Of 19 agonist combinations that produced analgesic synergy, only 3 required PKCε for a synergistic interaction. In these three combinations, one of the agonists was morphine, although not all combinations involving morphine required PKCε. Morphine + deltorphin II and morphine + deltorphin I required PKCε for synergy, whereas a similar combination, morphine + deltorphin, did not. Additionally, morphine + oxymorphindole required PKCε for synergy, whereas a similar combination, morphine + oxycodindole, did not. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We discovered biased agonism for a specific signalling pathway at the level of spinally co-delivered opioid agonists. As the bias is only revealed by an appropriate ligand combination and cannot be accounted for by a single drug, it is likely that the receptors these agonists act on are interacting with each other. Our results support the existence of μ and δ opioid receptor heteromers at the spinal level in vivo. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.
Authors: Theresa Fan; George Varghese; Tuan Nguyen; Roderick Tse; Brian F O'Dowd; Susan R George Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: David J Daniels; Natalie R Lenard; Chris L Etienne; Ping-Yee Law; Sandra C Roerig; Philip S Portoghese Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: L Gendron; M J Esdaile; F Mennicken; H Pan; D O'Donnell; J-P Vincent; L A Devi; C M Cahill; T Stroh; A Beaudet Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2006-10-19 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Amol M Patwardhan; Kelly A Berg; Armen N Akopain; Nathaniel A Jeske; Nikita Gamper; William P Clarke; Kenneth M Hargreaves Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2005-09-28 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Stephanie L Borgland; Mark Connor; Peregrine B Osborne; John B Furness; MacDonald J Christie Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2003-03-17 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Daniel J Bruce; Cristina D Peterson; Kelley F Kitto; Eyup Akgün; Sophia Lazzaroni; Phillip S Portoghese; Carolyn A Fairbanks; George L Wilcox Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Xinyi Jenny He; Janki Patel; Connor E Weiss; Xiang Ma; Brenda L Bloodgood; Matthew R Banghart Journal: Elife Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Jessica I Griffith; Minjee Kim; Daniel J Bruce; Cristina D Peterson; Kelley F Kitto; Afroz S Mohammad; Sneha Rathi; Carolyn A Fairbanks; George L Wilcox; William F Elmquist Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Attila Keresztes; Keith Olson; Paul Nguyen; Marissa A Lopez-Pier; Ryan Hecksel; Natalie K Barker; Zekun Liu; Victor Hruby; John Konhilas; Paul R Langlais; John M Streicher Journal: Pain Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 6.961