BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Memantine and ketamine are clinically used, open-channel blockers of NMDA receptors exhibiting remarkable pharmacodynamic similarities despite strikingly different clinical profiles. Although NMDA channel gating constitutes an important difference between memantine and ketamine, it is unclear how positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) might affect the pharmacodynamics of these NMDA blockers. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used two different PAMs: SGE-201, an analogue of an endogenous oxysterol, 24S-hydroxycholesterol, along with pregnenolone sulphate (PS), to test on memantine and ketamine responses in single cells (oocytes and cultured neurons) and networks (hippocampal slices), using standard electrophysiological techniques. KEY RESULTS: SGE-201 and PS had no effect on steady-state block or voltage dependence of a channel blocker. However, both PAMs increased the actions of memantine and ketamine on phasic excitatory post-synaptic currents, but neither revealed underlying pharmacodynamic differences. SGE-201 accelerated the re-equilibration of blockers during voltage jumps. SGE-201 also unmasked differences among the blockers in neuronal networks - measured either by suppression of activity in multi-electrode arrays or by neuroprotection against a mild excitotoxic insult. Either potentiating NMDA receptors while maintaining the basal activity level or increasing activity/depolarization without potentiating NMDA receptor function is sufficient to expose pharmacodynamic blocker differences in suppressing network function and in neuroprotection. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Positive modulation revealed no pharmacodynamic differences between NMDA receptor blockers at a constant voltage, but did expose differences during spontaneous network activity. Endogenous modulator tone of NMDA receptors in different brain regions may underlie differences in the effects of NMDA receptor blockers on behaviour.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Memantine and ketamine are clinically used, open-channel blockers of NMDA receptors exhibiting remarkable pharmacodynamic similarities despite strikingly different clinical profiles. Although NMDA channel gating constitutes an important difference between memantine and ketamine, it is unclear how positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) might affect the pharmacodynamics of these NMDA blockers. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used two different PAMs: SGE-201, an analogue of an endogenous oxysterol, 24S-hydroxycholesterol, along with pregnenolone sulphate (PS), to test on memantine and ketamine responses in single cells (oocytes and cultured neurons) and networks (hippocampal slices), using standard electrophysiological techniques. KEY RESULTS: SGE-201 and PS had no effect on steady-state block or voltage dependence of a channel blocker. However, both PAMs increased the actions of memantine and ketamine on phasic excitatory post-synaptic currents, but neither revealed underlying pharmacodynamic differences. SGE-201 accelerated the re-equilibration of blockers during voltage jumps. SGE-201 also unmasked differences among the blockers in neuronal networks - measured either by suppression of activity in multi-electrode arrays or by neuroprotection against a mild excitotoxic insult. Either potentiating NMDA receptors while maintaining the basal activity level or increasing activity/depolarization without potentiating NMDA receptor function is sufficient to expose pharmacodynamic blocker differences in suppressing network function and in neuroprotection. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Positive modulation revealed no pharmacodynamic differences between NMDA receptor blockers at a constant voltage, but did expose differences during spontaneous network activity. Endogenous modulator tone of NMDA receptors in different brain regions may underlie differences in the effects of NMDA receptor blockers on behaviour.
Authors: Ed S Lein; Michael J Hawrylycz; Nancy Ao; Mikael Ayres; Amy Bensinger; Amy Bernard; Andrew F Boe; Mark S Boguski; Kevin S Brockway; Emi J Byrnes; Lin Chen; Li Chen; Tsuey-Ming Chen; Mei Chi Chin; Jimmy Chong; Brian E Crook; Aneta Czaplinska; Chinh N Dang; Suvro Datta; Nick R Dee; Aimee L Desaki; Tsega Desta; Ellen Diep; Tim A Dolbeare; Matthew J Donelan; Hong-Wei Dong; Jennifer G Dougherty; Ben J Duncan; Amanda J Ebbert; Gregor Eichele; Lili K Estin; Casey Faber; Benjamin A Facer; Rick Fields; Shanna R Fischer; Tim P Fliss; Cliff Frensley; Sabrina N Gates; Katie J Glattfelder; Kevin R Halverson; Matthew R Hart; John G Hohmann; Maureen P Howell; Darren P Jeung; Rebecca A Johnson; Patrick T Karr; Reena Kawal; Jolene M Kidney; Rachel H Knapik; Chihchau L Kuan; James H Lake; Annabel R Laramee; Kirk D Larsen; Christopher Lau; Tracy A Lemon; Agnes J Liang; Ying Liu; Lon T Luong; Jesse Michaels; Judith J Morgan; Rebecca J Morgan; Marty T Mortrud; Nerick F Mosqueda; Lydia L Ng; Randy Ng; Geralyn J Orta; Caroline C Overly; Tu H Pak; Sheana E Parry; Sayan D Pathak; Owen C Pearson; Ralph B Puchalski; Zackery L Riley; Hannah R Rockett; Stephen A Rowland; Joshua J Royall; Marcos J Ruiz; Nadia R Sarno; Katherine Schaffnit; Nadiya V Shapovalova; Taz Sivisay; Clifford R Slaughterbeck; Simon C Smith; Kimberly A Smith; Bryan I Smith; Andy J Sodt; Nick N Stewart; Kenda-Ruth Stumpf; Susan M Sunkin; Madhavi Sutram; Angelene Tam; Carey D Teemer; Christina Thaller; Carol L Thompson; Lee R Varnam; Axel Visel; Ray M Whitlock; Paul E Wohnoutka; Crissa K Wolkey; Victoria Y Wong; Matthew Wood; Murat B Yaylaoglu; Rob C Young; Brian L Youngstrom; Xu Feng Yuan; Bin Zhang; Theresa A Zwingman; Allan R Jones Journal: Nature Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kersti Karu; Martin Hornshaw; Gary Woffendin; Karl Bodin; Mats Hamberg; Gunvor Alvelius; Jan Sjövall; John Turton; Yuqin Wang; William J Griffiths Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2007-01-24 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Anita E Autry; Megumi Adachi; Elena Nosyreva; Elisa S Na; Maarten F Los; Peng-fei Cheng; Ege T Kavalali; Lisa M Monteggia Journal: Nature Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lawrence N Eisenman; Christine M Emnett; Jayaram Mohan; Charles F Zorumski; Steven Mennerick Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Min-Yu Sun; Andrew J Linsenbardt; Christine M Emnett; Lawrence N Eisenman; Yukitoshi Izumi; Charles F Zorumski; Steve Mennerick Journal: Neuroscientist Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 7.519
Authors: Natalia Mast; Kyle W Anderson; Kevin M Johnson; Thanh T N Phan; F Peter Guengerich; Irina A Pikuleva Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Mariangela Chisari; Timothy J Wilding; Samuel Brunwasser; Kathiresan Krishnan; Mingxing Qian; Ann Benz; James E Huettner; Charles F Zorumski; Douglas F Covey; Steven Mennerick Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Natasha Warikoo; Samuel J Brunwasser; Ann Benz; Hong-Jin Shu; Steven M Paul; Michael Lewis; James Doherty; Michael Quirk; Laura Piccio; Charles F Zorumski; Gregory S Day; Steven Mennerick Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 6.167