BACKGROUND: CB1 cannabinoid receptors (CB1Rs) stimulate Gi/o-dependent signaling pathways. CB1R-mediated cAMP increases were proposed to result from Gs activation, but CB1R-stimulated GTPγS binding to Gs has not heretofore been investigated. METHODS: Three models of CB1R-stimulated cAMP production were tested: pertussis toxin disruption of Gi/o in N18TG2 cells; L341A/A342L-CB1R expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells; and CB1 and D2 dopamine receptors endogenously co-expressed in MN9D cells. cAMP was assayed by [3H]cAMP binding competition. G protein activation was assayed by the antibody-targeted scintillation proximity assay. RESULTS: In L341A/A342L-CB1-CHO cells, cannabinoid agonists significantly stimulated cAMP accumulation over vehicle; (-)-3-[2-hydroxyl-4-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)phenyl]-4-[3-hydroxyl propyl] cyclohexan-1-ol (CP55940)-stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3 was reversed, whereas binding to Gs was not different from CB1R. In MN9D cells, CB1 agonist HU210 or D2 agonist quinpirole alone inhibited forskolin-activated cAMP accumulation, whereas HU210 plus quinpirole increased cAMP accumulation above basal. HU210 alone stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3, whereas co-stimulation with quinpirole reversed HU210-stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3. CONCLUSIONS: CB1R couples to Gs but with low efficacy compared to Gi/o. The L341A/A342L mutation in CB1R reversed CP55940 activation of Gi to an inhibition, but had no effect on Gs. Combined CB1 plus D2 agonists in MN9D cells converted the CB1 agonist-mediated activation of Gi to inhibition of Gi. In these models, the CB1 agonist response was converted to an inverse agonist response at Gi activation. Cannabinoid agonist-stimulated cAMP accumulation can be best explained as reduced activation of Gi, thereby attenuating the tonic inhibitory influence of Gi on the major isoforms of adenylyl cyclase.
BACKGROUND: CB1 cannabinoid receptors (CB1Rs) stimulate Gi/o-dependent signaling pathways. CB1R-mediated cAMP increases were proposed to result from Gs activation, but CB1R-stimulated GTPγS binding to Gs has not heretofore been investigated. METHODS: Three models of CB1R-stimulated cAMP production were tested: pertussis toxin disruption of Gi/o in N18TG2 cells; L341A/A342L-CB1R expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells; and CB1 and D2 dopamine receptors endogenously co-expressed in MN9D cells. cAMP was assayed by [3H]cAMP binding competition. G protein activation was assayed by the antibody-targeted scintillation proximity assay. RESULTS: In L341A/A342L-CB1-CHO cells, cannabinoid agonists significantly stimulated cAMP accumulation over vehicle; (-)-3-[2-hydroxyl-4-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)phenyl]-4-[3-hydroxyl propyl] cyclohexan-1-ol (CP55940)-stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3 was reversed, whereas binding to Gs was not different from CB1R. In MN9D cells, CB1 agonist HU210 or D2 agonist quinpirole alone inhibited forskolin-activated cAMP accumulation, whereas HU210 plus quinpirole increased cAMP accumulation above basal. HU210 alone stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3, whereas co-stimulation with quinpirole reversed HU210-stimulated [35S]GTPγS binding to Gi1/2/3. CONCLUSIONS:CB1R couples to Gs but with low efficacy compared to Gi/o. The L341A/A342L mutation in CB1R reversed CP55940 activation of Gi to an inhibition, but had no effect on Gs. Combined CB1 plus D2 agonists in MN9D cells converted the CB1 agonist-mediated activation of Gi to inhibition of Gi. In these models, the CB1 agonist response was converted to an inverse agonist response at Gi activation. Cannabinoid agonist-stimulated cAMP accumulation can be best explained as reduced activation of Gi, thereby attenuating the tonic inhibitory influence of Gi on the major isoforms of adenylyl cyclase.
Authors: Christopher S Kearn; Katherine Blake-Palmer; Emma Daniel; Ken Mackie; Michelle Glass Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2005-02-14 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: C C Felder; K E Joyce; E M Briley; M Glass; K P Mackie; K J Fahey; G J Cullinan; D C Hunden; D W Johnson; M O Chaney; G A Koppel; M Brownstein Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Allyn C Howlett; Christopher S Breivogel; Steven R Childers; Samuel A Deadwyler; Robert E Hampson; Linda J Porrino Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2004 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Jian Liang; Dennis L H Kruijssen; Aniek C J Verschuuren; Bas J B Voesenek; Feline F W Benavides; Maria Sáez Gonzalez; Marvin Ruiter; Corette J Wierenga Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Khalil Eldeeb; Anjali D Ganjiwale; Indu R Chandrashekaran; Lea W Padgett; Jason Burgess; Allyn C Howlett; Sudha M Cowsik Journal: Pept Sci (Hoboken) Date: 2018-12-14