BACKGROUND: Morphine-6-O-sulfate (M6S) is a mixed μ/δ-opioid receptor (OR) agonist and potential alternative to morphine for treatment of chronic multimodal pain. METHODS: To provide more support for this hypothesis, the antinociceptive effects of M6S and morphine were compared in tests that access a range of pain modalities, including hot plate threshold (HPT), pinprick sensitivity threshold (PST) and paw pressure threshold tests. RESULTS: Acutely, M6S was 2- to 3-fold more potent than morphine in HPT and PST tests, specifically, derived from best-fit analysis of dose-response relationships of morphine/M6S half-effective dose (ED50) ratios (lower, upper 95% confidence interval [CI]) were 2.8 (2.0-5.8) in HPT and 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) in PST tests. No differences in analgesic drug potencies were detected in the PPT test (morphine/M6S ED50 ratio 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.4). After 7 to 9 days of chronic treatment, tolerance developed to the antinociceptive effects of morphine, but not to M6S, in all 3 pain tests. Morphine-tolerant rats were not crosstolerant to M6S. The antinociceptive effects of M6S were not sensitive to κ-OR antagonists. However, the δ-OR antagonist, naltrindole, blocked M6S-induced antinociception by 55% ± 4% (95% CI, 39-75) in the HPT test, 94% ± 4% (95% CI, 84-105) in the PST test, and 5% ± 17% (95% CI, -47 to 59) or 51% ± 14% (95% CI, 14-84; 6 rats per each group) in the paw pressure threshold test when examined acutely or after 7 days of chronic treatment, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Activity via δ-ORs thus appears to be an important determinant of M6S action. M6S also exhibited favorable antinociceptive and tolerance profiles compared with morphine in 3 different antinociceptive assays, indicating that M6S may serve as a useful alternative for rotation in morphine-tolerant subjects.
BACKGROUND:Morphine-6-O-sulfate (M6S) is a mixed μ/δ-opioid receptor (OR) agonist and potential alternative to morphine for treatment of chronic multimodal pain. METHODS: To provide more support for this hypothesis, the antinociceptive effects of M6S and morphine were compared in tests that access a range of pain modalities, including hot plate threshold (HPT), pinprick sensitivity threshold (PST) and paw pressure threshold tests. RESULTS: Acutely, M6S was 2- to 3-fold more potent than morphine in HPT and PST tests, specifically, derived from best-fit analysis of dose-response relationships of morphine/M6S half-effective dose (ED50) ratios (lower, upper 95% confidence interval [CI]) were 2.8 (2.0-5.8) in HPT and 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) in PST tests. No differences in analgesic drug potencies were detected in the PPT test (morphine/M6S ED50 ratio 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.4). After 7 to 9 days of chronic treatment, tolerance developed to the antinociceptive effects of morphine, but not to M6S, in all 3 pain tests. Morphine-tolerant rats were not crosstolerant to M6S. The antinociceptive effects of M6S were not sensitive to κ-OR antagonists. However, the δ-OR antagonist, naltrindole, blocked M6S-induced antinociception by 55% ± 4% (95% CI, 39-75) in the HPT test, 94% ± 4% (95% CI, 84-105) in the PST test, and 5% ± 17% (95% CI, -47 to 59) or 51% ± 14% (95% CI, 14-84; 6 rats per each group) in the paw pressure threshold test when examined acutely or after 7 days of chronic treatment, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Activity via δ-ORs thus appears to be an important determinant of M6S action. M6S also exhibited favorable antinociceptive and tolerance profiles compared with morphine in 3 different antinociceptive assays, indicating that M6S may serve as a useful alternative for rotation in morphine-tolerant subjects.
Authors: F Simonin; O Valverde; C Smadja; S Slowe; I Kitchen; A Dierich; M Le Meur; B P Roques; R Maldonado; B L Kieffer Journal: EMBO J Date: 1998-02-16 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Anne E Olesen; Camilla Staahl; Frédérique Menzaghi; Sherron Kell; Gilbert Y Wong; Asbjørn M Drewes Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Sean Henry; Jessica P Anand; Jack J Twarozynski; Ashley C Brinkel; Irina D Pogozheva; Bryan F Sears; Emily M Jutkiewicz; John R Traynor; Henry I Mosberg Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jai Shankar K Yadlapalli; Navdeep Dogra; Anqi W Walbaum; Paul L Prather; Peter A Crooks; Maxim Dobretsov Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2018-02-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jai Shankar K Yadlapalli; Shoban Babu Bommagani; Ryan D Mahelona; Anqi Wan; Brenda M Gannon; Narsimha R Penthala; Maxim Dobretsov; Peter A Crooks; William E Fantegrossi Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2018-06-19