| Literature DB >> 32164786 |
Mitchell J Bartlett1,2, Lisa Y So3, Lajos Szabò4, David P Skinner2, Kate L Parent4, Michael L Heien4, Todd W Vanderah2, Robin Polt4, Scott J Sherman1, Torsten Falk5,6,7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dopamine-replacement utilizing L-DOPA is still the mainstay treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD), but often leads to development of L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia (LID), which can be as debilitating as the motor deficits. There is currently no satisfactory pharmacological adjunct therapy. The endogenous opioid peptides enkephalin and dynorphin are important co-transmitters in the direct and indirect striatofugal pathways and have been implicated in genesis and expression of LID. Opioid receptor antagonists and agonists with different selectivity profiles have been investigated for anti-dyskinetic potential in preclinical models. In this study we investigated effects of the highly-selective μ-opioid receptor antagonist CTAP (> 1200-fold selectivity for μ- over δ-opioid receptors) and a novel glycopeptide congener (gCTAP5) that was glycosylated to increase stability, in the standard rat LID model.Entities:
Keywords: Basal ganglia; Delta-opioid receptors; Levodopa; Mu-opioid receptors; Parkinson’s disease
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32164786 PMCID: PMC7066739 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-04994-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1CTAP and gCTAP5 block morphine effects in a rat model of nociception. At the doses of 0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg both gCTAP5 (open triangles) and CTAP (open squares) completely blocked the antinociceptive effect of morphine (10 mg/kg; black circles) effect at the maximum at 45 min. For gCTAP5 even at 0.1 mg/kg a trend of a reduction was evident that did not reach significance. The mean %MPE ± SEM is plotted (n = 8; repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests; **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001)
Fig. 2Highly-selective μ-opioid receptor antagonism had no effect on L-DOPA-induced AIMs. CTAP (10 mg/kg, i.p.) had no effect on either LAO or locomotor AIMs. a The mean total LAO AIMs scores over 180 min were plotted and there was no difference between vehicle (gray bar) and CTAP (black bar) condition (mean AIMs count ± SEM; n = 6; paired two-tailed t-test). b The mean total locomotor AIMs scores over 180 min were plotted and there was no difference between vehicle (gray bar) and CTAP (black bar) condition. Similarly, gCTAP5 (5 mg/kg, i.p.) had no effect on either LAO or locomotor AIMs. c The mean total LAO AIMs scores over 180 min were plotted and there was no difference between vehicle (gray bar) and gCTAP5 (black bar) condition. d The mean total locomotor AIMs scores over 180 min were plotted and there was no difference between vehicle (gray bar) and gCTAP5 (black bar) condition. In all graphs the mean AIMs counts ± SEM were plotted; n = 6; paired two-tailed t-test. e Time course of the LAO-AIMs (mean ± SEM) data after CTAP administration presented in (a). f Time course of the LAO-AIMs (mean ± SEM) data after gCTAP5 administration presented in (c)