Roger G. Pertwee

Identification of an endogenous 2-monoglyceride, present in canine gut, that binds to cannabinoid receptors.

In this study, we report the isolation from canine intestines of 2-arachidonyl glycerol (2-Ara-Gl). Its structure was determined by mass spectrometry and by direct comparison with a synthetic sample. 2-Ara-Gl bound to membranes from cells transiently transfected with expression plasmids carrying DNA of either CB1 or CB2--the two cannabinoid receptors identified thus far--with Ki values of 472 +/- 55 and 1400 +/- 172 nM, respectively. In the presence of forskolin, 2-Ara-Gl inhibited adenylate cyclase in isolated mouse spleen cells, at the potency level of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC). Upon intravenous administration to mice, 2-Ara-Gl caused the typical tetrad of effects produced by THC: antinociception, immobility, reduction of spontaneous activity, and lowering of the rectal temperature. 2-Ara-Gl also shares the ability of delta 9-THC to inhibit electrically evoked contractions of mouse isolated vasa deferentia; however, it was less potent than delta 9-THC.

International Union of Pharmacology. XXVII. Classification of Cannabinoid Receptors

Two types of cannabinoid receptor have been discovered so far, CB1 (2.1: CBD:1:CB1:), cloned in 1990, and CB2(2.1:CBD:2:CB2:), cloned in 1993. Distinction between these receptors is based on differences in their predicted amino acid sequence, signaling mechanisms, tissue distribution, and sensitivity to certain potent agonists and antagonists that show marked selectivity for one or the other receptor type. Cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 exhibit 48% amino acid sequence identity. Both receptor types are coupled through G proteins to adenylyl cyclase and mitogen-activated protein kinase. CB1 receptors are also coupled through G proteins to several types of calcium and potassium channels. These receptors exist primarily on central and peripheral neurons, one of their functions being to inhibit neurotransmitter release. Indeed, endogenous CB1 agonists probably serve as retrograde synaptic messengers. CB2 receptors are present mainly on immune cells. Such cells also express CB1receptors, albeit to a lesser extent, with both receptor types exerting a broad spectrum of immune effects that includes modulation of cytokine release. Of several endogenous agonists for cannabinoid receptors identified thus far, the most notable are arachidonoylethanolamide, 2-arachidonoylglycerol, and 2-arachidonylglyceryl ether. It is unclear whether these eicosanoid molecules are the only, or primary, endogenous agonists. Hence, we consider it premature to rename cannabinoid receptors after an endogenous agonist as is recommended by the International Union of Pharmacology Committee on Receptor Nomenclature and Drug Classification. Although pharmacological evidence for the existence of additional types of cannabinoid receptor is emerging, other kinds of supporting evidence are still lacking.

Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors

There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, both coupled to G-proteins. CB1 receptors are present in the central nervous system and CB1 and CB2 receptors in certain peripheral tissues. The existence of endogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists has also been demonstrated. These discoveries have led to the development of selective cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptor ligands. This review focuses on the classification, binding properties, effector systems and distribution of cannabinoid receptors. It also describes the various cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists now available and considers the main in vivo and in vitro bioassay methods that are generally used.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXIX. Cannabinoid Receptors and Their Ligands: Beyond CB1 and CB2

There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2). Ligands activating these G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) include the phytocannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, numerous synthetic compounds, and endogenous compounds known as endocannabinoids. Cannabinoid receptor antagonists have also been developed. Some of these ligands activate or block one type of cannabinoid receptor more potently than the other type. This review summarizes current data indicating the extent to which cannabinoid receptor ligands undergo orthosteric or allosteric interactions with non-CB1, non-CB2 established GPCRs, deorphanized receptors such as GPR55, ligand-gated ion channels, transient receptor potential (TRP) channels, and other ion channels or peroxisome proliferator-activated nuclear receptors. From these data, it is clear that some ligands that interact similarly with CB1 and/or CB2 receptors are likely to display significantly different pharmacological profiles. The review also lists some criteria that any novel “CB3” cannabinoid receptor or channel should fulfil and concludes that these criteria are not currently met by any non-CB1, non-CB2 pharmacological receptor or channel. However, it does identify certain pharmacological targets that should be investigated further as potential CB3 receptors or channels. These include TRP vanilloid 1, which possibly functions as an ionotropic cannabinoid receptor under physiological and/or pathological conditions, and some deorphanized GPCRs. Also discussed are 1) the ability of CB1 receptors to form heteromeric complexes with certain other GPCRs, 2) phylogenetic relationships that exist between CB1/CB2 receptors and other GPCRs, 3) evidence for the existence of several as-yet-uncharacterized non-CB1, non-CB2 cannabinoid receptors; and 4) current cannabinoid receptor nomenclature.

The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabivarin

Cannabis sativa is the source of a unique set of compounds known collectively as plant cannabinoids or phytocannabinoids. This review focuses on the manner with which three of these compounds, (−)‐trans‐Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9‐THC), (−)‐cannabidiol (CBD) and (−)‐trans‐Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabivarin (Δ9‐THCV), interact with cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Δ9‐THC, the main psychotropic constituent of cannabis, is a CB1 and CB2 receptor partial agonist and in line with classical pharmacology, the responses it elicits appear to be strongly influenced both by the expression level and signalling efficiency of cannabinoid receptors and by ongoing endogenous cannabinoid release. CBD displays unexpectedly high potency as an antagonist of CB1/CB2 receptor agonists in CB1‐ and CB2‐expressing cells or tissues, the manner with which it interacts with CB2 receptors providing a possible explanation for its ability to inhibit evoked immune cell migration. Δ9‐THCV behaves as a potent CB2 receptor partial agonist in vitro. In contrast, it antagonizes cannabinoid receptor agonists in CB1‐expressing tissues. This it does with relatively high potency and in a manner that is both tissue and ligand dependent. Δ9‐THCV also interacts with CB1 receptors when administered in vivo, behaving either as a CB1 antagonist or, at higher doses, as a CB1 receptor agonist. Brief mention is also made in this review, first of the production by Δ9‐THC of pharmacodynamic tolerance, second of current knowledge about the extent to which Δ9‐THC, CBD and Δ9‐THCV interact with pharmacological targets other than CB1 or CB2 receptors, and third of actual and potential therapeutic applications for each of these cannabinoids.

Endocannabinoids control spasticity in a multiple sclerosis model

Spasticity is a complicating sign in multiple sclerosis that also develops in a model of chronic relapsing experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (CREAE) in mice. In areas associated with nerve damage, increased levels of the endocannabinoids, anandamide (arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA) and 2‐arachidonoyl glycerol (2‐AG), and of the AEA congener, palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), were detected here, whereas comparable levels of these compounds were found in normal and non‐spastic CREAE mice. While exogenously administered endocannabinoids and PEA ameliorate spasticity, selective inhibitors of endocannabinoid re‐uptake and hydrolysis—probably through the enhancement of endogenous levels of AEA, and, possibly, 2‐arachidonoyl glycerol—significantly ameliorated spasticity to an extent comparable with that observed previously with potent cannabinoid receptor agonists. These studies provide definitive evidence for the tonic control of spasticity by the endocannabinoid system and open new horizons to therapy of multiple sclerosis, and other neuromuscular diseases, based on agents modulating endocannabinoid levels and action, which exhibit little psychotropic activity.

Agonist‐inverse agonist characterization at CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors of L759633, L759656 and AM630

We have tested our prediction that AM630 is a CB2 cannabinoid receptor ligand and also investigated whether L759633 and L759656, are CB2 receptor agonists. Binding assays with membranes from CHO cells stably transfected with human CB1 or CB2 receptors using [3H]‐CP55940, confirmed the CB2‐selectivity of L759633 and L759656 (CB2/CB1 affinity ratios=163 and 414 respectively) and showed AM630 to have a Ki at CB2 receptors of 31.2 nM and a CB2/CB1 affinity ratio of 165. In CB2‐transfected cells, L759633 and L759656 were potent inhibitors of forskolin‐stimulated cyclic AMP production, with EC50 values of 8.1 and 3.1 nM respectively and CB1/CB2 EC50 ratios of >1000 and >3000 respectively. AM630 inhibited [35S]‐GTPγS binding to CB2 receptor membranes (EC50=76.6 nM), enhanced forskolin‐stimulated cyclic AMP production in CB2‐transfected cells (5.2 fold by 1 μM), and antagonized the inhibition of forskolin‐stimulated cyclic AMP production in this cell line induced by CP55940. In CB1‐transfected cells, forskolin‐stimulated cyclic AMP production was significantly inhibited by AM630 (22.6% at 1 μM and 45.9% at 10 μM) and by L759633 at 10 μM (48%) but not 1 μM. L759656 (10 μM) was not inhibitory. AM630 also produced a slight decrease in the mean inhibitory effect of CP55940 on cyclic AMP production which was not statistically significant. We conclude that AM630 is a CB2‐selective ligand that behaves as an inverse agonist at CB2 receptors and as a weak partial agonist at CB1 receptors. L759633 and L759656 are both potent CB2‐selective agonists.

Overlap between the ligand recognition properties of the anandamide transporter and the VR1 vanilloid receptor: inhibitors of anandamide uptake with negligible capsaicin-like activity.

Some synthetic agonists of the VR1 vanilloid (capsaicin) receptor also inhibit the facilitated transport into cells of the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide (arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA). Here we tested several AEA derivatives containing various derivatized phenyl groups or different alkyl chains as either inhibitors of the AEA membrane transporter (AMT) in intact cells or functional agonists of the VR1 vanilloid receptor in HEK cells transfected with the human VR1. We found that four known AMT inhibitors, AM404, arvanil, olvanil and linvanil, activate VR1 receptors at concentrations 400–10 000‐fold lower than those necessary to inhibit the AMT. However, we also found three novel AEA derivatives, named VDM11, VDM12 and VDM13, which inhibit the AMT as potently as AM404 but exhibit little or no agonist activity at hVR1. These compounds are weak inhibitors of AEA enzymatic hydrolysis and poor CB1/CB2 receptor ligands. We show for the first time that, despite the overlap between the chemical moieties of AMT inhibitors and VR1 agonists, selective inhibitors of AEA uptake that do not activate VR1 (e.g. VDM11) can be developed.

Cannabidiol displays unexpectedly high potency as an antagonist of CB1 and CB2 receptor agonists in vitro

A nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, cannabidiol has been demonstrated to have low affinity for both cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. We have shown previously that cannabidiol can enhance electrically evoked contractions of the mouse vas deferens, suggestive of inverse agonism. We have also shown that cannabidiol can antagonize cannabinoid receptor agonists in this tissue with a greater potency than we would expect from its poor affinity for cannabinoid receptors. This study aimed to investigate whether these properties of cannabidiol extend to CB1 receptors expressed in mouse brain and to human CB2 receptors that have been transfected into CHO cells.

Emerging strategies for exploiting cannabinoid receptor agonists as medicines

Medicines that activate cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptor are already in the clinic. These are Cesamet® (nabilone), Marinol® (dronabinol; Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol) and Sativex® (Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol with cannabidiol). The first two of these medicines can be prescribed to reduce chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting. Marinol® can also be prescribed to stimulate appetite, while Sativex® is prescribed for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain in adults with multiple sclerosis and as an adjunctive analgesic treatment for adult patients with advanced cancer. One challenge now is to identify additional therapeutic targets for cannabinoid receptor agonists, and a number of potential clinical applications for such agonists are mentioned in this review. A second challenge is to develop strategies that will improve the efficacy and/or the benefit‐to‐risk ratio of a cannabinoid receptor agonist. This review focuses on five strategies that have the potential to meet either or both of these objectives. These are strategies that involve: (i) targeting cannabinoid receptors located outside the blood‐brain barrier; (ii) targeting cannabinoid receptors expressed by a particular tissue; (iii) targeting up‐regulated cannabinoid receptors; (iv) targeting cannabinoid CB2 receptors; or (v) ‘multi‐targeting’. Preclinical data that justify additional research directed at evaluating the clinical importance of each of these strategies are also discussed.