Dataset Information

Functional selectivity in CB(2) cannabinoid receptor signaling and regulation: implications for the therapeutic potential of CB(2) ligands.

ABSTRACT: Receptor internalization increases the flexibility and scope of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. CB(1) and CB(2) cannabinoid receptors undergo internalization after sustained exposure to agonists. However, it is not known whether different agonists internalize CB(2) to different extents. Because CB(2) is a promising therapeutic target, understanding its trafficking in response to different agonists is necessary for a complete understanding of its biology. Here we profile a number of cannabinoid receptor ligands and provide evidence for marked functional selectivity of cannabinoid receptor internalization. Classic, aminoalkylindole, bicyclic, cannabilactone, iminothiazole cannabinoid, and endocannabinoid ligands varied greatly in their effects on CB(1) and CB(2) trafficking. Our most striking finding was that (R)-(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl) pyrrolo-[1,2,3-d,e]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-naphthalenyl-methanone (WIN55,212-2) (and other aminoalkylindoles) failed to promote CB(2) receptor internalization, whereas 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-(5-hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexyl)phenol (CP55,940) robustly internalized CB(2) receptors. Furthermore, WIN55,212-2 competitively antagonized CP55,940-induced CB(2) internalization. Despite these differences in internalization, both compounds activated CB(2) receptors as measured by extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 phosphorylation and recruitment of β-arrestin(2) to the membrane. In contrast, whereas CP55,940 inhibited voltage-gated calcium channels via CB(2) receptor activation, WIN55,212-2 was ineffective on its own and antagonized the effects of CP55,940. On the basis of the differences we found between these two ligands, we also tested the effects of other cannabinoids on these signaling pathways and found additional evidence for functional selectivity of CB(2) ligands. These novel data highlight that WIN55,212-2 and other cannabinoids show strong functional selectivity at CB(2) receptors and suggest that different classes of CB(2) ligands may produce diverse physiological effects, emphasizing that each class needs to be separately evaluated for therapeutic efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Atwood BK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3263955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The CB2 cannabinoid receptor (CB2) remains a tantalizing, but unrealized therapeutic target. CB2 receptor ligands belong to varied structural classes and display extreme functional selectivity. Here, we have screened diverse CB2 receptor ligands at canonical (inhibition of adenylyl cyclase) and noncanonical (arrestin recruitment) pathways. The nonclassic cannabinoid (-)-cis-3-[2-hydroxy-4-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)phenyl]-trans-4-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexanol (CP55940) was the most potent agonist for both pathways, while the classic cannabinoid ligand (6aR,10aR)-3-(1,1-Dimethylbutyl)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran JWH133) was the most efficacious agonist among all the ligands profiled in cyclase assays. In the cyclase assay, other classic cannabinoids showed little [(-)-trans-Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and (-)-(6aR,7,10,10aR)-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol] (KM233) to no efficacy [(6aR,10aR)-1-methoxy-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromene(L759633) and (6aR,10aR)-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6a,7,8,9,10,10a-hexahydro-1-methoxy-6,6-dimethyl-9-methylene-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran]L759656. Most aminoalkylindoles, including [(3R)-2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-naphthalenyl-methanone, monomethanesulfonate (WIN55212-2), were moderate efficacy agonists. The cannabilactone 3-(1,1-dimethyl-heptyl)-1-hydroxy-9-methoxy-benzo(c)chromen-6-one (AM1710) was equiefficacious to CP55940 to inhibit adenylyl cyclase, albeit with lower potency. In the arrestin recruitment assays, all classic cannabinoid ligands failed to recruit arrestins, indicating a bias toward G-protein coupling for this class of compound. All aminoalkylindoles tested, except for WIN55212-2 and (1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone (UR144), failed to recruit arrestin. WIN55212-2 was a low efficacy agonist for arrestin recruitment, while UR144 was arrestin biased with no significant inhibition of cyclase. Endocannabinoids were G-protein biased with no arrestin recruitment. The diarylpyrazole antagonist 5-(4-chloro-3-methylphenyl)-1-[(4-methylphenyl)methyl]-N-[(1S,2S,4R)-1,3,3-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl]-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (SR144258) was an inverse agonist in cyclase and arrestin recruitment assays while the aminoalkylindole 6-iodo-2-methyl-1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-1H-indol-3-yl](4-methoxyphenyl)methanone (AM630) and carboxamide N-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-ylmethyl)-1,2-dihydro-7-methoxy-2-oxo-8-(pentyloxy)-3-quinolinecarboxamide (JTE907) were inverse agonists in cyclase but low efficacy agonists in arrestin recruitment assays. Thus, CB2 receptor ligands display strong and varied functional selectivity at both pathways. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised when using these compounds to infer the role of CB2 receptors in vivo.

Dataset Information

Functional selectivity in CB(2) cannabinoid receptor signaling and regulation: implications for the therapeutic potential of CB(2) ligands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets