4.7 Article

Cloning and pharmacological characterization of the dog cannabinoid CB2 receptor

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 669, Issue 1-3, Pages 24-31

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2011.08.002

Keywords

Cannabinoid receptor; Cloning; Radioligand binding; Species selectivity; Pharmacology; GPCR; cAMP assay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparison of human, rat and mouse cannabinoid CB2 receptor primary sequences has shown significant divergence at the mRNA and protein sequence level, raising the possibility of species specific pharmacological properties. Additionally, given the importance of the dog as a non-rodent species for predicting human safety during the drug development process, we cloned the dog CB2 receptor gene and characterized its in-vitro pharmacological properties in a recombinant expression system. A 1.1 kb dog peripheral cannabinoid receptor (dCB(2)) fragment encoding a 360 amino acid protein was cloned from dog spleen cDNA. Analysis of the cloned dCB(2) polypeptide sequence revealed that it shares between 76 and 82% homology with rat, mouse, human and predicted chimpanzee cannabinoid CB2 receptors. The dog CB2 receptor expressed in CHO cells displayed similar binding affinities for various synthetic and endogenous cannabinoids as compared to those measured for the human and rat cannabinoid CB2 receptors. However, these ligands exhibited altered functional potencies and efficacies for the dog cannabinoid CB2 receptor, which was also found to be negatively coupled to adenylate cyclase activity. These complex pharmacological differences observed across species for the cannabinoid CB2 receptor suggest that caution should be exerted when analyzing the outcome of animal efficacy and safety studies, notably those involving cannabinoid CB2 receptor targeting molecules tested in the dog. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available