4.1 Article

Differences in receptor binding affinity of several phytocannabinoids do not explain their effects on neural cell cultures

期刊

NEUROTOXICOLOGY AND TERATOLOGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 49-56

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ntt.2014.09.003

关键词

Phytocannabinoids; Cannabinoid receptors; Receptor binding affinity; Neural cell culture

资金

  1. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)
  2. Bionorica research GmbH (Innsbruck, Austria) [829646]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytocannabinoids are potential candidates for neurodegenerative disease treatment. Nonetheless, the exact mode of action of major phytocannabinoids has to be elucidated, but both, receptor and non-receptor mediated effects are discussed. Focusing on the often presumed structure-affinity-relationship, Ki values of phytocannabinoids cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), cannabichromene (CBC), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabinol (CBN), THC acid (THCA) and THC to human CB1 and CB2 receptors were detected by using competitive inhibition between radioligand [H-3]CP-55,940 and the phytocannabinoids. The resulting Ki values to CB1 range from 23.5 mu M (THCA) to 14,711 mu M (CBDV), whereas Ki values to CB2 range from 8.5 JAM (THCA) to 574.2 mu M (CBDV). To study the relationship between binding affinity and effects on neurons, we investigated possible CB1 related cytotoxic properties in murine mesencephalic primary cell cultures and N18TG2 neuroblastoma cell line. Most of the phytocannabinoids did not affect the number of dopaminergic neurons in primary cultures, whereas propidium iodide and resazurin formation assays revealed cytotoxic properties of CBN, CBDV and CBG. However, THC showed positive effects on N18TG2 cell viability at a concentration of 10 mu M, whereas CBC and THCA also displayed slightly positive activities. These findings are neither linked to structural characteristics nor to the receptor binding affinity therewith pointing to another mechanism than a receptor mediated one. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据