4.7 Article

(+)-Cannabidiol analogues which bind cannabinoid receptors but exert peripheral activity only

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 506, 期 2, 页码 179-188

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2004.10.049

关键词

cannabidiol; cannabinoid; cannabinoid receptor; SR141716; SR144528; intestinal motility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC) and (-)-cannabidiol are major constituents of the Cannabis saliva plant with different pharmacological profiles: (-)-Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, but not (-)-cannabidiol, activates cannabinoid CB(1) and CB(2) receptors and induces psychoactive and peripheral effects. We have tested a series of (+)-cannabidiol derivatives, namely, (+)-cannabidiol-DMH (DMH-1,1-dimethylheptyl-), (+)-7-OH-cannabidiol-DMH, (+)-7-OH-cannabidiol, (+)-7-COOH- cannabidiol and (+)-7-COOH-cannabidiol-DMH, for central and peripheral (intestinal, antiinflammatory and peripheral pain) effects in mice. Although all (+)-cannabidiols bind to cannabinoid CB(1) and CB(2) receptors, only (+)-7-OH-cannabidiol-DMH was centrally active, while all (+)-cannabidiol analogues completely arrested defecation. The effects of (+)-cannabidiol-DMH and (+)-7-OH-cannabidiol-DMH were partially antagonized by the cannabinoid CB(1) receptor antagonist N-(piperidiny-1-yl)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (SR141716), but not by the cannabinoid CB(2) receptor antagonist N-(IS)-endo-1,3,3-trimethil bicyclo [2.2.1] heptan-2-yl-5-(4-chloro-3-methylphenyl)-1-(4-methylbenzyl)-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (SR144528), and had no effect on CB(1)(-/-) receptor knockout mice. (+)-Cannabidiol-DMH inhibited the peripheral pain response and arachidonic-acid-induced inflammation of the ear. We conclude that centrally inactive (+)-cannabidiol analogues should be further developed as antidiarrheal, antiinflammatory and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal and other peripheral conditions. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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