4.7 Article

Positive allosteric modulation of the human cannabinoid (CB1) receptor by RTI-371, a selective inhibitor of the dopamine transporter

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 156, 期 7, 页码 1178-1184

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00124.x

关键词

cannabinoid receptor; allosteric modulation; 3-phenyltropane; calcium mobilization

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA 05477]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In our search for an indirect dopamine agonist as therapy for cocaine addiction, several selective inhibitors of the dopamine transporter (DAT), which are 3-phenyltropane analogues, were assayed for their effect on locomotor activity in mice. Interestingly, several of the compounds showed a poor correlation between stimulation of locomotion and DAT inhibition. One of the compounds, 3 beta-(4-methylphenyl)-2 beta-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)isoxazol-5-yl]tropane (RTI-371), was shown to cross the blood-brain barrier, by binding studies in vivo, and block cocaine-induced locomotor stimulation. As poor pharmacokinetics could not explain the behavioural effects of RTI-371, this compound was screened through our functional assays for activity at other CNS receptors. Initial screening identified RTI-371 as a positive allosteric modulator of the human CB1 (hCB(1)) receptor. The effect of RTI-371 and other DAT-selective inhibitors on CP55940-stimulated calcium mobilization was characterized in a calcium mobilization-based functional assay for the hCB(1) receptor. Selected compounds were also characterized in a similar assay for human mu opioid receptor activation to assess the specificity of their effects. RTI-371 and several other DAT-selective inhibitors with atypical actions on locomotor behaviour increased the efficacy of CP55940 in a concentration-dependent manner. These results suggest that the lack of correlation between the DAT-binding affinity and locomotor stimulation of RTI-371 could be due at least in part to its activity as a positive modulator of the hCB(1) receptor.

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