4.7 Article

Agonist activity of N-desmethylclozapine at δ-opioid receptors of human frontal cortex

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 607, 期 1-3, 页码 96-101

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.02.025

关键词

N-desmethylclozapine; delta-opioid receptor; Receptor binding; G protein activation; Cyclic AMP; Human frontal cortex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clozapine metabolite N-desmethylclozapine (NDMC) has been recently shown to act at different neurotransmitter receptors and to display both antagonist and agonist activities. We have previously reported that in cells over-expressing the recombinant delta-opioid receptor NDMC behaved as partial agonist with high intrinsic activity, but its action at the receptors naturally expressed in human brain remained to be investigated. In the present study, we examined whether NDMC was able to bind to and activate delta-opioid receptors in membranes of post-mortem human frontal cortex. In radioligand binding assays, NDMC competition curves displayed high- (K-i = 26 nM) and low-affinity (K-i = 3 mu M) components, whose proportion was regulated by guanine nucleotides in an agonist-like fashion. In functional assays, NDMC stimulated [S-35] GTP gamma S binding (EC50 = 905 nM) and inhibited cyclic AMP formation (EC50 = 590 nM) as effectively as delta-opioid agonists, whereas clozapine was much less potent and efficacious and clozapine N-oxide was completely inactive. The NDMC agonist activity was potently antagonized by the delta-opioid antagonist naltrindole, but not by the mu-opioid receptor antagonist CTAP (D-phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2) or the kappa-opioid antagonist nor-binaltorphimine. Moreover, blockade of either acetylcholine muscarinic, dopamine D-2 or serotonin 5HT(1A) receptors failed to affect NDMC agonist activity. These data demonstrate that at clinically relevant concentrations NDMC behaves as an efficacious agonist at delta-opioid receptors of human frontal cortex. (C) 2009 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