Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Delta Opioid Receptor Enhancement ofMu Opioid Receptor-Induced Antinociception in Spinal Cord

Delta Opioid Receptor Enhancement ofMu Opioid Receptor-Induced Antinociception in Spinal Cord Abstract Although the mu selective agonist d -Ala 2 -MePhe 4 -Gly-ol 5 enkephalin (DAMGO) and the delta selective agonist d -Pen 2 , d -Pen 5 enkephalin (DPDPE) are both antinociceptive when administered directly into the spinal cord of mice, 50% of antinociceptive dose (AD 50 ) of DAMGO is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the AD 50 of DPDPE. In contrast, the two ligands show similar affinities for their respective receptors in in vitro binding assays. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that DPDPE antinociception in the spinal cord is mediated through not delta but mu receptors, for which it has an several hundred-fold lower affinity than DAMGO. In support of this, we found that DPDPE-mediated antinociception was blocked by the mu selective antagonist d -Phe-Cys-Tyr- d -Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH 2 (CTAP). The pA 2 value of CTAP for DPDPE was virtually identical with that for DAMGO. However, because its action also was blocked by naltrindole, an antagonist selective for delta receptors, the latter must also play a role in antinociception. When DAMGO and DPDPE were administered i.t. together at ratios ranging from 1:200 to 1:500, the AD 50 of DAMGO was lowered as much as 10-fold relative to its AD 50 when given alone. Thus DPDPE had a potentiating effect on DAMGO, although the reverse was not observed. This potentiation was lost in animals made tolerant to systemic morphine. The loss of potentiation seemed to be caused by changes in the delta receptors, because a) the AD 50 of DAMGO (i.t.) given alone to tolerant animals was virtually the same as for naive animals, whereas the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone increased by 4-fold; and b) the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone in the tolerant animal was increased only slightly by naltrindole, whereas CTAP was still a very potent antagonist. We conclude that DPDPE, a selective delta agonist, mediates antinociception in the spinal cord through mu receptors, consistent with results of recent studies of “knock-out” mice lacking mu receptors. At the same time, however, the delta agonist acting through delta receptors can potentiate the mu receptor-mediated antinociceptive action of either mu or delta agonists. This potentiating effect, like the synergistic effect observed between mu receptors at spinal and supraspinal sites, is lost during tolerance. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Am. Soc for Pharma & Experimental Therapeutics

Delta Opioid Receptor Enhancement ofMu Opioid Receptor-Induced Antinociception in Spinal Cord

Delta Opioid Receptor Enhancement ofMu Opioid Receptor-Induced Antinociception in Spinal Cord

The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics , Volume 285 (3): 1181 – Jun 1, 1998

Abstract

Abstract Although the mu selective agonist d -Ala 2 -MePhe 4 -Gly-ol 5 enkephalin (DAMGO) and the delta selective agonist d -Pen 2 , d -Pen 5 enkephalin (DPDPE) are both antinociceptive when administered directly into the spinal cord of mice, 50% of antinociceptive dose (AD 50 ) of DAMGO is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the AD 50 of DPDPE. In contrast, the two ligands show similar affinities for their respective receptors in in vitro binding assays. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that DPDPE antinociception in the spinal cord is mediated through not delta but mu receptors, for which it has an several hundred-fold lower affinity than DAMGO. In support of this, we found that DPDPE-mediated antinociception was blocked by the mu selective antagonist d -Phe-Cys-Tyr- d -Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH 2 (CTAP). The pA 2 value of CTAP for DPDPE was virtually identical with that for DAMGO. However, because its action also was blocked by naltrindole, an antagonist selective for delta receptors, the latter must also play a role in antinociception. When DAMGO and DPDPE were administered i.t. together at ratios ranging from 1:200 to 1:500, the AD 50 of DAMGO was lowered as much as 10-fold relative to its AD 50 when given alone. Thus DPDPE had a potentiating effect on DAMGO, although the reverse was not observed. This potentiation was lost in animals made tolerant to systemic morphine. The loss of potentiation seemed to be caused by changes in the delta receptors, because a) the AD 50 of DAMGO (i.t.) given alone to tolerant animals was virtually the same as for naive animals, whereas the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone increased by 4-fold; and b) the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone in the tolerant animal was increased only slightly by naltrindole, whereas CTAP was still a very potent antagonist. We conclude that DPDPE, a selective delta agonist, mediates antinociception in the spinal cord through mu receptors, consistent with results of recent studies of “knock-out” mice lacking mu receptors. At the same time, however, the delta agonist acting through delta receptors can potentiate the mu receptor-mediated antinociceptive action of either mu or delta agonists. This potentiating effect, like the synergistic effect observed between mu receptors at spinal and supraspinal sites, is lost during tolerance.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/am-soc-for-pharma-experimental-therapeutics/delta-opioid-receptor-enhancement-ofmu-opioid-receptor-induced-Qw30NVF0Dg

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Am. Soc for Pharma & Experimental Therapeutics
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
ISSN
0022-3565
eISSN
1521-0103
Publisher site

Abstract

Abstract Although the mu selective agonist d -Ala 2 -MePhe 4 -Gly-ol 5 enkephalin (DAMGO) and the delta selective agonist d -Pen 2 , d -Pen 5 enkephalin (DPDPE) are both antinociceptive when administered directly into the spinal cord of mice, 50% of antinociceptive dose (AD 50 ) of DAMGO is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the AD 50 of DPDPE. In contrast, the two ligands show similar affinities for their respective receptors in in vitro binding assays. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that DPDPE antinociception in the spinal cord is mediated through not delta but mu receptors, for which it has an several hundred-fold lower affinity than DAMGO. In support of this, we found that DPDPE-mediated antinociception was blocked by the mu selective antagonist d -Phe-Cys-Tyr- d -Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH 2 (CTAP). The pA 2 value of CTAP for DPDPE was virtually identical with that for DAMGO. However, because its action also was blocked by naltrindole, an antagonist selective for delta receptors, the latter must also play a role in antinociception. When DAMGO and DPDPE were administered i.t. together at ratios ranging from 1:200 to 1:500, the AD 50 of DAMGO was lowered as much as 10-fold relative to its AD 50 when given alone. Thus DPDPE had a potentiating effect on DAMGO, although the reverse was not observed. This potentiation was lost in animals made tolerant to systemic morphine. The loss of potentiation seemed to be caused by changes in the delta receptors, because a) the AD 50 of DAMGO (i.t.) given alone to tolerant animals was virtually the same as for naive animals, whereas the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone increased by 4-fold; and b) the AD 50 of DPDPE given alone in the tolerant animal was increased only slightly by naltrindole, whereas CTAP was still a very potent antagonist. We conclude that DPDPE, a selective delta agonist, mediates antinociception in the spinal cord through mu receptors, consistent with results of recent studies of “knock-out” mice lacking mu receptors. At the same time, however, the delta agonist acting through delta receptors can potentiate the mu receptor-mediated antinociceptive action of either mu or delta agonists. This potentiating effect, like the synergistic effect observed between mu receptors at spinal and supraspinal sites, is lost during tolerance.

Journal

The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental TherapeuticsAm. Soc for Pharma & Experimental Therapeutics

Published: Jun 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.