In Vivo Pharmacological Resultant Analysis Reveals Noncompetitive Interactions Between Opioid Antagonists in the Rat Tail-withdrawal Assay

Overview

Journal Br J Pharmacol

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2006 Nov 1

PMID 17075571

Citations 5

Authors

E A Walker

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Purpose: Pharmacological resultant analysis is a technique that can detect secondary effects of competitive antagonists in vitro. The utility of pharmacological resultant analysis as a potential tool for the investigation of antagonist interactions in vivo was examined in the present study using two opioid antagonists, naltrexone and CTAP.

Experimental Approach: Using the experimental design of pharmacological resultant analysis, the well-characterized opioid antagonist naltrexone was examined in the presence of multiple doses of CTAP to block the antinociceptive effects of morphine in the rat warm-water (55(o)C), tail-withdrawal assay.

Key Results: Alone, all doses of naltrexone, CTAP, and CTOP examined blocked the antinociceptive effects of morphine. In the presence of fixed doses of 1 or 10 microg CTAP, increasing doses of naltrexone produced dose-dependent shifts to the right in the morphine dose-response curve. However, a lower dose of naltrexone in combination with 1 or 10 mug CTAP failed to alter the morphine dose-response curve. In the presence of a fixed dose of 0.1 mg kg(-1) naltrexone, CTAP doses produced irregular shifts to the right in the morphine dose-response curves.

Conclusions And Implications: Resultant analysis was applied and an apparent pK(C) value for CTAP was found to be one log unit higher than the apparent pA(2) value for CTAP, evidence that CTAP may have secondary actions or that a signal transducer function may be altered by the combinations of these antagonists. Taken together, these data suggest pharmacological resultant analysis can reveal novel interactions between antagonists in vivo.

Citing Articles

Effect of three peptidase inhibitors on antinociceptive potential and toxicity with intracerebroventricular administration of dynorphin A (1-17) or (1-13) in the rat.

Ajimi J, Yoshikawa M, Takahashi S, Miura M, Tsukamoto H, Kawaguchi M J Anesth. 2014; 29(1):65-77.

PMID: 24943455 DOI: 10.1007/s00540-014-1860-4.

Potentiation of [Met5]enkephalin-induced antinociception by mixture of three peptidase inhibitors in rat.

Murata T, Yoshikawa M, Watanabe M, Takahashi S, Kawaguchi M, Kobayashi H J Anesth. 2014; 28(5):708-15.

PMID: 24705939 DOI: 10.1007/s00540-014-1819-5.

Ethanol-induced social facilitation in adolescent rats: role of endogenous activity at mu opioid receptors.

Varlinskaya E, Spear L Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2009; 33(6):991-1000.

PMID: 19302088 PMC: 3045078. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00920.x.

Neutral antagonist activity of naltrexone and 6beta-naltrexol in naïve and opioid-dependent C6 cells expressing a mu-opioid receptor.

Divin M, Bradbury F, Carroll F, Traynor J Br J Pharmacol. 2009; 156(7):1044-53.

PMID: 19220294 PMC: 2697693. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2008.00035.x.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006.

Bodnar R Peptides. 2007; 28(12):2435-513.

PMID: 17949854 PMC: 2693002. DOI: 10.1016/j.peptides.2007.09.002.

References

Walker E, Makhay M, House J, Young A . In vivo apparent pA2 analysis for naltrexone antagonism of discriminative stimulus and analgesic effects of opiate agonists in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994; 271(2):959-68. View

Burford N, Wang D, Sadee W . G-protein coupling of mu-opioid receptors (OP3): elevated basal signalling activity. Biochem J. 2000; 348 Pt 3:531-7. PMC: 1221094. View

Ko M, Butelman E, Traynor J, Woods J . Differentiation of kappa opioid agonist-induced antinociception by naltrexone apparent pA2 analysis in rhesus monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998; 285(2):518-26. PMC: 2882849. View

Takasuna M, Negus S, DeCosta B, Woods J . Opioid pharmacology of the antinociceptive effects of loperamide in mice. Behav Pharmacol. 1994; 5(2):189-195. DOI: 10.1097/00008877-199404000-00010. View

Pelton J, Kazmierski W, Gulya K, Yamamura H, Hruby V . Design and synthesis of conformationally constrained somatostatin analogues with high potency and specificity for mu opioid receptors. J Med Chem. 1986; 29(11):2370-5. DOI: 10.1021/jm00161a037. View

Kenakin T, Boselli C . Pharmacologic discrimination between receptor heterogeneity and allosteric interaction: resultant analysis of gallamine and pirenzepine antagonism of muscarinic responses in rat trachea. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1989; 250(3):944-52. View

Trist D, Leff P, Black J, Gerskowitch V, Shankley N . Resultant action of cimetidine in a cardiac adenylate cyclase assay: its elucidation by concentration-ratios analysis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1987; 243(3):1043-7. View

ARUNLAKSHANA O, SCHILD H . Some quantitative uses of drug antagonists. Br J Pharmacol Chemother. 1959; 14(1):48-58. PMC: 1481829. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1959.tb00928.x. View

Holtzman S . Stimulus properties of opioids with mixed agonist and antagonist activity. Fed Proc. 1982; 41(7):2328-32. View

10.

Brandt M, France C . Discriminative stimulus effects on enadoline in pigeons. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996; 277(2):960-7. View

11.

Emmerson P, Liu M, Woods J, Medzihradsky F . Binding affinity and selectivity of opioids at mu, delta and kappa receptors in monkey brain membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994; 271(3):1630-7. View

12.

Dykstra L . Butorphanol, levallorphan, nalbuphine and nalorphine as antagonists in the squirrel monkey. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1990; 254(1):245-52. View

13.

Berg K, Stout B, Cropper J, Maayani S, Clarke W . Novel actions of inverse agonists on 5-HT2C receptor systems. Mol Pharmacol. 1999; 55(5):863-72. View

14.

Picker M, Yarbrough J, Hughes C, Smith M, Morgan D, Dykstra L . Agonist and antagonist effects of mixed action opioids in the pigeon drug discrimination procedure: influence of training dose, intrinsic efficacy and interanimal differences. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993; 266(2):756-67. View

15.

Black J, Gerskowitch V, Leff P, Shankley N . Analysis of competitive antagonism when this property occurs as part of a pharmacological resultant. Br J Pharmacol. 1986; 89(3):547-55. PMC: 1917162. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1986.tb11155.x. View

16.

Gulya K, Krivan M, Nyolczas N, Sarnyai Z, Kovacs G . Central effects of the potent and highly selective mu opioid antagonist D-Phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Orn-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2 (CTOP) in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 1988; 150(3):355-60. DOI: 10.1016/0014-2999(88)90018-0. View

17.

He L, Lee N . Delta opioid receptor enhancement of mu opioid receptor-induced antinociception in spinal cord. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998; 285(3):1181-6. View

18.

Bilsky E, Bernstein R, Wang Z, Sadee W, Porreca F . Effects of naloxone and D-Phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2 and the protein kinase inhibitors H7 and H8 on acute morphine dependence and antinociceptive tolerance in mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1996; 277(1):484-90. View

19.

Egleton R, Abbruscato T, Thomas S, Davis T . Transport of opioid peptides into the central nervous system. J Pharm Sci. 1998; 87(11):1433-9. DOI: 10.1021/js980062b. View

20.

Liu J, Ruckle M, Prather P . Constitutively active mu-opioid receptors inhibit adenylyl cyclase activity in intact cells and activate G-proteins differently than the agonist [D-Ala2,N-MePhe4,Gly-ol5]enkephalin. J Biol Chem. 2001; 276(41):37779-86. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M106104200. View