Search

It is estimated that 0.6-1% of the population in the USA and Canada fulfil the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5) criteria for gambling disorders (GD). To date, there are no approved pharmacological treatments for GD. The rat gambling task (rGT) is a recently developed rodent analogue of the Iowa gambling task in which rats are trained to associate four response holes with different magnitudes and probabilities of food pellet rewards and punishing time-out periods. Similar to healthy human volunteers, most rats adopt the optimal strategies (optimal group). However, a subset of animals show preference for the disadvantageous options (suboptimal group), mimicking the choice pattern of patients with GD. Here, we explored for the first time the effects of various cannabinoid ligands (WIN 55,212-2, AM 4113, AM 630 and URB 597) on the rGT. Administration of the cannabinoid agonist CB1/CB2 WIN 55,212-2 improved choice strategy and increased choice latency in the suboptimal group, but only increased perseverative behaviour, when punished, in the optimal group. Blockade of CB1 or CB2 receptors or inhibition of fatty-acid amide hydrolase did not affect rGT performance. These results suggest that stimulation of cannabinoid receptors could affect gambling choice behaviours differentially in some subgroups of subjects.

We investigated the distribution of cannabinoid receptor subtypes 1 and 2 in the detrusor of different species and studied the effects of cannabinoid receptor 1 and 2 agonists on bladder function.Cannabinoid receptor 1 and 2 expression was studied with Western blot and immunohistochemistry in rat, monkey and human detrusors. Co-staining was done for markers of sensory nerves using calcitonin gene-related peptide (Euro-Diagnostica, Malmö, Sweden) and transient receptor potential vanilloid 1, and for cholinergic nerves using VAChT (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, California). Actions of the endogenous cannabinoid receptor-1 and 2 agonist anandamide (Sigma(R)), and the cannabinoid receptor 1 and 2 agonist CP55,940 (Sigma) on isolated detrusor and during cystometry in conscious rats were recorded.Higher expression of cannabinoid receptor 2 but not cannabinoid receptor 1 was noted in the mucosa than in the detrusor. Compared to the detrusor larger amounts of cannabinoid receptor 2 containing nerves that also expressed transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 or calcitonin gene-related peptide were observed in the suburothelium. Nerve fibers containing cannabinoid receptor 2 and VAChT were located in the detrusor. Neither anandamide nor CP55,940 affected isolated detrusor carbachol (Sigma) contractions. Nerve contractions were enhanced by 10 muM anandamide and decreased by 10 muM CP55,940 (p0.05). In vivo CP55,940 increased the micturition interval by 46% and threshold pressure by 124% (p0.05). Anandamide increased threshold pressure by 26% and decreased the micturition interval by 19% (p0.05 and0.01, respectively).The distribution of cannabinoid receptor 2 on sensory nerves and in the urothelium, and effects by CP55940 on the micturition interval and threshold pressure suggest a role for cannabinoid receptor 2 in bladder afferent signals. Co-expression of VAChT and cannabinoid receptor 2, and effects by CP55940 on nerve contractions suggest a cannabinoid receptor 2 mediated modulatory effect on cholinergic nerve activity. Anandamide may not be a good tool for cannabinoid receptor studies due to its activity at other receptors.

Direct application of cannabinoids to the medullary dorsal horn (MDH) inhibits lamina V nociceptive neurons. The present study compared the effect of the cannabinoid receptor agonist, WIN 55,212-2 (WIN-2) on the activity of lamina I and lamina V MDH neurons using extracellular single unit recording in anesthetized rats. Activity evoked by a contact thermode was measured before and after local application of WIN-2 (0.5-2.0 microg/microl) to the brainstem. Fast and slow heat ramps were used to differentiate between activity evoked primarily by A-delta and C primary afferent fibers, respectively. In lamina V neurons, WIN-2 produced a concentration dependent decrease in activity evoked by both fast and slow heat, reaching significance at 1.0 microg/microl. In lamina I neurons, WIN-2 administration inhibited slow heat-evoked activity beginning at 1.0 microg/microl, but had no significant effect on fast heat-evoked activity, even at the highest concentration (2.0 microg/microl). In separate experiments, the effect of intrathecal administration of WIN-2 to the MDH on head withdrawal latencies elicited by fast and slow heat ramps applied to the whisker pad was assessed in lightly anesthetized rats. Head withdrawal latencies elicited by slow but not by fast heat stimulation were increased by WIN-2. Taken together, these results emphasize the importance of lamina I neurons in the control of a nociceptive heat-evoked reflex.

BACKGROUND: The analgesic interaction between cannabinoids and local anesthetics has not been investigated. We sought to determine the nature of the interaction between the intrathecal cannabinoid receptor agonist (WIN 55,212-2) and bupivacaine using the formalin test. METHODS: Lumbar intrathecal catheters were implanted in male Sprague-Dawley rats. After intrathecal administration of WIN 55,212-2, bupivacaine, or their combination, 50 μL of 5% formalin was injected subcutaneously into the hindpaw. Dose-response curves were established and the respective ED 50 (50% effective dose) values were determined for each agent alone. Fixed-ratio combinations of WIN 55,212-2 and bupivacaine were tested for combined antinociceptive effects in the formalin test and an isobolographic analysis was performed to characterize the pharmacologic interaction of both drugs. RESULTS: Intrathecally administered WIN 55,212-2, bupivacaine, or their combination produced a dose-dependent decrease in the number of flinches during Phase 1 and 2 of the formalin test. Isobolographic analysis revealed a synergistic interaction between intrathecal WIN 55,212-2 and bupivacaine in both phases of the formalin test. In combination, the ED 50 value was significantly smaller than the theoretical additive value (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that intrathecally coadministered WIN 55,212-2 and bupivacaine provide synergistic antinociceptive interaction in both phases of the formalin test.

We studied the effects of cannabinoids on contextual conditioned fear responses. CB1 knockout and wild-type (CD1) mice were exposed to a brief session of electric shocks, and their behavior was studied in the same context 24 h later. In wild-type mice, shock exposure increased freezing and resting, and decreased locomotion and exploration. The genetic disruption of the CB1 receptor abolished the conditioned fear response. The CB1 antagonist AM-251 reduced the peak of the conditioned fear response when applied 30 min before behavioral testing (i.e. 24 h after shocks) in CD1 (wild-type) mice. The cannabinoid agonist WIN-55,212-2 markedly increased the conditioned fear response in CD1 mice, the effect of which was potently antagonized by AM-251. Thus, cannabinoid receptor activation appears to strongly promote the expression of contextual conditioned fear. In earlier experiments, cannabinoids did not interfere with the expression of cue-induced conditioned fear but strongly promoted its extinction. Considering the primordial role of the amygdala in simple associative learning (e.g. in cue-induced fear) and the role of the hippocampus in learning more complex stimulus relationships (e.g. in contextual fear), the present and earlier findings are not necessarily contradictory, but suggest that cannabinoid signaling plays different roles in the two structures. Data are interpreted in terms of the potential involvement of cannabinoids in trauma-induced behavioral changes.

Paclitaxel is an effective antineoplastic drug treatment used as an anti-tumoral therapy. Unfortunately its use is associated with unwanted side effects, which include the development of peripheral neuropathies and neuropathic pain, greatly affecting the quality of life of patients. It is well known that agonists of the cannabinoid receptor are able to reduce hyperalgesia and allodynia that develop after nerve injury. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of the cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 to reduce the thermal hyperalgesia and the tactile allodynia induced by administration of paclitaxel in rats. Present results demonstrate that WIN 55,212-2 (1 mg/kg i.p.) significantly reduced the heat (P

Human and animal studies provide evidence for vulnerable periods of brain development for deleterious effects of cannabinoids. We have recently shown that pubertal chronic cannabinoid treatment leads to long-lasting behavioral deficits, whereas a comparable treatment in adult rats did not affect the animals' behavior. In the present study we examined the effects of an identical chronic cannabinoid treatment in juvenile rats, just before the onset of puberty. Treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 (WIN) (1.2 mg/kg) or vehicle was extended over 25 days throughout the prepubertal period (postnatal days 15-40) in juvenile rats. The rats received a total of 20 injections intraperitoneally. Adult rats were tested for object recognition memory, performance in a progressive ratio (PR) operant behavior task, locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the acoustic startle response. Juvenile chronic WIN administration had no effect on object recognition memory, PR performance and locomotor activity in adulthood. However, a PPI deficit was observed in WIN-treated rats when tested as adults that could be reversed by the acute administration of the dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol (0.1 mg/kg). Additionally, juvenile cannabinoid treatment reduced the number of rearings, as well as the time spent in the center of the open field in adult rats, suggesting increased anxiety. Juvenile chronic cannabinoid treatment induced behavioral disturbances in adult rats that are less severe than those observed after pubertal cannabinoid administration. However, based on the observations of sensorimotor gating deficits and increased anxiety, we conclude that the prepubertal developmental phase, in addition to puberty, also represents a vulnerable time period for persistent adverse effects of cannabinoids.

Accumulating evidence suggests that cannabinoids can produce antinociception through peripheral mechanisms. In the present study, we determined whether cannabinoids attenuated existing hyperalgesia produced by a mild heat injury to the glabrous hindpaw and whether the antihyperalgesia was receptor-mediated. Anesthetized rats received a mild heat injury (55 degrees C for 30 s) to one hindpaw. Fifteen minutes after injury, animals exhibited hyperalgesia as evidenced by lowered withdrawal latency to radiant heat and increased withdrawal frequency to a von Frey monofilament (200 mN force) delivered to the injured hindpaw. Separate groups of animals were then treated with an intraplantar (i.pl.) injection of vehicle or the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2 at doses of 1, 10, or 30 microg in 100 microl. WIN 55,212-2 attenuated both heat and mechanical hyperalgesia dose-dependently. The inactive enantiomer WIN 55,212-3 did not alter mechanical or heat hyperalgesia, suggesting the effects of WIN 55,212-2 were receptor-mediated. The CB1 receptor antagonist AM 251 (30 microg) co-injected with WIN 55,212-2 (30 microg) attenuated the antihyperalgesic effects of WIN 55,212-2. The CB2 receptor antagonist AM 630 (30 microg) co-injected with WIN 55,212-2 attenuated only the early antihyperalgesic effects of WIN 55,212-2. I.pl. injection of WIN 55,212-2 into the contralateral paw did not alter the heat-injury induced hyperalgesia, suggesting that the antihyperalgesia occurred through a peripheral mechanism. These data demonstrate that cannabinoids primarily activate peripheral CB1 receptors to attenuate hyperalgesia. Activation of this receptor in the periphery may attenuate pain without causing unwanted side effects mediated by central CB1 receptors.

Cannabinoid receptor agonists produce analgesia for pains of non-cranial origin. However, their effectiveness for craniofacial pains is currently unclear. In the present study, the cannabinoid CB1/CB2 receptor agonist, WIN 55,212-2 (WIN), was bath applied to the brainstem while activity of spinal trigeminal nucleus caudalis (Vc) neurons evoked by transcutaneous electrical stimulation was recorded in isoflurane anesthetized rats. Neurons were characterized using mechanical and electrical stimulation of the face, and were classified as either lowthreshold mechanoreceptive (LTM) or wide dynamic range (WDR). LTM neurons responded to light brushing of the receptive field and received only Ab primary afferent fiber input. WDR neurons showed a graded response to mechanical stimulation, responding maximally to noxious stimuli, and demonstrated both A- and C-fiber evoked activity. In addition, WDR neurons displayed longer latency, C-fiber mediated post-discharge (PDC) activity after repetitive stimulation. Local bath application of 2.0 mg/ml WIN significantly reduced PDC activity (3 ^ 1% control, P , 0:01), C-fiber evoked activity (58 ^ 9% control, P , 0:01), and Ab evoked activity (57 ^ 10% control, P , 0:01) in WDR neurons. In contrast, LTM Ab-fiber evoked activity increased after local administration of WIN (204 ^ 52% control, P , 0:01). SR141716A, a CB1 receptor antagonist, prevented the effects of WIN on WDR PDC and LTM Ab evoked activity. These results indicate that cannabinoid receptor agonists may be effective agents for craniofacial pain. Furthermore, the particular sensitivity of PDC activity, a measure of neuronal hyperexcitability, to cannabinoid receptor agonists may be relevant to the treatment of persistent craniofacial pain. q 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Exogenous cannabinoids are effective in attenuating neuropathic pain behaviors induced by peripheral nerve injury, but the mechanisms of their effectiveness remain unclear. Here we examined the expression of spinal cannabinoid-1-receptors (CB1Rs) following chronic constriction sciatic nerve injury (CCI) and its relation to the effects of a CBR agonist (Win 55,212-2) on neuropathic pain in rats. CCI induced a time-dependent upregulation of spinal CB1Rs primarily within the ipsilateral superficial spinal cord dorsal horn as revealed by both Western blot and immunohistochemistry. This CCI-induced CB1R upregulation was at least in part mediated through tyrosine kinase receptors (Trk), because intrathecal treatment with the Trk inhibitor K252a (1 microg) for postoperative days 1-6 significantly reduced the CB1R upregulation in CCI rats. At the intracellular level, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (ERK-MAPK) inhibitor PD98059 (1 microg) prevented, while the protein kinase C inhibitor chelerythrine (10 microg) partially reduced, the CCI-induced CB1R upregulation when each agent was administered intrathecally for postoperative days 1-6. Importantly, the CCI-induced upregulation of spinal CB1Rs enhanced the effects of Win 55,212-2 on both thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia, since inhibition of the CB1R upregulation by PD98059 resulted in a significant reduction of the effects of Win 55,212-2 in CCI rats. These results indicate that upregulation of spinal CB1Rs following peripheral nerve injury may contribute to the therapeutic effects of exogenous cannabinoids on neuropathic pain.

Cannabinoids can disrupt short-term memory in humans and animals and induce learning deficits and other cognitive impairments. In the present study we examined the role of a full cannabinoid agonist in short-term memory, sensorimotor gating, and the acquisition and expression of an operant learning paradigm in rats. We tested the effects of the synthetic cannabinoid WIN 55,212-2 (0.6 and 1.2 mg/kg) on short-term memory in social and object recognition tests, on prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle, as well as on lever pressing for palatable food. Injections of 0.6 and 1.2 mg/kg WIN 55,212-2 impaired recognition memory and PPI in a dose-dependent manner, but had no effect on lever-pressing acquisition or expression, or on food preference. The PPI deficit was reversed by the administration of 0.1 mg/kg haloperidol. These data suggest that the synthetic cannabinoid WIN 55,212-2 does not lead to a general impairment of learning in an appetitive instrumental task, but significantly affects short-term memory and sensorimotor integration. The impairment in recognition and PPI might be due to deficits in attention-based short-term information processing.

Previous studies in our laboratory have demonstrated that cannabinoids administered intravenously attenuate the duration of nocifensive behavior and block the development of hyperalgesia produced by intraplantar injection of capsaicin. In the present study, we extended these observations and determined whether cannabinoids attenuate capsaicin-evoked pain and hyperalgesia through spinal and peripheral mechanisms, and whether the antihyperalgesia was receptor mediated. Separate groups of rats were pretreated 7 min before capsaicin with an intrathecal injection of vehicle or the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2 at doses of 0.1, 1.0 or 10 microg in 10 microl. Although the intrathecal application of WIN 55,212-2 did not alter nocifensive behavior following capsaicin, it produced a dose-dependent decrease in hyperalgesia to heat and mechanical stimuli. Intrathecal pretreatment with the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A (10 microg) blocked the antihyperalgesia produced by WIN 55,212-2. The ability of intrathecal administration of WIN 55,212-2 to attenuate hyperalgesia was not due to motor deficits since the highest dose of WIN 55,212-2 did not alter performance on the rota-rod test. To investigate whether cannabinoids attenuated capsaicin-evoked hyperalgesia through peripheral mechanisms, separate groups of rats were pretreated with an intraplantar injection of WIN 55,212-2 at doses of 0.1, 1.0, 10 or 30 microg in 100 microl 5 min before capsaicin. Intraplantar pretreatment with WIN 55,212-2 produced a dose-dependent attenuation of hyperalgesia to heat, but did not attenuate mechanical hyperalgesia or the duration of nocifensive behavior. The inactive enantiomer WIN 55,212-3 did not alter the development of hyperalgesia. SR141716A (100 microg) co-injected with WIN 55,212-2 (30 microg) partially attenuated the effects of WIN 55,212-2 on hyperalgesia to heat. Intraplantar injection of the highest dose of WIN 55,212-2 did not interfere with the development of hyperalgesia following capsaicin injection into the contralateral paw. These data show that cannabinoids possess antihyperalgesic properties at doses that alone do not produce antinociception, and are capable of acting at both spinal and peripheral sites.

We have examined the effects of cannabinoid agonists on hyperalgesia in a model of neuropathic pain in the rat and investigated the possible sites of action. The antihyperalgesic activity of the cannabinoids was compared with their ability to elicit behavioural effects characteristic of central cannabinoid activity. WIN55,212-2 (0.3–10 mg kg−1), CP-55,940 (0.03–1 mg kg−1) and HU-210 (0.001–0.03 mg kg−1) were all active in a ‘tetrad’ of tests consisting of tail-flick, catalepsy, rotarod and hypothermia following subcutaneous administration, with a rank order of potency in each of HU-210>CP-55,940>WIN55,212-2. The effects of WIN55,212-2 in each assay were blocked by the Cannabinoid1 (CB1) antagonist SR141716A. In the partial sciatic ligation model of neuropathic pain WIN55,212-2, CP-55,940 and HU-210 produced complete reversal of mechanical hyperalgesia within 3 h of subcutaneous administration with D50 values of 0.52, 0.08 and 0.005 mg kg−1, respectively. In this model WIN55,212-2 was also effective against thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia. WIN55,212-2 produced pronounced reversal of mechanical hyperalgesia following intrathecal administration that was blocked by the CB1 antagonist SR141716A. Following intraplantar administration into the ipsilateral hindpaw, WIN55,212-2 produced up to 70% reversal of mechanical hyperalgesia, although activity was also observed at high doses following injection into the contralateral paw. The antihyperalgesic effect of WIN55,212-2 injected into the ipsilateral paw was blocked by subcutaneously administered SR141716A, but was not affected by intrathecally administered SR141716A. These data show that cannabinoids are highly potent and efficacious antihyperalgesic agents in a model of neuropathic pain. This activity is likely to be mediated via an action in both the CNS and in the periphery.

Although it is well known that cannabinoids produce antinociception in acute pain models, there is less information on the ability of cannabinoids to alleviate hyperalgesia. In the present study, we determined whether cannabinoids attenuated the development of hyperalgesia produced by intraplantar injection of capsaicin in rats. In normal, untreated animals, intraplantar injection of 10 microg capsaicin produces nocifensive behavior (elevation of the injected paw) suggestive of pain, an increase in the frequency of withdrawal from punctate mechanical stimuli applied to the paw (mechanical hyperalgesia) and a decrease in the latency of withdrawal from noxious heat (heat hyperalgesia). Separate groups of animals were pretreated intravenously with vehicle, the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2 at doses of 1, 10, 100 or 200 microg/kg, or the enantiomer WIN 55,212-3 (100 microg/kg) 5 min before intraplantar injection of capsaicin into one paw. The duration of nocifensive behavior was measured during the first 5 min after capsaicin injection. Withdrawal responses to mechanical and heat stimuli applied to the plantar surface of both hindpaws were measured before and at 5 and 30 min after capsaicin. Pretreatment with WIN 55,212-2 produced a dose-dependent decrease in nocifensive behavior and in hyperalgesia to mechanical and heat stimuli produced by capsaicin, as compared with vehicle pretreatment. Doses of 100 and 200 microg/kg WIN 55,212-2 completely blocked the development of hyperalgesia to mechanical and heat stimuli without altering withdrawal responses on the contralateral control paw. Furthermore, these doses of WIN 55,212-2 had no effect on basal withdrawal responses to heat in animals that did not receive capsaicin. The inactive enantiomer WIN 55,212-3 did not alter the development of capsaicin-evoked pain or hyperalgesia. These data suggest that low doses of cannabinoids, which do not produce analgesia or impair motor function, attenuate chemogenic pain and possess antihyperalgesic properties.