Regional haemodynamic responses to the cannabinoid agonist, WIN 55212-2 (5 – 250 μg kg−1 i.v.) were assessed in conscious, normotensive, Hannover, Sprague-Dawley (HSD) rats, and in hypertensive, transgenic ((mRen-2)27) (abbreviated to TG) rats. In HSD rats, WIN 55212-2 caused pressor, and renal and mesenteric vasoconstrictor effects, with a hindquarters vasodilator effect occurring only at the highest dose. In TG rats, the effects of the cannabinoid agonist were qualitatively similar to those seen in HSD rats, except there was no hindquarters vasodilatation. In both strains of rat, in the presence of losartan, pentolinium and a vasopressin (V1-receptor) antagonist, the pressor and vasoconstrictor effects of WIN 55212-2 were abolished, but the hindquarters vasodilator response was enhanced (HSD rats) or was seen only in that circumstance (TG rats). Under these conditions, both strains of rat showed a modest fall in blood pressure, together with mesenteric vasodilatation. In additional experiments in normotensive SD rats from Charles River (CRSD), it was shown that, in the presence of the V1-receptor antagonist alone, or losartan alone, or the two antagonists together, the cardiovascular effects of WIN 55212-2 (50 or 150 μg kg−1) were not attenuated. Hence, the effects described above were likely due to pentolinium. There were no consistent differences between HSD and TG rats in their haemodynamic responses to methoxamine or noradrenaline, indicating the two strains were not likely to differ markedly in their responsiveness to any putative sympathetic activation induced by WIN 55212-2. Collectively, the results indicate that the predominant cardiovascular effects of WIN 55212-2 in conscious HSD and TG rats (i.e., pressor and vasoconstrictor actions) can be attributed largely to indirect, pentolinium-sensitive mechanisms, which appear to differ little in the normotensive and hypertensive state, at least in conscious animals. Under the conditions of our experiments, signs of cannabinoid-induced vasodilatation were modest. Keywords: WIN 55212-2, cannabinoids, transgenic rats, hypertension, vasodilatation Introduction The discovery of the existence of endogenous cannabinoids (see Mechoulam et al., 1994; 1998 for review), and specific receptors for them (see Pertwee, 1997 for review), has stimulated renewed interest in the possible biological role, and therapeutic potential, of drugs derived from these compounds. However, the literature to date amply illustrates the complexity of this area of research, particularly in the context of cardiovascular function (see Compton et al., 1996 for review). For example, the effects of the cannabinoids may be influenced by the nature of the experiment (in vitro vs in vivo), the type of in vitro preparation (e.g., isolated mesenteric vessel vs perfused mesenteric vascular bed), and, for in vivo studies, the state of the experimental animals (pithed, anaesthetized, or conscious), their strain, and the route of administration (central vs peripheral) of the compounds. Further complexity is added by recent observations indicating that endogenous cannabinoids, such as anandamide, may exert effects by interacting, not only with cannabinoid receptors, but also with vanilloid receptors (Zygmunt et al., 1999; see Szallasi & Di Marzo, 2000 for review). Thus, some of the reported differences between anandamide and other cannabinoids could be due to such additional actions of anandamide. However, even synthetic cannabinoids, such as WIN 55212-2 (an aminoalkylindole with affinity for CB1 and CB2 receptors (see Pertwee, 1997)), have complex influences on cardiovascular function. In that context, a recent, elegant study by Niederhoffer & Szabo (1999), identified at least four cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms influenced by WIN 55212-2 in rabbits, namely: prejunctional inhibition of noradrenaline release from postganglionic sympathetic neurones (pithed animals), central sympathoexcitation, and vagal cardiac efferent activation (both at the level of the brain stem following central administration to conscious rabbits), and central sympathoinhibition (following high systemic doses in conscious rabbits). Interestingly, Niederhoffer & Szabo (1999) could find no evidence for cannabinoid-mediated vasodilatation (Randall et al., 1996), as judged by a lack of depressor effect of WIN 55212-2 in pithed, noradrenaline-supported, rabbits, although no direct measures of vascular tone were made in any of their experiments. Furthermore, the question of whether or not cannabinoids have vasodilator actions in other species in vivo is unresolved. With these various observations as a backdrop, our present objectives were to evaluate the regional haemodynamic actions of a range of systemic doses of WIN 55212-2 in conscious rats. We studied normotensive, Hannover Sprague-Dawley (HSD) rats, and transgenic ((mRen-2)-27) hypertensive (TG) rats (Mullins et al., 1990), our hypothesis being that the altered sympathetic control mechanisms in the latter (Averill et al., 1996) might influence the cardiovascular responses to WIN 55212-2. This seemed feasible, since Lake et al. (1997b) have reported that the cardiovascular effects of anandamide in conscious spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) differed from those seen in the normotensive control rats, and they attributed the difference to the level of pre-existing sympathetic tone. Our experiments were performed before and after inhibition of the major neurohumoral vasoconstrictor systems (sympathoadrenal, renin-angiotensin and vasopressin), using ganglion blockade, and angiotensin (AT1), and vasopressin (V1) receptor antagonism. We did this in an attempt to determine whether or not, in the absence of the major pressor systems, vasodilator effects of the cannabinoid could be demonstrated. Since we observed some differences between the responses to WIN 55212-2 in the HSD and TG rats in the intact state, in a final experiment we compared regional haemodynamic responses to noradrenaline and methoxamine, to discern whether or not the differential effects of WIN 55212-2 might be attributable to differences in responsiveness to sympathoexcitation in the two strains of rat. Some of the results have been presented to the British Pharmacological Society (Gardiner et al., 1999a; 2000a).