The CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors (CB1R, CB2R) are members of the G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) family that were identified over 20 years ago. CB1Rs and CB2Rs mediate the effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the principal psychoactive constituent of marijuana and subsequently identified endogenous cannabinoids (endocannabinoids) anandamide and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol. CB1Rs and CB2Rs have both similarities and differences in their pharmacology. Both receptors recognize multiple classes of agonist and antagonist compounds and produce an array of distinct downstream effects. Natural polymorphisms and alternative splice variants may also contribute to their pharmacological diversity. As our knowledge of the distinct differences grows, we may be able to target select receptor conformations and their corresponding pharmacological responses. This chapter will discuss their pharmacological characterization, distribution, phylogeny and signaling pathways. In addition, the effects of extended agonist exposure and how that affects signaling and expression patterns of the receptors is considered.

Two subtypes of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, have been described to date, although future investigations may elucidate other receptors. The actions of cannabimimetic agents via CB1 receptors in brain are mediated by GI/O to inhibit adenylate cyclase and Ca2+ channels. Little is known about signal transduction mechanisms utilized by CB2 receptors. Three classes of agonist ligands regulate cannabinoid receptors: cannabinoid, aminoalkyl-indole, and eicosanoid derivatives. Cannabinoid receptors produce analgesia and modify cognition, memory, locomotor activity, and endocrine functions in mammals.

The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide (arachidonylethanolamide) produces vasorelaxation in different vascular beds. In the present study, we found that anandamide and a metabolically stable analog, methanandamide, produced dose-dependent (10 nM-10 microM) vasorelaxation of approximately 80% in a rabbit aortic ring preparation in an endothelium-dependent manner. Non-endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation was observed to be a maximum of 20-22% at >10 microM methanandamide. The efficacious CB(1) receptor analogs desacetyllevonantradol (10 microM) and WIN55212-2 (10 microM) failed to produce vasorelaxation; however, the endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation evoked by methanandamide was partially (75%) blocked by the CB(1) receptor antagonist SR141716A. The VR(1) vanilloid receptor antagonist capsazepine or the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist CGRP-(8-37) partially attenuated (25%) the vasorelaxation in endothelium-intact preparations and greatly reduced the response in endothelium-denuded preparations. Pretreatment of aortic rings with N(G)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester completely blocked the methanandamide-, capsaicin-, and CGRP-induced vasorelaxation. Pretreatment of aortic rings with pertussis toxin attenuated the methanandamide-induced vasorelaxation in endothelium-intact aortic rings, indicating the involvement of G(i/o) proteins in the vasorelaxation; however, pertussis toxin treatment failed to block the endothelium-independent response. Thus, in the rabbit aorta, methanandamide-induced vasorelaxation exhibits two components: 1) in endothelium-intact rings, an SR141716A-sensitive, non-CB(1) receptor component that requires pertussis toxin-sensitive G proteins and nitric oxide (NO) production; and 2) in endothelium-denuded rings, a component that is mediated by VR(1) vanilloid receptors and possibly by the subsequent release of CGRP that requires NO production but is independent of pertussis toxin-sensitive G proteins.

Constrained molecular dynamics simulations on anandamide, together with a systematic distance comparison search, have revealed a specific low-energy conformer whose spatial disposition of the pharmacophoric elements closely matches that of HHC. This conformer enables near superposition of the following: (1) the oxygen of the carboxyamide and the phenolic hydroxyl group of HHC, (2) the hydroxyl group of the ethanol and the cyclohexyl hydroxyl group of HHC, (3) the alkyl tail and the lipophilic side chain of HHC, and (4) the polyolefin loop and the tricyclic ring structure of HHC. The close matching of common pharmacophoric elements of anandamide with HHC offers persuasive evidence of the biological relevance of this conformer. The proposed pharmacophore model was capable of discriminating between structurally related compounds exhibiting different pharmacological potency for the CB1 cannabinoid receptor, i.e., anandamide and N-(2-hydroxyethyl)prostaglandinamide. Furthermore, a 3D-QSAR model was derived using CoMFA for a training set of 29 classical and nonclassical analogues which rationalized the binding affinity in terms of steric and electrostatic properties and, more importantly, which predicted the potency of anandamide in excellent agreement with experimental data. The ABC tricyclic HU-210/HU-211 and ACD tricyclic CP55,243/CP55,244 enantiomeric pairs were employed as test compounds to validate the present CoMFA model. For each enantiomeric pair, the CoMFA-predicted log Ki values correctly identified that enantiomer exhibiting the higher affinity for the receptor.

The mechanism by which CB1 cannabinoid receptors are coupled to the Gi/Go class of G proteins was studied. A peptide representing the juxtamembrane carboxyl terminus robustly stimulated guanosine-5'-O-(3-thio)triphosphate binding. Peptides simulating subdomains of the third intracellular loop (IL3) activated minimally when present alone but produced additive effects when present in combination. Peptides representing the amino-side IL3 and the juxtamembrane carboxyl terminus autonomously inhibited adenylate cyclase, and this response was not significantly augmented or inhibited by peptides representing other intracellular domains. Site-directed antipeptide antibodies developed against the domains of the amino terminus, first extracellular loop, amino-side IL3, and juxtamembrane carboxyl terminus of CB1 receptors failed to influence binding of [3H]CP-55940. However, IgG raised against the amino-side IL3 diminished the agonist-dependent inhibition of adenylate cyclase. These experiments suggest that the juxtamembrane carboxyl terminus is critical for G protein activation by CB1 cannabinoid receptors and that the amino-side IL3 also may interact with Gi proteins leading to inhibition of adenylate cyclase.

Cannabinoid receptor interacting protein 1a (CRIP1a) is a CB receptor (CBR) distal C-terminal-associated protein that alters CBR interactions with G-proteins. We tested the hypothesis that CRIP1a is capable of also altering CBR interactions with β-arrestin proteins that interact with the CBR at the C-terminus. Coimmunoprecipitation studies indicated that CBR associates in complexes with either CRIP1a or β-arrestin, but CRIP1a and β-arrestin fail to coimmunoprecipitate with each other. This suggests a competition for CRIP1a and β-arrestin binding to the CBR, which we hypothesized could attenuate the action of β-arrestin to mediate CBR internalization. We determined that agonist-mediated reduction of the density of cell surface endogenously expressed CBRs was clathrin and dynamin dependent and could be modeled as agonist-induced aggregation of transiently expressed GFP-CBR. CRIP1a overexpression attenuated CP55940-mediated GFP-CBR as well as endogenous β-arrestin redistribution to punctae, and conversely, CRIP1a knockdown augmented β-arrestin redistribution to punctae. Peptides mimicking the CBR C-terminus could bind to both CRIP1a in cell extracts as well as purified recombinant CRIP1a. Affinity pull-down studies revealed that phosphorylation at threonine-468 of a CBR distal C-terminus 14-mer peptide reduced CBR-CRIP1a association. Coimmunoprecipitation of CBR protein complexes demonstrated that central or distal C-terminal peptides competed for the CBR association with CRIP1a, but that a phosphorylated central C-terminal peptide competed for association with β-arrestin 1, and phosphorylated central or distal C-terminal peptides competed for association with β-arrestin 2. Thus, CRIP1a can compete with β-arrestins for interaction with C-terminal CBR domains that could affect agonist-driven, β-arrestin-mediated internalization of the CBR.

The present study describes the implementation of comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) to develop two 3D-QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationship) models (CoMFA models 1 and 2) of the cannabimimetic (aminoalkyl)indoles (AAIs) for CB1 cannabinoid receptor binding affinity, based on pKi values measured using radioligand binding assays that displace two different agonist ligands, [3H]CP-55940 and [3H]WIN-55212-2. Both models exhibited a strong correlation between the calculated steric-electrostatic fields and the observed biological activity for the respective training set compounds. In light of the basicity of the morpholine nitrogen in the AAIs, separate CoMFA models were built for the AAIs as unprotonated and protonated species. Comparison of the statistical parameters resulting from these CoMFA models failed to provide unequivocal evidence as to whether the AAIs are protonated or neutral as receptor-bound species. Although the training sets of CoMFA model 1 and CoMFA model 2 differed with respect to composition and to the choice of displacement radioligand in each biological assay, their CoMFA StDevCoeff contour plots reveal similarities in terms of identifying those regions around the AAIs that are important for CB1 cannabinoid receptor binding such as the sterically favored region around the C3 aroyl group and the sterically forbidden region around the indole ring. When the experimental pKi values for the training set compounds to displace the AAI radioligand [3H]WIN-55212-2 were plotted against the pKi values as predicted for the same compounds to displace the cannabinoid radioligand [3H]CP-55940, the correlation was moderately strong (r = 0.73). However, the degree of correlation may have been lowered by the structural differences in the compounds comprising the training sets for CoMFA model 1 and CoMFA model 2. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that the binding site region within the CB1 cannabinoid receptor can accommodate a wide range of structurally diverse cannabimimetic analogues including the AAIs.

No abstract