The cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB 1 ) and CB 2 cannabinoid receptors, associated with drugs of abuse, may provide a means to treat pain, mood, and addiction disorders affecting widespread segments of society. Whether the orphan G-protein coupled receptor GPR55 is also a cannabinoid receptor remains unclear as a result of conflicting pharmacological studies. GPR55 has been reported to be activated by exogenous and endogenous cannabinoid compounds but surprisingly also by the endogenous non-cannabinoid mediator lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI). We examined the effects of a representative panel of cannabinoid ligands and LPI on GPR55 using a ␤-arrestingreen fluorescent protein biosensor as a direct readout of agonist-mediated receptor activation. Our data demonstrate that AM251 and SR141716A (rimonabant), which are cannabinoid antagonists, and the lipid LPI, which is not a cannabinoid receptor ligand, are GPR55 agonists. They possess comparable efficacy in inducing ␤-arrestin trafficking and, moreover, activate the G-protein-dependent signaling of protein kinase C␤II. Conversely, the potent synthetic cannabinoid agonist CP55,940 acts as a GPR55 antagonist/partial agonist. CP55,940 blocks GPR55 internalization, the formation of ␤-arrestin GPR55 complexes, and the phosphorylation of ERK1/2; CP55,940 produces only a slight amount of protein kinase C␤II membrane recruitment but does not stimulate membrane remodeling like LPI, AM251, or rimonabant. Our studies provide a paradigm for measuring the responsiveness of GPR55 to a variety of ligand scaffolds comprising cannabinoid and novel compounds and suggest that at best GPR55 is an atypical cannabinoid responder. The activation of GPR55 by rimonabant may be responsible for some of the off-target effects that led to its removal as a potential obesity therapy.The CB 1 2 and CB 2 cannabinoid receptors comprise a twomember subfamily of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are notable as the targets of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) derivatives found in marijuana. More recently CB 1 receptors along with other GPCRs have been promoted as therapeutic pharmacological targets in the billion dollar weight loss market for controversial drugs such as rimonabant (SR141716A) and Fen-phen. Thus, an important utility of cannabinoid family receptors to society appears to arise from their role in regulating a broad spectrum of addiction-based behaviors, and the addition of new members to the cannabinoid receptor family may have social and economic implications that reach far beyond the initial scientific discovery. As a consequence, the re-classification of an orphan GPCR as a cannabinoid family member should be done with caution requiring strict criteria of receptor activation by THC derivatives or endogenous cannabinoid compounds and a widespread agreement of the results by the scientific community.Marijuana, one of the most widely abused substances (1), mediates many of its psychotropic effects by targeting CB 1 receptors in the central nervous system, but studies with CB 1 and CB 2 kno...

Known agonists of the orphan receptor GPR35 are kynurenic acid, zaprinast, 5-nitro-2-(3-phenylproplyamino) benzoic acid, and lysophosphatidic acids. Their relatively low affinities for GPR35 and prominent off-target effects at other pathways, however, diminish their utility for understanding GPR35 signaling and for identifying potential therapeutic uses of GPR35. In a screen of the Prestwick Library of drugs and drug-like compounds, we have found that pamoic acid is a potent GPR35 agonist. Pamoic acid is considered by the Food and Drug Administration as an inactive compound that enables longacting formulations of numerous drugs, such as the antihelminthics oxantel pamoate and pyrantel pamoate; the psychoactive compounds hydroxyzine pamoate (Vistaril) and imipramine pamoate (Tofranil-PM); and the peptide hormones triptorelin pamoate (Trelstar) and octreotide pamoate (OncoLar). We have found that pamoic acid induces a G i/o -linked, GPR35-mediated increase in the phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2, recruitment of ␤-arrestin2 to GPR35, and internalization of GPR35. In mice, it attenuates visceral pain perception, indicating an antinociceptive effect, possibly through GPR35 receptors. We have also identified in collaboration with the Sanford-Burnham Institute Molecular Libraries Probe Production Center new classes of GPR35 antagonist compounds, including the nanomolar potency antagonist methyl-5-[(tertbutylcarbamothioylhydrazinylidene)methyl]-1-(2,4-difluorophenyl)pyrazole-4-carboxylate (CID2745687). Pamoic acid and potent antagonists such as CID2745687 present novel opportunities for expanding the chemical space of GPR35, elucidating GPR35 pharmacology, and stimulating GPR35-associated drug development. Our results indicate that the unexpected biological functions of pamoic acid may yield potential new uses for a common drug constituent.

Ligands of structurally diverse natures are able to bind at the CB 1 cannabinoid receptor, suggesting the existence of multiple binding sites on the receptor. Modeling studies have implicated Ser2.60(173) and Ser7.39(383) as possible interaction site(s) for CB 1 agonists. To test the importance of these residues for receptor recognition, recombinant human CB 1 receptors, stably expressed in human embryonic kidney 293 cells, were used to investigate the consequences of mutating Ser2.60 (to S2.60A) or Ser7.39 (to S7.39A) in radioligand binding and guanosine 5Ј-3-O-(thio)triphosphate functional assays. The S7.39A mutant resulted in a total ablation of(1-naphthalenyl)methanone (WIN55,212-2) binding properties at S7.39A were comparable with those of the wild-type (WT) receptor. The binding affinity of (Ϫ)-11␤-hydroxy-3-(1Ј,1Ј-dimethylheptyl)hexahydrocannabinol (AM4056) and (Ϫ)-11-hydroxydimethylheptyl-⌬ 8 -tetrahydrocannabinol (HU210) were drastically reduced (50-to 100-fold) at the S7.39A mutant. Likewise, the EC 50 for HU210 and AM4056-mediated activation of the S7.39A receptor was increased by Ͼ200-fold. In contrast, the binding affinity and potency of WIN55,212-2, CP55,940, HU210, and AM4056 were unaltered at the S2.60A mutant compared with WT human CB 1 receptors. These results clearly suggest that Ser7.39, but not Ser2.60, plays a crucial role in mediating ligand specific interactions for CP55,940, HU210, and AM4056 at the human CB 1 receptor. Our modeling studies predict that Ser7.39 in a gϪ1 conformation may induce a helix bend in TMH7 that provides docking space for CP55,940 binding; the S7.39A mutation may alter this binding space, precluding CP55,940 binding.The CB 1 cannabinoid receptor is a member of the G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) family 1A, which includes the CB 2 receptor and the prototype rhodopsin (Howlett et al., 2002;Reggio, 2005). The human CB 1 and CB 2 receptors share only 44% amino acid overall homology, with a higher homology (68%) within the seven transmembrane domains (Munro et al., 1993). Both the CB 1 and CB 2 receptors share common signal transduction pathways, such as negative modulation of adenylyl cyclase activity (Felder et al., 1995) and also share certain common structural features with rhodopsin, including an extracellularly oriented N terminus, an intracellular carboxyl terminus, and hydrophobic transmembrane helices (TMHs).Although neither CB 1 nor CB 2 proteins have been crystallized, the crystal structure of rhodopsin (Palczewski et al., 2000) serves as a valuable template to model the putative CB 1 ligand binding domains. Ligands of structural diverse This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants DA09978 and DA05274 (to M.E.A.), DA00489 and DA039434 (to P.H.R.), and DA09158 (to A.M. and M.E.A.).Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at

The biarylpyrazole, N-(piperidin-1-yl)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (SR141716; 1) has been shown to act as an inverse agonist/antagonist at the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. Our previous mutant cycle study suggested that K3.28(192) is involved in a direct interaction with the C-3 substituent of 1 in wild-type (WT) CB1.(1) However, these results did not establish what part of the C-3 substituent of 1 is involved in the K3.28(192) hydrogen bond, the carboxamide oxygen or the piperidine nitrogen. Furthermore, our previous calcium channel assay results for 5-(4- chlorophenyl)-3-[(E)-2-cyclohexylethenyl]-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4- methyl-1H-pyrazole (VCHSR; 2) (an analogue of 1 that lacks hydrogen-bonding capability in its C-3 substituent) showed that this compound acts as a neutral antagonist, a result that is in contrast to 1, which acts as an inverse agonist in this same assay.(1) These results suggested a relationship between biarylpyrazole interaction with K3.28(192) at CB1 and inverse agonism, but these results were for a single pair of compounds (1 and 2). The work presented here was designed to test two hypotheses derived from our modeling and mutant cycle results. The hypotheses are as follows: (1) it is the carboxamide oxygen of the C-3 substituent of 1 that interacts directly with K3.28(192) and (2) the interaction with K3.28(192) is crucial for the production of inverse agonism for biarylpyrazoles such as 1. To determine whether the carboxamide oxygen or the piperidine nitrogen of the C-3 substituent may be the interaction site for K3.28(192), we designed, synthesized, and evaluated a new set of analogues of 1 (3-6, Chart 1) in which modifications only to the C-3 substituent of 1 have been made. In each case, the modifications that were made preserved the geometry of this substituent in 1. The absence of the piperidine nitrogen was not found to affect affinity, whereas the absence of the carboxamide oxygen resulted in a reduction in affinity. CB1 docking studies in an inactive state model of CB1 resulted in the trend, 3,1<5,4<2<6 for ligand/CB1 interaction energies. This trend was consistent with the trend in WT CB1 Ki values versus [3H]CP55,940 reported here. In calcium channel assays, all analogues with carboxamide oxygens (1, 3, and 4) were found to be inverse agonists, whereas those that lacked this group (2, 5, and 6) were found to be neutral antagonists. Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that it is the carboxamide oxygen of the C-3 substituent of 1 that engages in a hydrogen bond with K3.28(192) in WT CB1. Furthermore, functional results for 1-6 support the hypothesis that the interaction of 1 with K3.28(192) may be key to its inverse agonism.