The present data support the hypothesis that CB and CB receptors work in concert with opposing functions to modulate certain addiction-related effects of cocaine.

Background and purpose-Nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) receptor (NOP) agonists produce anxiolytic-like effects in rodents while antagonists promote antidepressant-like effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on anxiety and depression of NOP receptor partial agonists such as the peptides [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH 2 and UFP-113 and the non-peptide AT-090.Experimental approach-In vitro AT-090, UFP-113, and [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH 2 were tested for their ability to promote NOP/G-protein and NOP/β-arrestin 2 interaction, using a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer assay. In vivo, they were tested in mice in the elevated plus maze (EPM) and in the forced swim (FST) tests. NOP partial agonists effects were systematically compared to those of full agonists (N/OFQ and Ro 65-6570) and antagonists (UFP-101 and SB-612111). Authorship contribution statement LA, CR, ECG, and GC designed research; LA, CR, DM, and IUM performed the experiments; NTZ and RG contributed unpublished reagents/analytic tools; LA, CR, and DM analyzed data; LA, CR, ECG and GC wrote the paper. Conclusions and implications-NOP ligands producing similar effects on NOP/G protein interaction (partial agonism) but showing different effects on β-arrestin 2 recruitment (partial agonism vs antagonism) elicited different actions on anxiety and mood. These results suggest that the action of a NOP ligand on emotional states is better predicted based on its β-arrestin 2 rather than G-protein efficacy. Conflicts of interest HHS Public Access

Acute treatment with NOP antagonists reversed helplessness similarly to the classical antidepressants. These findings support the proposal that NOP receptor antagonists are worthy of development as innovative antidepressant drugs.

Nociceptin/orphanin FQ is the natural ligand of a Gi-protein coupled receptor named NOP. This peptidergic system is involved in the regulation of mood states and inflammatory responses. The present study aimed to investigate the consequences of blocking NOP signaling in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced sickness and depressive-like behaviors in mice. LPS 0.8mg/kg, ip, significantly induced sickness signs such as weight loss, decrease of water and food intake and depressive-like behavior in the tail suspension test. Nortriptyline (ip, 60min prior the test) reversed the LPS-induced depressive states. The NOP receptor antagonist SB-612111, 30min prior LPS, did not modify LPS-induced sickness signs and depressive-like behavior. However, when injected 24h after LPS, NOP antagonists (UFP-101, icv, and SB-612111, ip) significantly reversed the mood effects of LPS. LPS evoked similar sickness signs and significantly increased tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) plasma levels 6h post-injection in wild-type ((NOP(+/+)) and NOP knockout ((NOP(-/-)) mice. However, LPS treatment elicited depressive-like effects in NOP(+/+) but not in NOP(-/-) mice. In conclusion, the pharmacological and genetic blockade of NOP signaling does not affect LPS evoked sickness signs while reversing depressive-like behavior.

The elevated T-maze (ETM) is an apparatus derived from the elevated plus-maze test, which is used to evaluate anxiety. Because anxiety is a biasing factor in models of memory, this study proposed the ETM as a task for the simultaneous assessment of memory and anxiety in mice. The ETM consists of one enclosed and two open arms. The procedure is based on the avoidance of open spaces learned during training session, in which mice were exposed to the enclosed arm as many times as needed to stay 300s. In the test session, memory is assessed by re-exposing the mouse to the enclosed arm and the latency to enter an open arm was recorded. The anxiolytic diazepam (DZP; 1 or 2mg/kg) and the amnestic biperiden (BPR; 0.5, 1 or 3mg/kg) were injected at three distinct times: pre-training, post-training, and pre-test. Pre-training administration of BPR 1 and DZP 2 increased the number of trials needed to reach the avoidance criterion, suggesting a passive avoidance learning impairment. However, BPR induced hyperlocomotion, which could bias the interpretation of any BPR-induced effects during the training session. Pre-training injection of BPR did not affect the spontaneous increase in the latency to enter an open arm between trials, while DZP reduced latencies in the first three trials suggesting anxiolysis. In the test session, pre-training injection of BPR 1 and DZP 2 reduced latencies to enter an open arm, indicating memory impairment. Post-training and pre-test injection of DZP or BPR did not affect memory. In conclusion, the proposed ETM task is practical for the detection of the anxiolytic and amnesic effects of drugs.