O'Sullivan Saoirse E, Kendall David A, Randall Michael D
School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. saoirse.o'
Eur J Pharmacol. 2005 Jan 10;507(1-3):211-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2004.11.056. Epub 2005 Jan 6.
The vascular effects of cannabinoids have been compared in the rat isolated aorta. Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), anandamide and N-arachidonoyl-dopamine (NADA) all caused vasorelaxation to similar degrees in pre-constricted aortae. Vasorelaxation to THC was inhibited by in vivo pre-treatment with pertussis toxin (10 microg/kg) or with the synthetic cannabinoid CP55,940 (((-)-cis-3-[2-hydroxy-4-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)phenyl]-trans-4-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexanol), acutely or chronically), exposure to capsaicin in vitro (10 microM for 1 h), and de-endothelialisation. Vasorelaxation to anandamide was only inhibited by pertussis toxin and chronic CP55,940 pre-treatment (0.4 mg/kg for 11 days). Vasorelaxation to NADA was inhibited by pertussis toxin and chronic CP55,940 pre-treatment, and by de-endothelialisation. The vasorelaxant effects of the cannabinoids were not inhibited by cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonism; however, vasorelaxation to both CP55,940 and THC was inhibited by cannabinoid CB2 receptor antagonism. Vasorelaxation to all cannabinoids was enhanced in the presence of indomethacin (10 microM). THC also caused vasoconstriction of the aorta while anandamide, NADA, CP55,940 and WIN 55,212-2 (R(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-[(morpholinyl)methyl]pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4benzoxazin-yl]-(1-naphthalenyl)methanone mesylate) did not. The vasoconstrictor effects of THC were inhibited by in vivo pre-treatment with pertussis toxin or CP55,940, acute exposure to CP55,940, cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonism and cyclooxygenase inhibition. These results demonstrate the opposing vascular effects of cannabinoids in the rat aorta, and although vasorelaxation to each of the cannabinoids is of similar magnitude, it is mediated through different pathways. This gives further indication of the different vascular actions of cannabinoid compounds.
已在大鼠离体主动脉中比较了大麻素的血管效应。Δ⁹-四氢大麻酚(THC)、花生四烯酸乙醇胺和N-花生四烯酰多巴胺(NADA)在预收缩的主动脉中均引起相似程度的血管舒张。百日咳毒素(10微克/千克)体内预处理、合成大麻素CP55,940(((-)-顺式-3-[2-羟基-4-(1,1-二甲基庚基)苯基]-反式-4-(3-羟丙基)环己醇)急性或慢性预处理、体外暴露于辣椒素(10微摩尔/升1小时)以及去内皮处理均抑制了对THC的血管舒张作用。对花生四烯酸乙醇胺的血管舒张作用仅被百日咳毒素和慢性CP55,940预处理(0.4毫克/千克,共11天)抑制。对NADA的血管舒张作用被百日咳毒素、慢性CP55,940预处理以及去内皮处理抑制。大麻素的血管舒张作用不被大麻素CB1受体拮抗剂抑制;然而,对CP55,940和THC的血管舒张作用被大麻素CB2受体拮抗剂抑制。在吲哚美辛(10微摩尔/升)存在的情况下,对所有大麻素的血管舒张作用均增强。THC还引起主动脉血管收缩,而花生四烯酸乙醇胺、NADA、CP55,940和WIN 55,212-2(R(+)-[2,3-二氢-5-甲基-3-[(吗啉基)甲基]吡咯并[1,2,3-de]-1,4-苯并恶嗪基]-(1-萘基)甲酮甲磺酸盐)则不会。THC的血管收缩作用被百日咳毒素或CP55,940体内预处理、急性暴露于CP55,940、大麻素CB1受体拮抗剂以及环氧化酶抑制所抑制。这些结果证明了大麻素在大鼠主动脉中的相反血管效应,并且尽管对每种大麻素的血管舒张作用幅度相似,但它是通过不同途径介导的。这进一步表明了大麻素化合物不同的血管作用。