Horan P J, Mattia A, Bilsky E J, Weber S, Davis T P, Yamamura H I, Malatynska E, Appleyard S M, Slaninova J, Misicka A
Department of Pharmacology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993 Jun;265(3):1446-54.
The dimeric enkephalin biphalin (Try-D-Ala-Gly-Phe-NH)2 was evaluated in mice using antinociceptive, gastrointestinal and physical dependence paradigms and compared with that of morphine (reference mu agonist) and etorphine (ultrapotent opioid agonist). Intracerebroventricular biphalin was 6.7- and 257-fold more potent than etorphine or morphine in eliciting antinociception. When administered i.t., biphalin produced only a 60% maximal antinociceptive effect in the tail-flick test even when given at doses up to 3 orders of magnitude higher than those effective i.c.v.; morphine was equipotent in this assay when given i.c.v. or i.t. Both morphine and biphalin were equipotent after i.p. administration. In spite of its antinociceptive effectiveness after i.p. administration. In spite of its antinociceptive effectiveness after i.p. administration, only a small fraction of [125I]biphalin was shown to penetrate to the brain (0.051 +/- 0.011%, at 20 min). After i.c.v. administration, biphalin antinociception was antagonized by receptor selective doses of beta-funaltrexamine (mu antagonist), naloxonazine (mu 1 antagonist), ICI 174,864 (delta antagonist) and [D-Ala2,Cys4]deltorphin (delta 2 antagonist), but not by [D-Ala2,Leu5,Cys6]enkephalin (delta 1 antagonist) or nor-binaltorphimine (kappa antagonist), whereas etorphine antinociception was significantly antagonized only by beta-funaltrexamine and naloxonazine. Intracerebroventricular biphalin inhibited gastrointestinal propulsion at doses 8-fold higher than those producing i.c.v. antinociception; i.c.v. morphine showed a similar antinociceptive and gastrointestinal propulsion A50. Intraperitoneal biphalin, but not i.p. morphine, showed little, if any, physical dependence, but both biphalin and morphine produced significant physical dependence when equiantinociceptive doses were infused i.c.v.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
使用抗伤害感受、胃肠道和身体依赖性范式在小鼠中评估了二聚脑啡肽双啡肽(Try-D-Ala-Gly-Phe-NH)2,并将其与吗啡(参比μ激动剂)和埃托啡(超效阿片类激动剂)进行比较。脑室内注射双啡肽在引发抗伤害感受方面比埃托啡或吗啡强效6.7倍和257倍。腹腔注射时,即使给予比脑室内有效剂量高3个数量级的剂量,双啡肽在甩尾试验中也仅产生60%的最大抗伤害感受效应;脑室内注射或腹腔注射时,吗啡在该试验中效力相当。腹腔注射后,吗啡和双啡肽效力相当。尽管腹腔注射后双啡肽具有抗伤害感受效力,但仅有一小部分[125I]双啡肽显示能穿透进入脑内(20分钟时为0.051±0.011%)。脑室内注射后,双啡肽的抗伤害感受被受体选择性剂量的β-氟纳曲胺(μ拮抗剂)、纳洛嗪(μ1拮抗剂)、ICI 174,864(δ拮抗剂)和[D-Ala2,Cys4]强啡肽(δ2拮抗剂)拮抗,但不被[D-Ala2,Leu5,Cys6]脑啡肽(δ1拮抗剂)或去甲二丙诺啡(κ拮抗剂)拮抗,而埃托啡的抗伤害感受仅被β-氟纳曲胺和纳洛嗪显著拮抗。脑室内注射双啡肽抑制胃肠道推进的剂量比产生脑室内抗伤害感受的剂量高8倍;脑室内注射吗啡显示出类似的抗伤害感受和胃肠道推进A50。腹腔注射双啡肽,但腹腔注射吗啡则不然,几乎没有身体依赖性,但当以等效抗伤害感受剂量脑室内注入时,双啡肽和吗啡均产生显著的身体依赖性。(摘要截断于250字)