He L, Lee N M
Geraldine Brush Cancer Research Institute, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA.
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998 Jun;285(3):1181-6.
Although the mu selective agonist [D-Ala2-MePhe4-Gly-ol5]enkephalin (DAMGO) and the delta selective agonist [D-Pen2,D-Pen5]enkephalin (DPDPE) are both antinociceptive when administered directly into the spinal cord of mice, 50% of antinociceptive dose (AD50) of DAMGO is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the AD50 of DPDPE. In contrast, the two ligands show similar affinities for their respective receptors in in vitro binding assays. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that DPDPE antinociception in the spinal cord is mediated through not delta but mu receptors, for which it has an several hundred-fold lower affinity than DAMGO. In support of this, we found that DPDPE-mediated antinociception was blocked by the mu selective antagonist D-Phe-Cys-Tyr-D-Trp-Arg-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2 (CTAP). The pA2 value of CTAP for DPDPE was virtually identical with that for DAMGO. However, because its action also was blocked by naltrindole, an antagonist selective for delta receptors, the latter must also play a role in antinociception. When DAMGO and DPDPE were administered i.t. together at ratios ranging from 1:200 to 1:500, the AD50 of DAMGO was lowered as much as 10-fold relative to its AD50 when given alone. Thus DPDPE had a potentiating effect on DAMGO, although the reverse was not observed. This potentiation was lost in animals made tolerant to systemic morphine. The loss of potentiation seemed to be caused by changes in the delta receptors, because a) the AD50 of DAMGO (i.t.) given alone to tolerant animals was virtually the same as for naive animals, whereas the AD50 of DPDPE given alone increased by 4-fold; and b) the AD50 of DPDPE given alone in the tolerant animal was increased only slightly by naltrindole, whereas CTAP was still a very potent antagonist. We conclude that DPDPE, a selective delta agonist, mediates antinociception in the spinal cord through mu receptors, consistent with results of recent studies of "knock-out" mice lacking mu receptors. At the same time, however, the delta agonist acting through delta receptors can potentiate the mu receptor-mediated antinociceptive action of either mu or delta agonists. This potentiating effect, like the synergistic effect observed between mu receptors at spinal and supraspinal sites, is lost during tolerance.
尽管μ选择性激动剂[D - Ala2 - MePhe4 - Gly - ol5]脑啡肽(DAMGO)和δ选择性激动剂[D - Pen2,D - Pen5]脑啡肽(DPDPE)直接注射到小鼠脊髓中时均具有镇痛作用,但DAMGO的50%镇痛剂量(AD50)比DPDPE的AD50低约2个数量级。相比之下,在体外结合试验中,这两种配体对各自受体显示出相似的亲和力。对此差异的一种可能解释是,脊髓中DPDPE介导的镇痛作用不是通过δ受体,而是通过μ受体介导的,其对μ受体的亲和力比DAMGO低数百倍。支持这一观点的是,我们发现DPDPE介导的镇痛作用被μ选择性拮抗剂D - Phe - Cys - Tyr - D - Trp - Arg - Thr - Pen - Thr - NH2(CTAP)阻断。CTAP对DPDPE的pA2值与对DAMGO的几乎相同。然而,由于其作用也被δ受体选择性拮抗剂纳曲吲哚阻断,所以后者在镇痛中也一定起作用。当DAMGO和DPDPE以1:200至1:500的比例经椎管内联合给药时,DAMGO的AD50相对于单独给药时降低了多达10倍。因此,DPDPE对DAMGO有增强作用,尽管未观察到相反的情况。在对全身吗啡产生耐受的动物中,这种增强作用消失。增强作用的丧失似乎是由δ受体的变化引起的,因为:a)单独给耐受动物注射DAMGO(经椎管内)的AD50与未处理动物的几乎相同,而单独注射DPDPE的AD50增加了4倍;b)在耐受动物中单独注射DPDPE时,纳曲吲哚仅使其AD50略有增加,而CTAP仍然是一种非常有效的拮抗剂。我们得出结论,选择性δ激动剂DPDPE通过μ受体介导脊髓中的镇痛作用,这与最近对缺乏μ受体的“基因敲除”小鼠的研究结果一致。然而,同时,通过δ受体起作用的δ激动剂可以增强μ或δ激动剂的μ受体介导的镇痛作用。这种增强作用,如同在脊髓和脊髓上部位观察到的μ受体之间的协同作用一样,在耐受过程中丧失。