Inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) reduces spinal nociceptive responses and expression of spinal long-term potentiation (LTP)

N-palmitoylethanolamide synergizes the antinociception of morphine and gabapentin in the formalin test in mice

OBJECTIVE

The antinociceptive pharmacological interaction between N-palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and morphine (MOR), as well as gabapentin (GBP), was investigated to obtain synergistic antinociception at doses where side effects were minimal. In addition, the possible antinociceptive mechanism of PEA + MOR or PEA + GBP combinations was explored.

METHODS

Individual dose-response curves (DRCs) of PEA, MOR and GBP were evaluated in female mice in which intraplantar nociception was induced with 2% formalin. Isobolographic method was used to detect the pharmacological interaction in the combination of PEA + MOR or PEA + GBP.

KEY FINDINGS

The ED50 was calculated from the DRC; the order of potency was MOR > PEA > GBP. The isobolographic analysis was obtained at a 1:1 ratio to determine the pharmacological interaction. The experimental values of flinching (PEA + MOR, Zexp = 2.72 ± 0.2 μg/paw and PEA + GBP Zexp = 2.77 ± 0.19 μg/paw) were significantly lower than those calculated theoretically (PEA + MOR Zadd = 7.78 ± 1.07 and PEA + GBP Zadd = 24.05 ± 1.91 μg/paw), resulting in synergistic antinociception. Pretreatment with GW6471 and naloxone demonstrated that peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) and opioid receptors are involved in both interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that MOR and GBP synergistically enhance PEA-induced antinociception through PPARα and opioid receptor mechanisms. Furthermore, the results suggest that combinations containing PEA with MOR or GBP could be of interest in aiding the treatment of inflammatory pain.

Synergistic antinociceptive interaction between palmitoylethanolamide and tramadol in the mouse formalin test

Pharmacological synergism has been used to obtain a higher efficacy using drug concentrations at which side effects are minimal. In this study, the pharmacological antinociceptive interaction between N-palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and tramadol was investigated. The individual concentration-response curves for PEA (0.1-56.2 μg/paw) and tramadol (1-56.2 μg/paw) were evaluated in mice in which nociception was induced by an intraplantar injection of 2% formalin. Isobolographic analysis was used to evaluate the pharmacological interaction between PEA (EC50=23.7±1.6 μg/paw) and tramadol (EC50=26.02±2.96 μg/paw) using the EC50 and a fixed 1:1 ratio combination. The isobologram demonstrated that the combinations investigated in this study produced a synergistic interaction; the experimental values (Zexp=9.5±0.2 μg/paw) were significantly smaller than those calculated theoretically (Zadd=24.8±0.2 μg/paw). The antinociceptive mechanisms of the PEA and tramadol combination involved the opioid receptor, transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 (TRPV1), and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR-α). The sedative effect of the combination of PEA and tramadol was less than that generated by individual treatments. These findings suggest that the PEA and tramadol combination produced enhanced antinociceptive efficacy at concentrations at which side effects are minimal.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2012

This paper is the thirty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2012 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

Spinal interaction between the highly selective μ agonist DAMGO and several δ opioid receptor ligands in naive and morphine-tolerant mice

Since the discovery of opioid receptor dimers their possible roles in opioid actions were intensively investigated. Here we suggest a mechanism that may involve the μ-δ opioid heterodimers. The exact role of δ opioid receptors in antinociception and in the development of opioid tolerance is still unclear. While receptor up-regulation can be observed during the development of opioid tolerance no μ receptor down-regulation could be detected within five days. In our present work we investigated how the selective δ opioid receptor agonists and antagonists influence the antinociceptive effect of the selective μ receptor agonist DAMGO in naïve and morphine-tolerant mice. We treated male NMRI mice with 200 μmol/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) morphine twice daily for three days. On the fourth day we measured the antinociceptive effect of DAMGO alone and combined with delta ligands: DPDPE, deltorphin II (agonists), TIPP and TICPψ (antagonists), respectively, administered intrathecally (i.t.) in mouse tail-flick test. In naive control mice none of the δ ligands caused significant changes in the antinociceptive action of DAMGO. The treatment with s.c. morphine resulted in approximately four-fold tolerance to i.t. DAMGO, i.e. the ED₅₀ value of DAMGO was four times as high as in naive mice. 500 and 1000 pmol/mouse of the δ₁ selective agonist DPDPE enhanced the tolerance to DAMGO while 1000 pmol/mouse of the δ₂ selective agonist deltorphin II did not influence the degree of tolerance. However, both δ antagonists TIPP and TICPψ potentiated the antinociceptive effect of i.t. DAMGO, thus they restored the potency of DAMGO to the control level. The inhibitory action of DPDPE against the antinociceptive effect of DAMGO could be antagonized by TIPP and TICPψ. We hypothesize that during the development of morphine tolerance the formation of μδ heterodimers may contribute to the spinal opioid tolerance. δ ligands may affect the dimer formation differently. Those, like DPDPE may facilitate the dimer formation hence inhibit the antinociceptive effect of DAMGO by causing virtual μ receptor down-regulation. Ligands that do not affect the dimer formation do not influence antinociception either but ligands with the presumed capability of disconnecting the dimers may decrease the spinal tolerance to DAMGO.