Carbachol Induces Phase-dependent Phase Shifts of Per1 Transcription Rhythms in Cultured Suprachiasmatic Nucleus Slices

Multitargeting nature of muscarinic orthosteric agonists and antagonists

Muscarinic receptors (mAChRs) are typical members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family and exist in five subtypes from M1 to M5. Muscarinic receptor subtypes do not sufficiently differ in affinity to orthosteric antagonists or agonists; therefore, the analysis of receptor subtypes is complicated, and misinterpretations can occur. Usually, when researchers mainly specialized in CNS and peripheral functions aim to study mAChR involvement in behavior, learning, spinal locomotor networks, biological rhythms, cardiovascular physiology, bronchoconstriction, gastrointestinal tract functions, schizophrenia, and Parkinson's disease, they use orthosteric ligands and they do not use allosteric ligands. Moreover, they usually rely on manufacturers' claims that could be misleading. This review aimed to call the attention of researchers not deeply focused on mAChR pharmacology to this fact. Importantly, limited selective binding is not only a property of mAChRs but is a general attribute of most neurotransmitter receptors. In this review, we want to give an overview of the most common off-targets for established mAChR ligands. In this context, an important point is a mention the tremendous knowledge gap on off-targets for novel compounds compared to very well-established ligands. Therefore, we will summarize reported affinities and give an outline of strategies to investigate the subtype's function, thereby avoiding ambiguous results. Despite that, the multitargeting nature of drugs acting also on mAChR could be an advantage when treating such diseases as schizophrenia. Antipsychotics are a perfect example of a multitargeting advantage in treatment. A promising strategy is the use of allosteric ligands, although some of these ligands have also been shown to exhibit limited selectivity. Another new direction in the development of muscarinic selective ligands is functionally selective and biased agonists. The possible selective ligands, usually allosteric, will also be listed. To overcome the limited selectivity of orthosteric ligands, the recommended process is to carefully examine the presence of respective subtypes in specific tissues via knockout studies, carefully apply "specific" agonists/antagonists at appropriate concentrations and then calculate the probability of a specific subtype involvement in specific functions. This could help interested researchers aiming to study the central nervous system functions mediated by the muscarinic receptor.

Systematic review of drugs that modify the circadian system's phase-shifting responses to light exposure

We searched PubMed for primary research quantifying drug modification of light-induced circadian phase-shifting in rodents. This search, conducted for work published between 1960 and 2018, yielded a total of 146 papers reporting results from 901 studies. Relevant articles were those with any extractable data on phase resetting in wildtype (non-trait selected) rodents administered a drug, alongside a vehicle/control group, near or at the time of exposure. Most circadian pharmacology experiments were done using drugs thought to act directly on either the brain's central pacemaker, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the SCN's primary relay, the retinohypothalamic tract, secondary pathways originating from the medial/dorsal raphe nuclei and intergeniculate leaflet, or the brain's sleep-arousal centers. While the neurotransmitter systems underlying these circuits were of particular interest, including those involving glutamate, gamma-aminobutyric acid, serotonin, and acetylcholine, other signaling modalities have also been assessed, including agonists and antagonists of receptors linked to dopamine, histamine, endocannabinoids, adenosine, opioids, and second-messenger pathways downstream of glutamate receptor activation. In an effort to identify drugs that unduly influence circadian responses to light, we quantified the net effects of each drug class by ratioing the size of the phase-shift observed after administration to that observed with vehicle in a given experiment. This allowed us to organize data across the literature, compare the relative efficacy of one mechanism versus another, and clarify which drugs might best suppress or potentiate phase resetting. Aggregation of the available data in this manner suggested that several candidates might be clinically relevant as auxiliary treatments to suppress ectopic light responses during shiftwork or amplify the circadian effects of timed bright light therapy. Future empirical research will be necessary to validate these possibilities.