![]() |
|
|
Vol. 294, Issue 1, 27-32, July 2000
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Marijuana is used by humans for its psychoactive and medicinal effects. The active constituents of marijuana, the cannabinoids, exert effects via a G protein-coupled receptor, CB1. Two arachidonic acid analogs, N-arachidonylethanolamine and 2-arachidonylglycerol are hypothesized to function as endogenous ligands of the CB1 receptor. The cannabinoids exert significant vascular effects in humans and laboratory animals. In particular, the cannabinoids produce vasodilation and hypotension. The possible mechanisms for these effects are inhibition of transmitter release from sympathetic nerve terminals, direct effects on vascular smooth muscle cells, and effects on endothelial cell function. The data regarding these effects of the cannabinoids and possible sources of endocannabinoid ligands in the vasculature are the subjects of this review.
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The
biologically active principal of marijuana,
9-tetrahydrocannabinol
(
9-THC), is a partial agonist of a G
protein-coupled receptor. This receptor, named the
CB1 receptor, is selectively activated by
9-THC and other cannabinoids (for review see
Pertwee, 1999
). The CB1 receptor has been
characterized at a molecular level and is expressed in high amounts in
the central nervous system (CNS). Antagonist studies (Dutta et al.,
1994
) and studies using CB1 receptor knock-out
mice (Zimmer et al., 1999
) provide evidence that most of the biological
effects of i.v. doses of 10 mg/kg or less of
9-THC are mediated by the
CB1 receptor.
Our understanding of the mechanism of activation of the
CB1 receptor and its role in cellular function
has come largely through studies of the effects of synthetic
cannabimimetic compounds. These include: CP55940 and HU210, bicyclic
and tricyclic derivatives of
9-THC; and Win
55212-2, an aminoalkylindole that binds the CB1 receptor with high affinity. Two competitive antagonists of the CB1 receptor have been identified. The first,
SR141716A, binds to the CB1 receptor with high
affinity and is selective for the CB1 receptor at
concentrations below 1 µM (Rinaldi-Carmona et al., 1994
). SR141716A
is not completely specific for the CB1 receptor at concentrations above 1 µM. A second antagonist for the
CB1 receptor LY320135 has lower affinity for the
CB1 receptor and is less potent than SR141716A
(Felder et al., 1998
).
Mechoulam and coworkers discovered that a minor constituent of brain
lipid extracts, N-arachidonylethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) bound and activated the CB1 receptor (Devane et
al., 1992
). Because AEA mimics the biochemical and physiological
effects of
9-THC, these investigators
suggested that AEA was the endogenous agonist of the
CB1 receptor. Although considerable evidence has accumulated to support this hypothesis (Hillard and Campbell, 1997
), it
has not been definitively proven. For example, evidence that links an
AEA-synthesizing cell in a synaptic or other close anatomical
relationship with a cell expressing the CB1
receptor is lacking. In addition, questions remain regarding the
regulation of the cellular syntheses of AEA and its putative precursor,
N-arachidonylphosphatidylethanolamine. However, the evidence
in support of AEA as an "endocannabinoid" is mounting as tools and
techniques for its measurement improve. Some of the most exciting
studies involve the relationships between AEA and the
CB1 receptor in the vascular system. These
studies are the subject of this review.
A second possible endogenous ligand of the CB1
receptor is the arachidonate ester, 2-arachidonylglycerol (2-AG)
(Sugiura et al., 1997
). 2-AG is an agonist of both the
CB1 and CB2 receptors, and
its concentration in brain is an order of magnitude higher than AEA. In
spite of this, 2-AG has received less attention, possibly because it
has poor stability both in vitro and in vivo. 2-AG spontaneously
rearranges to 1-AG, which has lower affinity for the
CB1 receptor than the parent compound (Sugiura et
al., 1999
). In addition, 2-AG is rapidly catabolized by a number of cellular esterases that are not easily inhibited (Bisogno et al., 1997
). This has hampered ligand binding studies and led to the conclusion that 2-AG has low affinity for the CB1
receptor. In fact, studies using whole cells demonstrate that 2-AG has
both full efficacy and high affinity for the CB1
receptor (Sugiura et al., 1999
).
CB1 receptors couple to several signal
transduction cascades through activation of heterotrimeric G proteins
(Pertwee, 1999
). The major effects of activation of the
CB1 receptor are pertussis toxin sensitive,
evidence that the G proteins involved are of the
Gi/o family. CB1 receptor
agonists inhibit the influx of calcium through N- and P/Q-type
voltage-operated calcium channels, increase the open probability of
several types of potassium channel, inhibit the activity of adenylyl
cyclase, and initiate mitogen-activated protein kinase-mediated
cascades. This spectrum of CB1-mediated cellular
effects results in important functional changes, particularly in
excitable cells such as neurons. Among other outcomes, the combination
of decreased calcium channel activity and increased probability of
potassium channel opening would be expected to have profound effects on
neuronal neurotransmitter release. This is indeed the case in the
hippocampus where CB1 receptors located on axon
terminals exert significant inhibitory effects (Shen et al., 1996
).
| |
Cardiovascular Effects of the Cannabinoids In Vivo |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It has been long recognized that the cannabinoids produce
cardiovascular effects in vivo. In humans, the most consistent
cardiovascular effects of both marijuana smoking and i.v.
administration of
9-THC are peripheral
vasodilation and tachycardia (Dewey, 1986
). These effects manifest
themselves as an increase in cardiac output, increased peripheral blood
flow, and variable changes in blood pressure.
In anesthetized rats and dogs,
9-THC produces
a transient pressor response followed by long-lasting hypotension and
bradycardia (Dewey, 1986
). The hypotensive effect of
9-THC is mimicked by various cannabinoids with
a rank order of potency that correlates well with the affinity of the
same ligands for the CB1 receptor (Lake et al.,
1997
). The transient pressor effect of
9-THC
is not mediated by the CB1 receptor.
Administration of the endocannabinoid AEA to anesthetized rats also
produces a brief pressor response that is followed by a more prolonged
decrease in blood pressure (Varga et al., 1995
). The depressor response to AEA is inhibited by coadministration of SR141716A (Varga et al.,
1995
) and is absent in CB1 receptor null mice
(Jarai et al., 1999
).
| |
Activation of the CB1 Receptor Results in Decreased Sympathetic Outflow |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The hypotensive effect of the cannabinoids in anesthetized animals
requires intact sympathetic outflow from the CNS, and the hypothesis
was put forward many years ago that the hypotensive and bradycardic
effects of the cannabinoids resulted from inhibition of sympathetic
outflow (Hardman et al., 1971
; Vollmer et al., 1974
). For example, the
hypotensive effect of the synthetic cannabinoid 1-hydroxy-3(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-6,6,9-trimethyl
7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6-dibenzopyran (DMHP) was lost in cats with spinal
cord transections at the first cervical vertebra (Hardman et al.,
1971
). Furthermore, dogs treated with a very low dose (0.05 mg/kg) of
DMHP lost the pressor reflex induced by occlusion of the common carotid
artery. Because the pressor response to epinephrine was preserved in
DMHP-treated dogs, these authors suggested that DMHP must interrupt
sympathetic innervation of the blood vessels. Other investigators came
to the same conclusions and suggested that the site of cannabinoid action was at the cardioregulatory centers in the CNS (Vollmer et al.,
1974
), although their data are also consistent with cannabinoid inhibition of the release of norepinephrine from sympathetic nerve terminals.
Recent studies using AEA in anesthetized rats (Varga et al., 1995
) and
Win 55212-2 in pithed, conscious rabbits (Niederhoffer and Szabo, 1999
)
eliminate a CNS site for the depressor effect of the cannabinoids. In
rats, AEA increases activity in the sympathetic premotor neurons in the
rostral ventrolateral medulla, an obligatory outflow pathway for
centrally mediated sympathomodulatory effects (Varga et al., 1996
).
Similarly, Win 55212-2, administered into the cisterna
cerebellomedullaris of rabbits, produces sympathoexcitation and
activation of cardiac vagal fibers (Niederhoffer and Szabo, 1999
).
Thus, the cannabinoids induce a CNS-mediated increase in sympathetic
and parasympathetic nerve activity, which would increase blood pressure
and decrease heart rate. Therefore, this effect does not explain the
observed depressor effects of the cannabinoids although it may underlie
their bradycardic effects.
Cannabinoid inhibition of sympathetic innervation of the peripheral
vasculature is due to CB1 receptor-mediated
inhibition of norepinephrine release from sympathetic nerve terminals.
Support for this conclusion comes from several studies. First, mRNA for the CB1 receptor is detected in a sympathetic
ganglion, the superior cervical ganglion of the rat, which would be
expected if a receptor was present on sympathetic nerve terminals
(Ishac et al., 1996
). Second, Win 55212-2 decreases the spillover of
norepinephrine into the plasma in pithed rabbits with continuously
stimulated sympathetic neuronal activity (Niederhoffer and Szabo,
1999
). Third, treatment of isolated atria and vasa deferentia with AEA and
9-THC reduces the release of
[3H]norepinephrine in response to electrical
field stimulation (Ishac et al., 1996
).
| |
Nonneuronal Sites of Cannabinoid Action |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Studies in isolated preparations of vascular tissue and cells provide evidence that the cannabinoids also affect vascular function through actions on nonneuronal cells. Although the majority of these studies report that the cannabinoids produce vasodilation of isolated vessels, it is unlikely that a common mechanism underlies all of these effects. Two nonneuronal cellular sites of cannabinoid action are supported by experimental evidence: vascular smooth muscle cells where cannabinoids alter influx, release, or sensitivity to calcium; and endothelial cells where cannabinoids alter the release of endothelial-derived factors.
| |
Nonneuronal Sites of Cannabinoid Action: Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The most convincing evidence for
CB1-mediated vasorelaxation resulting from a
direct effect of the cannabinoids on vascular smooth muscle cells comes
from studies in cat cerebral artery (Gebremedhin et al., 1999
). At
concentrations of 10 to 300 nM, AEA produces vasorelaxation of cat
cerebral arteries contracted with either serotonin or KCl. This effect
is mimicked by Win 55212-2 and inhibited by SR141716A. Cerebrovascular
smooth muscle cells from cat express the CB1
cannabinoid receptor, and electrophysiological data demonstrate that
Win 55212-2 and AEA decrease the opening of L-type calcium channels in
these cells. This effect is blocked by both pertussis toxin
pretreatment and by low concentrations of SR141716A, which support
involvement of the CB1 receptor. Although it is
not yet known whether smooth muscle cells in other vascular beds also
express the CB1 receptor protein, message for the
CB1 receptor has been detected in human aortic
smooth muscle cells (Sugiura et al., 1998
).
In rat mesenteric artery, AEA induces vasorelaxation that is
independent of the presence of endothelium, attenuated by high potassium concentrations (Randall et al., 1996
) and associated with
membrane hyperpolarization (Plane et al., 1997
). These studies have led
to the suggestion that AEA activates a vascular smooth muscle cell
potassium channel that results in hyperpolarization and relaxation.
Experiments with potassium channel blockers have provided conflicting
results regarding the identity of the potassium channel involved in
this effect (Plane et al., 1997
; White and Hiley, 1997
; Ishioka and
Bukoski, 1999
).
The role of the CB1 receptor in AEA-induced
vasorelaxation in the mesenteric artery has been approached with
pharmacological studies that do not consistently demonstrate a
receptor-mediated mechanism. First, the high affinity
CB1 receptor agonists CP55940 and Win 55212-2 do
not mimic AEA completely (Plane et al., 1997
). Second,
CB1 receptor antagonists do not consistently
block the effect of AEA. Several studies report attenuation of AEA
vasorelaxation by micromolar concentrations of SR141716A (Randall et
al., 1996
; White and Hiley, 1997
; Ishioka and Bukoski, 1999
), whereas
others report no effect of SR141716A in the same concentration range (Plane et al., 1997
; Wagner et al., 1999
). Some of the discrepancy in
the pharmacological data could be explained by variable expression of
the CB1 receptor throughout the mesenteric bed.
For example, Ishioka and Bukoski (1999)
have demonstrated that the
mesenteric branch arteries are particularly sensitive to relaxation by
AEA. However, support for this and other explanations await further investigation.
AEA produces endothelial-independent vasodilation in rat hepatic artery
without affecting resting membrane potential of vascular smooth muscle
cells (Zygmunt et al., 1997
). Data from single cell electrophysiological studies suggest that AEA inhibits calcium release
from caffeine-sensitive intracellular stores in these cells. Because
micromolar concentrations of AEA are required to produce this effect,
it is not likely that the CB1 receptor plays a role.
R-Methanandamide inhibits forskolin-stimulated accumulation
of cyclic AMP in rat carotid artery smooth muscle cells at very low
concentrations (Holland et al., 1999
). R-Methanandamide is a
derivative of AEA that binds to the CB1 receptor
with affinity similar to AEA but is not catabolized by AEA
amidohydrolase (Abadji et al., 1994
). This effect is lost in pertussis
toxin-treated vessels and may be mediated by the
CB1 receptor, although the pharmacological data
are not entirely consistent with this conclusion. Interestingly,
R-methanandamide does not affect vessel tone in the
preparation, except to inhibit forskolin-induced vessel relaxation slightly.
In summary, the contribution of direct effects on smooth muscle to the vasodilatory effects of the cannabinoids varies among vascular beds, as does the mechanism of action. In the cerebral circulation, vascular smooth muscle cells express the CB1 receptor that inhibits calcium entry through L-type calcium channels. It is not known whether this mechanism exists in other vascular beds. Endothelial-independent vasorelaxation in rat mesenteric vessels likely involves vascular smooth muscle cell hyperpolarization; however, whether this effect is mediated by the CB1 receptor and which potassium channel(s) are involved remain open questions. In carotid artery, R-methanandamide inhibits forskolin-stimulated adenylyl cyclase but does not affect vessel tone. In light of other cellular data demonstrating that the CB1 receptor couples to inhibition of adenylyl cyclase, this mechanism is plausible. However, it is not clear that the cannabinoids affect smooth muscle contractility via this mechanism.
| |
Nonneuronal Sites of Cannabinoid Action: Endothelial Cells |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In some vascular beds, endocannabinoid-induced changes in vascular tone include an endothelial component. The regulation of vascular smooth muscle cell contractility by endothelial-derived factors is well known. There are several studies describing AEA effects on the release of a variety of endothelial-derived vasoactive substances that occur through diverse mechanisms.
Nitric oxide (NO) is synthesized by endothelial cells and induces
vasodilation as a result of activation of guanylyl cyclase in the
adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells. In rat kidney, AEA-induced vasodilation is abolished by the NO synthase inhibitor,
L-nitroarginine methyl ester (L-NAME) (Deutsch
et al., 1997
). Furthermore, AEA increases the synthesis of NO in renal
endothelial cells (Deutsch et al., 1997
) and human endothelial cell
lines (Fimiani et al., 1999
). AEA treatment also induces an increase in
the release of intracellular calcium, which precedes and may be
causally related to the increase in NO (Fimiani et al., 1999
; Mombouli
et al., 1999
).
The role of the CB1 receptor in the effect of AEA
on NO synthesis in renal endothelial cells is not clear. Positive
evidence includes demonstration of a polymerase chain reaction product amplified from renal endothelial cell mRNA using primers specific for
the CB1 receptor (Deutsch et al., 1997
). The
polymerase chain reaction product was the expected size and hybridized
to an internal oligonucleotide sequence; however, the entire message
for the receptor was not sequenced, which leaves open the possibility that a cannabinoid receptor is expressed that is not identical with the
CB1 receptor. In fact, the high affinity of AEA
relative to other CB1 receptor agonists reported
in this study hints to an alternate cannabinoid receptor subtype. In
the human endothelial cells studies, the effects of SR141716A were
inconsistent. In one study, SR141716A (1 µM) inhibited the effect of
AEA on calcium mobilization (Fimiani et al., 1999
), whereas in the
other, 5 µM SR141716A itself elicited calcium mobilization and
inhibited calcium mobilization induced by both AEA and histamine
(Mombouli et al., 1999
).
An alternative, non-CB1 receptor for AEA has been
suggested by the work of Kunos and coworkers carried out using
isolated, buffer-perfused mesenteric arterial bed in rats and mice
(Jarai et al., 1999
; Wagner et al., 1999
). In rats, submicromolar
concentrations of AEA and R-methanandamide produced
endothelial-dependent vasodilation that was competitively inhibited by
500 nM SR141716A (Wagner et al., 1999
). However, the synthetic
CB1 receptor agonists Win 55212-2 and HU210 were
without effect. These data suggest that the effects of AEA, if
receptor-mediated, are not due to activation of the CB1 receptor. This conclusion is supported by
data from CB1 receptor knock-out mice in which
mesenteric vasodilation induced by AEA is preserved, as is its
sensitivity to inhibition by SR141716A (Jarai et al., 1999
). Structure
activity studies suggest that the non-CB1
receptor-mediated effects of AEA are endothelial in origin and are
mediated by a receptor; however, the identity of this receptor is not
yet known. The vasodilation induced by AEA is inhibited by the
potassium channel blockers, apamin and charybdotoxin, added in
combination but not by either when added alone. These data suggest that
the novel endothelial receptor for AEA regulates the synthesis of an
endothelial-derived hyperpolarizing factor (EDHF) and thereby affects
vascular tone. This very testable hypothesis has yet to be proven.
It is clear that the cannabinoids, particularly AEA, also produce
endothelial-dependent effects that are not mediated by the CB1
receptor. For example, in bovine coronary arteries, AEA serves as a
precursor of eicosanoids in endothelial cells (Pratt et al., 1998
). AEA
is accumulated by endothelial cells, catabolized intracellularly to
arachidonic acid by AEA amidohydrolase, and arachidonic acid is
converted to vasodilatory eicosanoids such as prostacyclin or
epoxyeicosatrienoic acids. This effect of AEA is not mediated by the
CB1 receptor and is abolished by an inhibitor of
AEA amidohydrolase.
AEA and R-methanandamide produce endothelial-dependent
relaxation in rabbit mesenteric artery at micromolar concentrations that is inhibited noncompetitively by the gap junction inhibitor 18
-glycyrrhetinic acid (50 µM) and by a blocking peptide to
connexin 43 (Chaytor et al., 1999
). The authors hypothesize that AEA
acts intracellularly to promote the diffusion of an EDHF from the
endothelium to the vascular smooth muscle cell through gap junctions. A
high concentration of SR141716A (10 µM) inhibited the effects of AEA, but also blocked dye transfer through gap junctions in a model system
that does not express CB1 receptors. Thus, these
studies provide an example of the nonselectivity of SR141716A for the CB1 receptor at high concentrations. They are an
example of the pitfalls inherent in using inhibition by high
concentrations of SR141716A as the only evidence for the involvement of
the CB1 receptor in an effect proposed to be
mediated by AEA.
In summary, AEA has effects on endothelial cells that result in changes in vascular tone. One of the more exciting mechanistic possibilities suggested by several studies is that endothelial cells may express a novel receptor that binds AEA and SR141716A with high affinity but does not bind as well to other high affinity CB1 receptor agonists. As with the effects of the endocannabinoids on smooth muscle cells, it is possible that some of the endothelial effects of AEA, particularly at concentrations above 1 µM are not cannabinoid receptor-mediated.
| |
Sensory Nerves as a Site of a Noncannabinoid Effect of AEA |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A recent study raises the intriguing possibility that AEA may
exert its vascular effects via activation of vanilloid receptors on
perivascular sensory nerves (Zygmunt et al., 1999
). These investigators have reported that AEA, at concentrations above 1 µM, induces vasodilation in rat hepatic, mesenteric and basilar artery
preparations. The pharmacology of the response is consistent with AEA
acting as an agonist of the VR1 vanilloid receptor and is inconsistent with a role for the CB1 receptor. The
vasodilatory mechanism suggested by these results is that AEA, via VR1
receptors, induces the release of calcitonin-gene-related peptide, a
potent vasodilator. Interestingly SR141716A, at a concentration of 10 µM, inhibits the vasodilator response to capsaicin in these vessels,
which also acts via release of calcitonin-gene-related peptide. These
data support the data cited above that AEA vasodilation is not always
explained by CB1 receptor effects. Because it is
likely that the vessels used in most tissue bath experiments contain
intact perivascular sensory neurons, it is possible that the
endothelial-independent component of AEA-induced relaxation seen by
other investigators occurs via this mechanism.
| |
Sources of Endocannabinoids in the Vasculature |
|---|
|
|
|---|
There is convincing evidence that the cannabinoids regulate vascular tone at a site or sites that are outside of the CNS. If we make the assumption that the physiological role of the receptor(s) for the endocannabinoids is to transduce signals from endogenously produced ligands, then the question of the cellular source of the endocannabinoids arises. This question is only beginning to be addressed as techniques capable of measuring low quantities of the endocannabinoids are developed. Three cell types have been suggested as the source of endocannabinoids in the vasculature: endothelial cells, perivascular neurons, and circulating cells, including platelets, polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and macrophages.
Based on the data obtained in mesenteric artery preparations, Randall
et al. (1996)
hypothesized that AEA is produced by endothelial cells
and functions as an EDHF. Although subsequent studies from a number of
laboratories have disproved the claim that AEA is EDHF (Plane et al.,
1997
; White and Hiley, 1997
; Zygmunt et al., 1997
), the question of
whether endothelial cells are a cellular source of AEA remains open.
Deutsch et al. (1997)
have reported that endothelial cells from the
kidney contain small but measurable amounts of endogenous AEA and its
phospholipid precursor. They did not determine whether cellular AEA
content or AEA release were altered by any stimuli. In contrast, our
laboratory was unable to detect the synthesis of radiolabeled AEA by
bovine coronary endothelial cells preloaded with radiolabeled
arachidonic acid (Pratt et al., 1998
). Human vascular endothelial cells
generate and release 2-AG, but not 1-AG, in response to stimulation by thrombin and the calcium ionophore A23187 (Sugiura et al., 1998
).
Both AEA and 2-AG have been shown to be synthesized and released by
neurons derived from the CNS (Di Marzo et al., 1994
; Stella et al.,
1997
). Therefore, a logical source of endocannabinoids in the vascular
system is neurons innervating the adventitial surface of the vessels.
Support for this hypothesis comes from recent studies demonstrating
that activation of perivascular sensory nerve endings in the mesenteric
circulation induces vasodilation that is inhibited by 0.3 µM
SR141716A (Ishioka and Bukoski, 1999
). An explanation of these
data is that the sensory nerve endings release a vasodilatory
substance that is an endocannabinoid.
The possibility that endothelial cells express receptors for
endocannabinoids invites the suggestion that cells in the blood are the
source of ligand for these receptors. Indeed, AEA is synthesized and
released from macrophage-derived cell lines in response to treatment
with a calcium ionophore (Di Marzo et al., 1996
) and platelet-activating factor (Pestonjamasp and Burstein, 1998
). Furthermore, macrophages taken from rats in shock induced by either hemorrhage (Wagner et al., 1997
) or lipopolysaccharide (Varga et al.,
1998
) contain increased amounts of AEA compared with macrophages from
control animals. Lipopolysaccharide treatment also increases the
biosynthesis of 2-AG in rat macrophages (Di Marzo et al., 1999
) and rat
platelets (Varga et al., 1998
). Recent studies have demonstrated that
human platelets take up AEA where it serves as a substrate for
12-lipoxygenase (Edgemond et al., 1998
). The resulting product
(12(S)-hydroxy-arachidonylethanolamide) binds to the
CB1 receptor with approximately the same affinity
as AEA itself and is metabolically more stable. These studies suggest that the biosynthesis of AEA by circulating cells may be complex and
result in the synthesis of several endocannabinoid species.
| |
Summary and Therapeutic Implications |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The cannabinoids have significant and complex effects on the vascular system that are not explained by a single mechanism or a single site of action. Some of these effects result from activation of CB1 receptors and therefore share the pharmacological specificity of the psychoactive effects of marijuana. It is likely that the CB1 receptors involved are located on axon terminals of sympathetic neurons and that activation of CB1 receptors results in decreased norepinephrine release. The physiological consequence of this mechanism is dependent upon the sympathetic tone of the subject. In anesthetized animals with high sympathetic tone, the outcome is hypotension. In conscious, healthy humans, the outcome is an increase in peripheral blood flow accompanied by tachycardia resulting from baroreceptor activation. There are forms of essential hypertension resulting from excessive and erratic activation of sympathetic outflow that theoretically could be treated by a CB1 receptor agonist.
In the cerebral circulation, cannabinoids reduce vascular smooth muscle
cell calcium influx and cause vasodilation directly through
CB1 receptors. This finding is consistent with
evidence that marijuana produces an increase in cerebral blood flow in humans that is not due to changes in sympathetic regulation of the
cerebral circulation (Mathew and Wilson, 1993
). It may also be the
mechanism by which marijuana impairs cerebral autoregulation in
response to changes in posture (Mathew and Wilson, 1993
). There are
several possible physiological roles for this receptor. Perhaps an
endocannabinoid serves to couple cerebral blood flow with the metabolic
activity of the surrounding neurons. Very few therapeutic interventions
are available to treat cerebral vasospasm, the unique mechanism of
action of the cannabinoids may be useful in this regard.
Recent studies using rodent models of hemorrhagic and endotoxin-induced
shock suggest that endocannabinoids are synthesized by activated
circulating macrophages and platelets (Varga et al., 1998
).
Furthermore, these investigators find that SR141716A inhibits the
hypotension induced by both interventions, suggesting that the
endocannabinoids contribute to the hypotension. If this also occurs in
humans, a cannabinoid receptor antagonist could be very useful in the
management of the profound hypotension that occurs during shock.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
1 The author was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants DA09155 and DA08098 during the writing of this review.
Received for publication January 31, 2000.
Send correspondence to: Cecilia J. Hillard, Ph.D., Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53226. E-mail: chillard{at}mcw.edu
| |
Abbreviations |
|---|
9-THC,
9-tetrahydrocannabinol;
AEA, N-arachidonylethanolamine;
2-AG, 2-arachidonylglycerol;
CB1, neuronal cannabinoid receptor;
CNS, central nervous
system;
DMHP, 1-hydroxy-3(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-6,6,9-trimethyl
7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6-dibenzopyran;
EDHF, endothelial-derived
hyperpolarizing factor;
NO, nitric oxide.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
)-delta 9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol.
J Pharm Pharmacol
26:
186-192[Medline].This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Waldeck-Weiermair, C. Zoratti, K. Osibow, N. Balenga, E. Goessnitzer, M. Waldhoer, R. Malli, and W. F. Graier Integrin clustering enables anandamide-induced Ca2+ signaling in endothelial cells via GPR55 by protection against CB1-receptor-triggered repression J. Cell Sci., May 15, 2008; 121(10): 1704 - 1717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A.H. Taylor, C. Ang, S.C. Bell, and J.C. Konje The role of the endocannabinoid system in gametogenesis, implantation and early pregnancy Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2007; 13(5): 501 - 513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Pacher, S. Batkai, and G. Kunos The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy Pharmacol. Rev., September 1, 2006; 58(3): 389 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Q. Zhao, Z. He, N. Chen, Y.-Y. Cho, F. Zhu, C. Lu, W.-y. Ma, A. M. Bode, and Z. Dong 2-Arachidonoylglycerol Stimulates Activator Protein-1-dependent Transcriptional Activity and Enhances Epidermal Growth Factor-induced Cell Transformation in JB6 P+ Cells J. Biol. Chem., July 22, 2005; 280(29): 26735 - 26742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. I. Herning, W. E. Better, K. Tate, and J. L. Cadet Cerebrovascular perfusion in marijuana users during a month of monitored abstinence Neurology, February 8, 2005; 64(3): 488 - 493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. M. H. Habayeb, A. H. Taylor, M. D. Evans, M. S. Cooke, D. J. Taylor, S. C. Bell, and J. C. Konje Plasma Levels of the Endocannabinoid Anandamide in Women--A Potential Role in Pregnancy Maintenance and Labor? J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2004; 89(11): 5482 - 5487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A Dietrich and W F McDaniel Endocannabinoids and exercise Br. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2004; 38(5): 536 - 541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Batkai, P. Pacher, Z. Jarai, J. A. Wagner, and G. Kunos Cannabinoid antagonist SR-141716 inhibits endotoxic hypotension by a cardiac mechanism not involving CB1 or CB2 receptors Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, August 1, 2004; 287(2): H595 - H600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Pacher, S. Batkai, and G. Kunos Haemodynamic profile and responsiveness to anandamide of TRPV1 receptor knock-out mice J. Physiol., July 15, 2004; 558(2): 647 - 657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Akerman, H. Kaube, and P. J. Goadsby Anandamide Is Able to Inhibit Trigeminal Neurons Using an in Vivo Model of Trigeminovascular-Mediated Nociception J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., April 1, 2004; 309(1): 56 - 63. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Randall A New Endothelial Target for Cannabinoids Mol. Pharmacol., March 1, 2003; 63(3): 469 - 470. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Offertaler, F.-M. Mo, S. Batkai, J. Liu, M. Begg, R. K. Razdan, B. R. Martin, R. D. Bukoski, and G. Kunos Selective Ligands and Cellular Effectors of a G Protein-Coupled Endothelial Cannabinoid Receptor Mol. Pharmacol., March 1, 2003; 63(3): 699 - 705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Li, N. E. Kaminski, and D. H. Wang Anandamide-Induced Depressor Effect in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats: Role of the Vanilloid Receptor Hypertension, March 1, 2003; 41(3): 757 - 762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Parmentier-Batteur, K. Jin, X. O. Mao, L. Xie, and D. A. Greenberg Increased Severity of Stroke in CB1 Cannabinoid Receptor Knock-Out Mice J. Neurosci., November 15, 2002; 22(22): 9771 - 9775. [Abstract]< |