Cargando…

The opioid receptor pharmacology of GSK1521498 compared to other ligands with differential effects on compulsive reward-related behaviours

RATIONALE: The novel opioid receptor antagonist, GSK1421498, has been shown to attenuate reward-driven compulsive behaviours, such as stimulant drug seeking or binge eating, in animals and humans. Here, we report new data on the receptor pharmacology of GSK121498, in comparison to naltrexone, naloxo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelly, Eamonn, Mundell, Stuart J., Sava, Anna, Roth, Adelheid L., Felici, Antonio, Maltby, Kay, Nathan, Pradeep J., Bullmore, Edward T., Henderson, Graeme
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281354/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24973897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3666-3
Descripción
Sumario:RATIONALE: The novel opioid receptor antagonist, GSK1421498, has been shown to attenuate reward-driven compulsive behaviours, such as stimulant drug seeking or binge eating, in animals and humans. Here, we report new data on the receptor pharmacology of GSK121498, in comparison to naltrexone, naloxone, 6-β-naltrexol and nalmefene. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the novel opioid antagonist, GSK1521498, is an orthosteric or allosteric antagonist at the μ opioid receptor (MOPr) and whether it has neutral antagonist or inverse agonist properties. METHODS: A combination of radioligand binding assays and [(35)S]GTPγS binding assays was employed. RESULTS: GSK1521498 completely displaced [(3)H]naloxone binding to MOPr and did not alter the rate of [(3)H]naloxone dissociation from MOPr observations compatible with it binding to the orthosteric site on MOPr. GSK1521498 exhibited inverse agonism when MOPr was overexpressed but not when the level of MOPr expression was low. In parallel studies under conditions of high receptor expression density, naloxone, naltrexone, 6-β-naltrexol and nalmefene exhibited partial agonism, not inverse agonism as has been reported previously for naloxone and naltrexone. In brain tissue from mice receiving a prolonged morphine pre-treatment, GSK1521498 exhibited slight inverse agonism. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between GSK1521498 and naltrexone in their effects on compulsive reward seeking are arguably linked to the more selective and complete MOPr antagonism of GSK1521498 versus the partial MOPr agonism of naltrexone. GSK1521498 is also pharmacologically differentiated by its inverse agonist efficacy at high levels of MOPr expression, but this may be less likely to contribute to behavioural differentiation at patho-physiological levels of expression.