High fat-fed GPR55 null mice display impaired glucose tolerance without concomitant changes in energy balance or insulin sensitivity but are less responsive to the effects of the cannabinoids rimonabant or Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabivarin on weight gain

BACKGROUND: The insulin-sensitizing phytocannabinoid, Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) can signal partly via G-protein coupled receptor-55 (GPR55 behaving as either an agonist or an antagonist depending on the assay). The cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) inverse agonist rimonabant is also a GPR55 agonist under some conditions. Previous studies have shown varied effects of deletion of GPR55 on energy balance and glucose homeostasis in mice. The contribution of signalling via GPR55 to the metabolic effects of THCV and rimonabant has been little studied. METHODS: In a preliminary experiment, energy balance and glucose homeostasis were studied in GPR55 knockout and wild-type mice fed on both standard chow (to 20 weeks of age) and high fat diets (from 6 to 15 weeks of age). In the main experiment, all mice were fed on the high fat diet (from 6 to 14 weeks of age). In addition to replicating the preliminary experiment, the effects of once daily administration of THCV (15 mg kg(−1) po) and rimonabant (10 mg kg(−1) po) were compared in the two genotypes. RESULTS: There was no effect of genotype on absolute body weight or weight gain, body composition measured by either dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), fat pad weights, food intake, energy expenditure, locomotor activity, glucose tolerance or insulin tolerance in mice fed on chow. When the mice were fed a high fat diet, there was again no effect of genotype on these various aspects of energy balance. However, in both experiments, glucose tolerance was worse in the knockout than the wild-type mice. Genotype did not affect insulin tolerance in either experiment. Weight loss in rimonabant- and THCV-treated mice was lower in knockout than in wild-type mice, but surprisingly there was no detectable effect of genotype on the effects of the drugs on any aspect of glucose homeostasis after taking into account the effect of genotype in vehicle-treated mice. CONCLUSIONS: Our two experiments differ from those reported by others in finding impaired glucose tolerance in GPR55 knockout mice in the absence of any effect on body weight, body composition, locomotor activity or energy expenditure. Nor could we detect any effect of genotype on insulin tolerance, so the possibility that GPR55 regulates glucose-stimulated insulin secretion merits further investigation. By contrast with the genotype effect in untreated mice, we found that THCV and rimonabant reduced weight gain, and this effect was in part mediated by GPR55.