PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12404624

Psychoactive cannabinoids and membrane signaling.

Abstract

THC-like psychoactive cannabinoids permeate the lipid bilayer of the membrane, altering its physicochemical properties and activating phospholipases. As a result, an increased production of arachidonic acid occurs with its cascade of eicosanoids, including prostaglandins. In addition, THC and its psychoactive derivatives bind within the membrane in a stereospecific fashion, to a transmembrane G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) for which THC has a much higher affinity than the natural ligands, arachidonylethanolamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonyglycerol (2-AG). These natural lipid ligands may be considered signaling molecules which are generated in the membrane lipid bilayer. THC alters the physicochemical disposition of the lipid bilayer and interacts with the integral membrane protein receptors through alteration of the boundary lipid. This effect is distinct from the mechanism resulting from its persistent binding to a G protein coupled transmembrane receptor. THC does not interact directly with neurotransmitter receptors but alters their pharmacological response in an allosteric fashion. It is proposed that the binding of AEA and 2-AG to the G protein coupled transmembrane receptor possesses a physiological function which is to regulate the signaling between boundary lipids and membrane receptors in response to extracellular signals. AEA and 2-AG are eicosanoid signaling molecules which modulate the activity of G protein coupled transmembrane receptors. AEA and 2-AG should not be identified with synthetic ligand molecules dubbed 'endogenous cannabinoids' which are 'xenobiotics' with no physiological regulating function. THC deregulates persistently a basic signaling mechanism of the membrane lipid bilayer and of its integrated receptors with resulting impairment of cellular function of brain, heart and male gonads. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gabriel G Nahas, David J Harvey, Kenneth M Sutin. 2000. Psychoactive cannabinoids and membrane signaling.. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1077(200010)15%3A7%3C535%3A%3Aaid-hup229%3E3.0.co%3B2-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗