Cannabinoid CB2R receptors are upregulated with corneal injury and regulate the course of corneal wound healing

CB2R receptors have demonstrated beneficial effects in wound healing in several models. We therefore investigated a potential role of CB2R receptors in corneal wound healing. We examined the functional contribution of CB2R receptors to the course of wound closure in an in vivo murine model. We additionally examined corneal expression of CB2R receptors in mouse and the consequences of their activation on cellular signaling, migration and proliferation in cultured bovine corneal epithelial cells (CECs). Using a novel mouse model, we provide evidence that corneal injury increases CB2R receptor expression in cornea. The CB2R agonist JWH133 induces chemorepulsion in cultured bovine CECs but does not alter CEC proliferation. The signaling profile of CB2R activation is activating MAPK and increasing cAMP accumulation, the latter perhaps due to G_s-coupling. Lipidomic analysis in bovine cornea shows a rise in acylethanolamines including the endocannabinoid anandamide 1 h after injury. In vivo, CB2R deletion and pharmacological block result in a delayed course of wound closure. In summary, we find evidence that CB2R receptor promoter activity is increased by corneal injury and that these receptors are required for the normal course of wound closure, possibly via chemorepulsion.

Two Janus Cannabinoids That Are Both CB2 Agonists and CB1 Antagonists

The cannabinoid signaling system includes two G protein-coupled receptors, CB₁ and CB₂ These receptors are widely distributed throughout the body and have each been implicated in many physiologically important processes. Although the cannabinoid signaling system has therapeutic potential, the development of receptor-selective ligands remains a persistent hurdle. Because CB₁ and CB₂ are involved in diverse processes, it would be advantageous to develop ligands that differentially engage CB₁ and CB₂ We now report that GW405833 [1-(2,3-dichlorobenzoyl)-5-methoxy-2-methyl-3-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-1H-indole] and AM1710 [1-hydroxy-9-methoxy-3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)benzo[c]chromen-6-one], described as selective CB₂ agonists, can antagonize CB₁ receptor signaling. In autaptic hippocampal neurons, GW405833 and AM1710 both interfered with CB₁-mediated depolarization-induced suppression of excitation, with GW405833 being more potent. In addition, in CB₁-expressing human embryonic kidney 293 cells, GW405833 noncompetitively antagonized adenylyl cyclase activity, extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 phosphorylation, phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate signaling, and CB₁ internalization by CP55940 (2-[(1R,2R,5R)-5-hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexyl]-5-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)phenol). In contrast, AM1710 behaved as a low-potency competitive antagonist/inverse agonist in these signaling pathways. GW405833 interactions with CB₁/arrestin signaling were complex: GW405833 differentially modulated arrestin recruitment in a time-dependent fashion, with an initial modest potentiation at 20 minutes followed by antagonism starting at 1 hour. AM1710 acted as a low-efficacy agonist in arrestin signaling at the CB₁ receptor, with no evident time dependence. In summary, we determined that GW405833 and AM1710 are not only CB₂ agonists but also CB₁ antagonists, with distinctive and complex signaling properties. Thus, experiments using these compounds must take into account their potential activity at CB₁ receptors.

Functional Selectivity of CB2 Cannabinoid Receptor Ligands at a Canonical and Noncanonical Pathway

The CB2 cannabinoid receptor (CB2) remains a tantalizing, but unrealized therapeutic target. CB2 receptor ligands belong to varied structural classes and display extreme functional selectivity. Here, we have screened diverse CB2 receptor ligands at canonical (inhibition of adenylyl cyclase) and noncanonical (arrestin recruitment) pathways. The nonclassic cannabinoid (-)-cis-3-[2-hydroxy-4-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)phenyl]-trans-4-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexanol (CP55940) was the most potent agonist for both pathways, while the classic cannabinoid ligand (6aR,10aR)-3-(1,1-Dimethylbutyl)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran JWH133) was the most efficacious agonist among all the ligands profiled in cyclase assays. In the cyclase assay, other classic cannabinoids showed little [(-)-trans-Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and (-)-(6aR,7,10,10aR)-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl)-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol] (KM233) to no efficacy [(6aR,10aR)-1-methoxy-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)-6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromene(L759633) and (6aR,10aR)-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6a,7,8,9,10,10a-hexahydro-1-methoxy-6,6-dimethyl-9-methylene-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran]L759656. Most aminoalkylindoles, including [(3R)-​2,​3-​dihydro-​5-​methyl-​3-​(4-​morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,​2,​3-​de]-​1,​4-​benzoxazin-​6-​yl]-​1-​naphthalenyl-​methanone,​ monomethanesulfonate (WIN55212-2), were moderate efficacy agonists. The cannabilactone 3-(1,1-dimethyl-heptyl)-1-hydroxy-9-methoxy-benzo(c)chromen-6-one (AM1710) was equiefficacious to CP55940 to inhibit adenylyl cyclase, albeit with lower potency. In the arrestin recruitment assays, all classic cannabinoid ligands failed to recruit arrestins, indicating a bias toward G-protein coupling for this class of compound. All aminoalkylindoles tested, except for WIN55212-2 and (1-​pentyl-​1H-​indol-​3-​yl)(2,​2,​3,​3-​tetramethylcyclopropyl)-​methanone (UR144), failed to recruit arrestin. WIN55212-2 was a low efficacy agonist for arrestin recruitment, while UR144 was arrestin biased with no significant inhibition of cyclase. Endocannabinoids were G-protein biased with no arrestin recruitment. The diarylpyrazole antagonist 5-​(4-​chloro-​3-​methylphenyl)-​1-​[(4-​methylphenyl)methyl]-​N-​[(1S,​2S,​4R)-​1,​3,​3-​trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-​2-​yl]-​1H-​pyrazole-​3-​carboxamide (SR144258) was an inverse agonist in cyclase and arrestin recruitment assays while the aminoalkylindole 6-iodo-2-methyl-1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-1H-indol-3-yl](4-methoxyphenyl)methanone (AM630) and carboxamide N-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-ylmethyl)-1,2-dihydro-7-methoxy-2-oxo-8-(pentyloxy)-3-quinolinecarboxamide (JTE907) were inverse agonists in cyclase but low efficacy agonists in arrestin recruitment assays. Thus, CB2 receptor ligands display strong and varied functional selectivity at both pathways. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised when using these compounds to infer the role of CB2 receptors in vivo.

Where's my entourage? The curious case of 2-oleoylglycerol, 2-linolenoylglycerol, and 2-palmitoylglycerol

2-Arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) is the most abundant endogenous cannabinoid in the brain and an agonist at two cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2). The synthesis, degradation and signaling of 2-AG have been investigated in detail but its relationship to other endogenous monoacylglycerols has not been fully explored. Three congeners that have been isolated from the CNS are 2-linoleoylglycerol (2-LG), 2-oleoylglycerol (2-OG), and 2-palmitoylglycerol (2-PG). These lipids do not orthosterically bind to cannabinoid receptors but are reported to potentiate the activity of 2-AG, possibly through inhibition of 2-AG degradation. This phenomenon has been dubbed the 'entourage effect' and has been proposed to regulate synaptic activity of 2-AG. To clarify the activity of these congeners of 2-AG we tested them in neuronal and cell-based signaling assays. The signaling profile for these compounds is inconsistent with an entourage effect. None of the compounds inhibited neurotransmission via CB1 in autaptic neurons. Interestingly, each failed to potentiate 2-AG-mediated depolarization-induced suppression of excitation (DSE), behaving instead as antagonists. Examining other signaling pathways we found that 2-OG interferes with agonist-induced CB1 internalization while 2-PG modestly internalizes CB1 receptors. However in tests of pERK, cAMP and arrestin recruitment, none of the acylglycerols altered CB1 signaling. Our results suggest 1) that these compounds do not serve as entourage compounds under the conditions examined, and 2) that they may instead serve as functional antagonists. Our results suggest that the relationship between 2-AG and its congeners is more nuanced than previously appreciated.

Cannabinoid-induced chemotaxis in bovine corneal epithelial cells

PURPOSE

Cannabinoid CB1 receptors are found in abundance in the vertebrate eye, with most tissue types expressing this receptor. However, the function of CB1 receptors in corneal epithelial cells (CECs) is poorly understood. Interestingly, the corneas of CB1 knockout mice heal more slowly after injury via a mechanism proposed to involve protein kinase B (Akt) activation, chemokinesis, and cell proliferation. The current study examined the role of cannabinoids in CEC migration in greater detail.

METHODS

We determined the role of CB1 receptors in corneal healing. We examined the consequences of their activation on migration and proliferation in bovine CECs (bCECs). We additionally examined the mRNA profile of cannabinoid-related genes and CB1 protein expression as well as CB1 signaling in bovine CECs.

RESULTS

We now report that activation of CB1 with physiologically relevant concentrations of the synthetic agonist WIN55212-2 (WIN) induces bCEC migration via chemotaxis, an effect fully blocked by the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716. The endogenous agonist 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) also enhances migration. Separately, mRNA for most cannabinoid-related proteins are present in bovine corneal epithelium and cultured bCECs. Notably absent are CB2 receptors and the 2-AG synthesizing enzyme diglycerol lipase-α (DAGLα). The signaling profile of CB1 activation is complex, with inactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). Lastly, CB1 activation does not induce bCEC proliferation, but may instead antagonize EGF-induced proliferation.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, we find that CB1-based signaling machinery is present in bovine cornea and that activation of this system induces chemotaxis.

CB2 Cannabinoid receptors as a therapeutic target-what does the future hold?

The past decades have seen an exponential rise in our understanding of the endocannabinoid system, comprising CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors, endogenous cannabinoids (endocannabinoids), and the enzymes that synthesize and degrade endocannabinoids. The primary focus of this review is the CB2 receptor. CB2 receptors have been the subject of considerable attention, primarily due to their promising therapeutic potential for treating various pathologies while avoiding the adverse psychotropic effects that can accompany CB1 receptor-based therapies. With the appreciation that CB2-selective ligands show marked functional selectivity, there is a renewed opportunity to explore this promising area of research from both a mechanistic as well as a therapeutic perspective. In this review, we summarize our present knowledge of CB2 receptor signaling, localization, and regulation. We discuss the availability of genetic tools (and their limitations) to study CB2 receptors and also provide an update on preclinical data on CB2 agonists in pain models. Finally, we suggest possible reasons for the failure of CB2 ligands in clinical pain trials and offer possible ways to move the field forward in a way that can help reconcile the inconsistencies between preclinical and clinical data.