Endocannabinoid system and mood disorders: Priming a target for new therapies

Department of Clinical and Molecular Biomedicine, Section of Pharmacology and Biochemistry, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. Electronic address: .
Pharmacology [?] Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 7.75). 12/2012; 138(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012.12.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The endocannabinoid system (ECS), comprising two G protein-coupled receptors (the cannabinoid receptors 1 and 2 [CB1 and CB2] for marijuana's psychoactive principle Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol [Δ(9)-THC]), their endogenous small lipid ligands (namely anandamide [AEA] and 2-arachidonoylglycerol [2-AG], also known as endocannabinoids), and the proteins for endocannabinoid biosynthesis and degradation, has been suggested as a pro-homeostatic and pleiotropic signaling system activated in a time- and tissue-specific way during physiopathological conditions. In the brain activation of this system modulates the release of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters and of cytokines from glial cells. As such, the ECS is strongly involved in neuropsychiatric disorders, particularly in affective disturbances such as anxiety and depression. It has been proposed that synthetic molecules that inhibit endocannabinoid degradation can exploit the selectivity of endocannabinoid action, thus activating cannabinoid receptors only in those tissues where there is perturbed endocannabinoid turnover due to the disorder, and avoiding the potential side effects of direct CB1 and CB2 activation. However, the realization that endocannabinoids, and AEA in particular, also act at other molecular targets, and that these mediators can be deactivated by redundant pathways, has recently led to question the efficacy of such approach, thus opening the way to new multi-target therapeutic strategies, and to the use of non-psychotropic cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), which act via several parallel mechanisms, including indirect interactions with the ECS. The state of the art of the possible therapeutic use of endocannabinoid deactivation inhibitors and phytocannabinoids in mood disorders is discussed in this review article.

Download full-text


Available from: Alexandra Sulcova, Jun 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The contribution of two major endocannabinoids, 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) and anandamide (AEA), in the regulation of fear expression is still unknown. We analyzed the role of different players of the endocannabinoid system on the expression of a strong auditory-cued fear memory in male mice by pharmacological means. The cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) antagonist SR141716 (3 mg/kg) caused an increase in conditioned freezing upon repeated tone presentation on three consecutive days. The cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) antagonist AM630 (3 mg/kg), in contrast, had opposite effects during the first tone presentation, with no effects of the transient receptor potential vanilloid receptor type 1 (TRPV1) antagonist SB366791 (1 and 3 mg/kg). Administration of the CB2 agonist JWH133 (3 mg/kg) failed to affect the acute freezing response, whereas the CB1 agonist CP55,940 (50 μg/kg) augmented it. The endocannabinoid uptake inhibitor AM404 (3 mg/kg), but not VDM11 (3 mg/kg), reduced the acute freezing response. Its co-administration with SR141716 or SB366791 confirmed an involvement of CB1 and TRPV1. AEA degradation inhibition by URB597 (1 mg/kg) decreased, while 2-AG degradation inhibition by JZL184 (4 and 8 mg/kg) increased freezing response. As revealed in conditional CB1-deficient mutants, CB1 on cortical glutamatergic neurons alleviates whereas CB1 on GABAergic neurons slightly enhances fear expression. Moreover, 2-AG fear-promoting effects depended on CB1 signaling in GABAergic neurons, while an involvement of glutamatergic neurons remained inconclusive due to the high freezing shown by vehicle-treated Glu-CB1-KO. Our findings suggest that increased AEA levels mediate acute fear relief, whereas increased 2-AG levels promote the expression of conditioned fear primarily via CB1 on GABAergic neurons.
    Psychopharmacology 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00213-015-3917-y · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abnormalities in social behavior are found in almost all psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety, depression, autism, and schizophrenia. Thus, comprehension of the neurobiological basis of social interaction is important for a better understanding of numerous pathologies and improved treatments. Several findings have suggested that an alteration of cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) receptor function could be involved in the pathophysiology of such disorders. However, the role of CB1 receptors is still unclear, and their localisation on different neuronal subpopulations may produce distinct outcomes. To dissect the role of CB1 receptors in different neuronal populations, we used male knockout mice and their respective control littermates [total deletion (CB1−/−); specific deletion on cortical glutamatergic neurons (Glu-CB1−/−) or on GABAergic interneurons (GABA-CB1−/−), and wild-type (WT) mice treated with the CB1 antagonist/inverse agonist SR141716A (3 mg/kg). Mice were required to perform different social tasks – direct social interaction and social investigation. Direct interaction of two male mice was not modified in any group; however, when they were paired with females, Glu-CB1−/− mice showed reduced interaction. Also, exploration of the male stimulus subject in the three-chamber social investigation test was almost unaffected. The situation was completely different when a female was used as the stimulus subject. In this case, Glu-CB1−/− mice showed reduced interest in the social stimulus, mimicking the phenotype of CB1−/− or WT mice treated with SR141716A. GABA-CB1−/− mice showed the opposite phenotype, by spending more time investigating the social stimulus. In conclusion, we provide evidence that CB1 receptors specifically modulate the social investigation of female mice in a neuronal subtype-specific manner.
    European Journal of Neuroscience 04/2014; 40(1). DOI:10.1111/ejn.12561 · 3.67 Impact Factor