2011

University of Aberdeen Vincent Hoi Kit Li http://vli.tel

[NEW CANNABINOID THERAPEUTICS]

A thesis presented as partial fulfilment for the degree of BSc (Hons) Physiology at the University of Aberdeen.

Declaration

I declare that all work in this thesis is my own. This thesis has never been submitted as part of any previous degree application. The collection and analysis of all results were performed by my lab partners (Tamema Choudhury & David McNee) and me. All contributions from other sources have been appropriately acknowledged and cited.

X
Vincent H. K. Li BSc (Hons) Physiology Candidate

Acknowledgements

This project was performed under supervision from Professor Ruth Ross and Gemma Baillie with the help from Lesley Stevenson and others in the Cannabinoid Group. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Ross. She has provided us invaluable advice on how we should go about with the project. As well as the extensive feedback she provided me with. Secondly, I would like to thank Gemma, who supervised us directly in the lab on a daily basis. Above all, for her patience, the techniques she has taught us and guidance throughout the project. In addition, Lesley has supported us throughout 10 weeks in the laboratory, ranging from brain collection to every aspect in the lab. Without her help, the project would have been a struggle. Furthermore, I would like to thank other members of the Cannabinoid Group, Pietro Marini and Professor Roger Pertwee in particular, and everyone else in the group who helped us in many ways. Finally, a big thank you to my lab partners, Tamema Choudhury and David McNee. It has been a pleasure working with both of you.

In memory of grandparent of Tamema and grandparent of Gemma.

II

A fully linked electronic edition of this thesis and additional experimental data can be found on the following website: http://cnr1.eu

The British Journal of Pharmacology referencing style has been applied to this thesis using RefWorks2.

The following guidelines were consulted for the writing up of this thesis: Information for Authors British Journal of Pharmacology http://www.brjpharmacol.org/view/0/authorInformation.html Style Guide University of Aberdeen http://www.abdn.ac.uk/documents/style-guide.pdf

Lab Project (Hons) Guidelines School of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen (available via http://webct.abdn.ac.uk, login required)

III

Table of Contents
Declaration ................................................................................................................... I Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... II Abbreviations .............................................................................................................VI 1 2 Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Cannabinoids .............................................................................................. 2 Cannabinoid receptors................................................................................ 3 Endocannabinoids....................................................................................... 5 Fatty acid amino hydrolase (FAAH) ............................................................ 6 Allosteric Modulation ................................................................................. 8 Assays overview ........................................................................................ 10

2.6.1 GTPS functional assay ......................................................................... 10 2.6.2 Equilibrium binding assay ..................................................................... 12 3 4 Aims .................................................................................................................. 13 Materials and Methods..................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 Materials ................................................................................................... 14 Mouse brain membrane preparation ....................................................... 15 [35S]GTPS functional assay ...................................................................... 16 Equilibrium binding assay ......................................................................... 18 Mathematical analysis .............................................................................. 19

Results ............................................................................................................... 20 5.1 O-7756 ...................................................................................................... 20

IV

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 6

O-7757 ...................................................................................................... 21 O-7758 ...................................................................................................... 22 O-7759 ...................................................................................................... 24 O-7760 ...................................................................................................... 25 O-7761 ...................................................................................................... 26 JK263-2 ...................................................................................................... 27 ORG27569 ................................................................................................. 30 URB597 ..................................................................................................... 32 F0870064 .................................................................................................. 34 Result summary ........................................................................................ 35

Discussion ......................................................................................................... 37 6.1 FAAH inhibitors ......................................................................................... 37

6.1.1 O-77 series ............................................................................................ 37 6.1.2 URB597 ................................................................................................. 38 6.2 Allosteric modulators................................................................................ 39

6.2.1 ORG27569 ............................................................................................. 39 6.2.2 JK263-2 .................................................................................................. 40 6.2.3 F0870064 .............................................................................................. 41 6.3 Potential therapeutic uses ........................................................................ 42

6.3.1 Pain and Inflammation.......................................................................... 42 6.3.2 Obesity .................................................................................................. 42 7 8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 43 References ........................................................................................................ 44

Abbreviations
2-AG: 2-arachidonyl glycerol 7TM: seven-transmembranespanning receptor 9-THC: Delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol ADA: Adenosine deaminase AEA: Arachidonoyl ethanolamide (anandamide) BSA: Bovine serum albumin cAMP: Cyclic adenosine monophosphate CB1: Cannabinoid receptor 1 CB2: Cannabinoid receptor 2 CBD: Cannabindiol CNS: Central nervous system CL: Confidence limit CP55,940: (-)-3-[2-hydroxy-4-(1,1dimethylheptyl)-phenyl]-4-[4hydroxypropyl]cyclohexan-1-ol DMSO: Dimethyl sulphoxide DTT: Dithiotreitol EC50: Concentration with halfmaximal efficacy EDTA: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid Emax: Maximal agonist effect FAAH: Fatty acid amino hydrolase G protein: Guanine nucleotide binding protein GDP: Guanosine diphosphate GPCR: G-protein coupled receptor GPR55: G-protein coupled receptor 55 GTP: Guanosine triphosphate GTPase: Guanosine triphosphatase GTPS: Guanosine-5-O-(3-thio)triphosphate [35S]GTPS: Guanosine-5-O-(3[35S]thio)-triphosphate MS: Multiple Sclerosis ORG27569: 5-chloro-3-ethyl-1Hindole-2-carboxylic acid [2-(4piperidin-1-ylphenyl)ethyl]amide pEC50: negative logarithm of the concentration with half-maximal efficacy value SEM: Standard Error Mean URB597: Cyclohexylcarbamic acid 3carbamoyl-biphenyl-3-yl ester Veh: Vehicle

VI

1 Summary

Background and purpose: Endocannabinoid system provides a mean to treating various diseases such as cancer, pain and obesity, but the side effects associated with the orthosteric ligands can be fatal. Studies have shown FAAH inhibitors (URB597) as a way to enhance efficacy of endogenous cannabinoid (AEA). Alternatively, the discovery of allosteric site enables the tuning of the CB1 receptor with allosteric modulators. In this study I will investigate the pharmacology of the potential drug candidates.

Experimental approach: For the 7 potential FAAH inhibitors and 3 potential allosteric modulators, [35S]GTPS assay and [3H]CP,55940 equilibrium binding assay were performed on mouse brain membrane to determine its efficacy and affinity at the mouse CB1 receptor.

Key results: FAAH inhibitor analogue O-7758 may enhance CP55,940 efficacy with possibility of competing with [3H]CP55,950. Allosteric enhancer JK263-2 has shown a marked increase in efficacy of both synthetic and endogenous CB1 agonist, as well as enhancement of [3H]CP55,940 binding. Allosteric inhibitor ORG27569 also enhanced the affinity of the radiolabelled ligand, but completely abolished the CP,55940 stimulation in [35S]GTPS assay.

Conclusions and implications: Allosteric modulators and FAAH inhibitors may provide a new way of treating various diseases using the endocannabinoid system without the side effects of orthosteric ligand.

2 Introduction

2.1 Cannabinoids

Cannabis is one of the most common drugs being use in the UK. There are over 70 different compounds found inside the plant cannabis sativa (Elsohly and Slade, 2005). Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) which is psychoactive and the nonpsychoactive compound, cannabindiol (CBD) are the two main constituents responsible for its effects (Pertwee, 1999). Those cannabinoids found in plants are known as phytocannabinoids.

Many synthetic cannabinoids such as CP55,940 are being made. Some of these compounds show selectivity towards a group of receptor. In this case, CP55,940 is an agonist which has higher affinity for CB1 receptor than CB2 receptor. As well as being considerably more potent than its phytocannabinoid counterparts, 9-THC (Pertwee, 1997).

Moreover, there is another type of cannabinoids, known as endocannabinoids, which are made by the body itself (see Section 2.3).

2.2 Cannabinoid receptors

When cannabinoid enters the body, it exerts its effect by binding to cannabinoid receptors. In mammals, there are at least two different types of cannabinoid receptors present in the tissues, known as CB1 and CB2 (Pertwee and Ross, 2002). Both receptors are G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR). Another GPCR known to behave like cannabinoid receptor is GPR55 (Ross, 2009).

CB1 receptors are distributed heterogeneously in the brain. Areas that contain high population of CB1 include the cerebral cortex, hippocampus, lateral caudateputamen, substantia nigra pars reticulate, globus pallidus, entopeduncular nucleus and the molecular layer of the cerebellum. CB2 receptor is found in immune cells and has a key role in cell differentiation and migration (Ross, 2007b). This project will focus on CB1 receptors.

CB1 agonist and antagonist bind to the orthosteric site of the receptor. The orthosteric site is defined as the primary binding site for the endogenous ligand on a 7TM receptor (Ross, 2007a).

Not long ago, Sativex were licensed as a medicine in Canada, which contain nearly 1:1 of 9-THC and cannabindiol delivered via oromucosal spray for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (Karschner et al., 2011).

However, there are also many side effects including depression, euphoria, hallucination, memory loss and can lead to suicide.

Figure 2.1 Cannabinoids can either be made endogenously, synthetically or from plant. They can act on the orthosteric site of the CB1 receptor (Ross, 2007a).

2.3 Endocannabinoids

As the CB1 and CB2 receptors were discovered, people start thinking about why these receptors exist. Were they made for the use of cannabis? Figure 2.2 Structure of Anandamide (AEA) Fortunately, these receptors are not made for the sole use of cannabis. The body produce its own cannabinoids (also known as endocannabinoids). These endocannabinoids were discovered by isolation.

The search for endogenous cannabinoids begun as early as in 1992 where a lipophlic molecule was found to displace a potent cannabinoid ligand [3H]HU243 (Devane et al., 1992). This drug was identified as arachidonoyl ethanolamide and named anandamide from ananda, the Sanskrit word for bliss (Pertwee, 2006). Another endogenous ligand, 2-AG, were discovered soon after the discovery of anandamide (Mechoulam et al., 1995)

Figure 2.3 Structure of 2-AG

2.4 Fatty acid amino hydrolase (FAAH)

One of the disadvantages of using orthosteric modulators as a therapeutic tool is that they often have many side effects as discussed previously. What if we could make use of our own endocannabinoids by tweaking the endocannabinoid system?

FAAH may provide the answer. FAAH is one of the main enzymes responsible for the breakdown of anandamide in the body (see Figure 2.4) (McKinney and Cravatt, 2005). The enzyme hydrolyses anandamide to arachidonic acid and ethanolamine (Deutsch and Chin, 1993). Although not its main substrate, it also acts on 2-AG (Goparaju et al., 1998).

By inhibiting the action of FAAH, the rate of breakdown of endogenous ligands is slowed down and this increases the local concentration of the endogenous ligand and as a result, increases in the ligand binding to the receptor. The enhancement of endocannabinoids makes it a valuable tool as it does not have the mass activation effect when a orthosteric ligand binds to the receptor.

Figure 2.4 FAAH is an enzyme that hydrolyses anandamide and 2-AG to its inactive form (Ross, 2007a).

2.5 Allosteric Modulation

The previous method enhances the action of endocannabinoids by preventing the breakdown of the active metabolites and hence increases its local concentration. A recent discovery of the existence of an allosteric site on the CB1 receptor has provided us with an alternative method (Price et al., 2005).

An allosteric binding site of the receptor is defined as a site of ligand binding on the seven-transmembrane-spanning receptor where it is topographically distinct from the orthosteric binding site (Ross, 2007a).

The binding of such allosteric modulators causes a conformational change in the shape of the receptor, and ultimately, changes the affinity and/or efficacy of drug binding to the orthosteric site. This enables the fine-tuning of the receptor (Ross, 2007a).

Again, this method does not require a direct orthosteric ligand and prevents the mass activation of the receptors by enhance or inhibit the action of endogenous ligands.

Figure 2.5 Allosteric site can act as a fine tuning or volume switch of the CB1 receptor (Ross, 2007a).

2.6 Assays overview

2.6.1 GTPS functional assay

In order to gain an insight of the mode of actions of the drugs interested, [35S]GTPS functional assay is a good place to start.

In the normal GPCR model, when an agonist binds to the receptor, it causes the dissociation of the G protein. Those subunits, alpha (), beta () and () move away and associated with second messengers. GDP, which was attached to the alpha subunit, now get dissociated and GTP is swapped into its position due to the increase in the affinity to bind with GTP as it dissociate from the rest of the protein. The GTPase then comes into play, which hydrolyses the GTP- complex to GDP- complex. The subunits are then reassociate with each other and return to the GPCR.

In the [35S]GTPS assay, radiolabelled GTP molecule, [35S]GTPS, is added to the test. Instead of binding to GTP, the alpha subunit now binds to the [35S]GTPS irreversibly. By collecting the [35S]GTPS - complex and measure the radioactivity given off by the radioactive isotope, the efficacy of the given durg can be measured. (Harrison and Traynor, 2003).

10

2 4 4

Figure 2.6 Diagrammatic representation of how [35S]GTPS works. 1) Agonist binds with GPCR. 2) G protein subunits disassociate from GPCR. 3) alpha subunit moves away from GPCR and increase the affinity for GTP. 4) [35S]GTPS displace GDP and form irreversible complex with alpha subunit.

11

2.6.2 Equilibrium binding assay

The equilibrium binding assay is an assay for determining the affinity for a particular drug. In this project, [3H]CP55,940, a radiolabelled synthetic CB1 agonist is used. When the agonist is added to the membrane, it binds with the receptor. However, as this is an reversible action, the agonist can also diffuse away from the orthosteric site. After a certain time, the net number of agonist binding and the net number of agonist diffusing away at a given time would be the same. This is called the equilibrium state.

Figure 2.7 Structure of CP55,940

Some of the factors that can alter the equilibrium state of the radiolabelled ligand binding include changes in concentration, competition with other ligands or changes to the receptor.

12

3 Aims

1. Discuss the potential of CB1 receptor as a therapeutic target, the use of orthosteric modulators, FAAH inhibitors and allosteric modulators. 2. To determine whether the potential drug candidates has any effect on the G-protein activities (i.e. efficacy) mediated by synthetic CB1 agonist CP55,940 via CB1 receptors by using the [35S]GTPS assay.

3. If the G-protein level of activity activated via CP55,940 is altered by the presence of the drug, further testing would be done (i.e. affinity or efficacy with different drug) to determine its mode of action at the CB1 receptors.

13

4 Materials and Methods

4.1 Materials

CP55,940 was obtained from Tocris (Bristol, UK). Bovine serum albumin (BSA), dithiothreitol, GDP, GTPS, Tris buffer and other chemicals not listed were all obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA). [3H]CP55940 (160 Ci/mmol), [35S]GTPS (1250 Ci/mmol) and Ultima Gold XR scintillation buffer were obtained from PerkinElmer Life Sciences Inc. (Boston, MA, USA). ORG-27569 was obtained from Organon Research (Newhouse, Lanarkshire, Scotland). GTPS and adenosine deaminase were from Roche Diagnostic (Indianapolis,IN, USA). The GF/B glassfibre filters were obtained from Brandel Inc. (Gaitherburg, MD, USA).

Tris HCl pH7.4(mM) Tris Base (mM) EDTA (mM) Anhydrous MgCl2(mM) Sucrose (mM) NaCl pH7.7 (mM)

Centrifugation Buffer A Buffer B Buffer A 35 35 Buffer ([ S]GTPS) ([ S]GTPS) (Binding) 2 50 50 50 2 2 5 320 50 2 5 50 1 3 50 2 5 100

Buffer B (Binding) 50 50 1 3 100

Table 4.1 Composition of Centrifugation Buffer, Buffer A and Buffer B used during the preparation of mouse brain membrane.

14

4.2 Mouse brain membrane preparation

Whole brains from adult male MF1 mice were dissected and suspended in ice cold centrifugation buffer *. The tissues were homogenised with an Ultra-Turrex homogeniser. The homogenates were then centrifuged at 1600g for 10 minutes and the resulting supernatant was collected (stored in ice). The pellets were then resuspended in centrifugation buffer and centrifuged at 1600g for 10 minutes for the second time. The supernatant from the second centrifugation is then combined with the first, and the combined supernatant goes under centrifugation at 28000g for 20 minutes. The supernatant from the third centrifugation is discarded and the pellet is resuspended with Buffer A* and incubated in the water bath at 37C for 10 minutes. After that, the suspension was then centrifuged at 23000g for 20 minutes. The supernatant is discarded and resuspended with Buffer A*. The suspension is left at room temperature for 40 minutes before the final centrifugation at 11000g for 15minutes. The supernatant was discarded and resuspended with Buffer B*. The suspension were then homogenise using a hand held homogeniser. Protein assay was then performed using the Bio-Rad DC kit (Hercules, CA, USA) to determine its concentration. Depending on the assay, 1mg/ml and 0.15mg/ml were made for [35S]GTPS and equilibrium binding respectively. This is then stored at -80C until the day of experiment. All centrifugation procedures were carried out at 4C.

Depending on the assay, different Buffer A and Buffer B were used; please refer

to Table 4.1 for chemical compositions. 15

4.3 [35S]GTPS functional assay

The buffer required for this assay is Tris BSA (50mM Tris HCl, 50mM Tris Base and 0.1% BSA). The following chemicals were then added to the buffer (1mM EDTA, 5mM MgCl2, 100mM NaCl, 1mM DTT and 30M GDP). The preparation of the assay can be seen from Figure 4.1.

The mouse brain membrane (0.15mg/ml) were thawed and incubated with adenosine deaminase (ADA, 0.5U/ml) at 30C for 30 minutes. The membranes were then incubated again, with agonist, , and vehicle or modulator for further 60 minutes at 30C in assay buffer in the presence of 0.1nM [35S]GTPS in a total assay volume of 500l.

Binding was initiated by the addition of [35S]GTPS. Nonspecific binding was measured in the presence of 30M GTPS. The reaction was stopped by rapid vacuum filtration with Tris BSA using 24-well sampling manifold (Brandel cell harvester) and GF/B filters that had been soaked in Tris BSA for at least 24 hours. The reaction tubes were washed five times with ice-cold Tris BSA.

The filters were then place in the oven for at least 60 minutes and then soaked with 5ml of scintillation fluid (Ultima Gold XR) for at least 60 minutes. The radioactivity given off by the [35S]GTPS- complex were then measured by liquid scintillation spectrometry.

16

17 Figure 4.1 Workflow of [35S]GTPS functional assay preparation.

4.4 Equilibrium binding assay

Mouse brain membrane of 1mg/ml was thawed. The buffer used in the assay is Tris BSA. The binding assay were performed with the CB1 agonist [3H]CP55,940 (0.7mM). The compound of interest was diluted in the same way as CP55,940 did in Figure 4.1. The buffer, [3H] CP55,940, membrane and vehicle or drug of interest is added in a total assay volume of 500l. The binding was initiated by the addition of membrane. This assay is then incubated in a 37C water bath for 60 minutes.

The reaction was stopped by rapid vacuum filtration with Tris BSA using 24-well sampling manifold (Brandel cell harvester) and GF/B filters that had been soaked in Tris BSA for at least 24 hours. The reaction tubes were washed five times with icecold Tris BSA.

The filters were then place in the oven for at least 60 minutes and then soaked with 5ml of scintillation fluid (Ultima Gold XR) for at least 60 minutes. The radioactivity given off by the [3H] CP55,940 were then measured by liquid scintillation spectrometry.

18

4.5 Mathematical analysis

Analyses of data were conducted using GraphPad Prism 5 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). The raw data (count) from the liquid scintillation were converted to percentage stimulation and percentage displacement for[35S]GTPS and equilibrium binding assay respectively. Values were subtracted from the basal value obtained. All the values above were calculated by nonlinear regression analysis using the equation for a sigmoid concentration-response curve (GraphPad Prism).

pEC 50 = log EC 50
Equation 1 pEC50 is the negative logarithm of the agonist EC50 value.

Results are expressed as the mean S.E.M. in the case of Emax (the maximal agonist effect) of n (n = sample size) experiments. The pEC50 values were expressed as percentage with 95% confidence limits.

19

5 Results

5.1 O-7756

This is the first drug in the O-77 series. In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.1), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.49 0.296 and 97.5 (95% confidence limits, 76.7-118.4) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7756, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 6.87 0.515 and 110.0 (95% confidence limits, 52.3-167.7), showing no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7756

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.1: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7756. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 5).

20

5.2 O-7757

As the first drug in the series does not seem to have any effect, the second drug O7757 was tested. However, the results were similar to the first. In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.2), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.13 0.198 and 96.0% (95% confidence limits, 77.9-114.1) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7757, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 7.07 0.268 and 92.8% (95% confidence limits, 70.2-115.4), showing no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7757

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.2: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7757. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 4).

21

5.3 O-7758

In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.3), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.62 0.468 and 79.8 (95% confidence limits, 60.0-99.7) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7758, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. However, the pEC50 and Emax values were 6.75 0.219 and 100.8 (95% confidence limits, 80.1121.5), suggesting in the presence of 1M O-7758, it enhances the percentage stimulation by CP55,940.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7758

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.3: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7758. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 6).

22

In the equilibrium binding assay (Figure 5.4), the reference CP,55940 has a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.62 0.468 and 79.8 (95% confidence limits, 60.0-99.7) respectively. The O-7758 has a pEC50 and Emax values of 6.01 0.376 and 87.4 (95% confidence limits, 57.9-116.9). The drug O-7758 is displacing [3H]CP55,940, demonstrating a similar curve as unlabelled CP55,940.

% displacement of [3H]CP55940

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -11

O-7758 CP55940

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

log concentration (M)

Figure 5.4: Equilibrium binding of [3H]CP55,940 (0.7 nM) in mouse brain membranes in the presence of unlabelled ligand the O-7758. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of displacement of [3H]CP55,940 S.E.M. (n = 6).

23

5.4 O-7759

This is the fourth drug in the O77 series. In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.5), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.73 0.663 and 61.8 (95% confidence limits, 41.4-82.2) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7759, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 6.64 0.534 and 89.9 (95% confidence limits, 22.2-154.3), showing no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7759

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.5: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7759. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 7).

24

5.5 O-7760

This is the fifth, In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.6), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.39 0.160 and 70.3 (95% confidence limits, 62.0-78.5) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7760, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 6.99 0.408 and 89.28 (95% confidence limits, 36.7-141.9), showing no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7760

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.6: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7760. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 6).

25

5.6 O-7761

This is the final drug in the series. In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.7), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.54 0.398 and 67.8 (95% confidence limits, 43.6-91.9) respectively. In the presence of 1M O-7761, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 6.59 0.395 and 73.7 (95% confidence limits, 31.9-115.5). Again, it shows no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M O-7761

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.7: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or O-7761. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 8).

26

5.7 JK263-2

In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.8), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.79 0.226 and 41.4 (95% confidence limits, 35.0-47.8) respectively. In the presence of 1M JK263-2, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 7.40 0.465 and 55.2 (95% confidence limits, 42.25-68.23). The curve with the presence of JK263-2 has shifted upward relative to the DMSO curve. This suggests that there is an enhancement of the percentage stimulation by CP55,940. An equilibrium binding assay has been carried out to determine its effect on the CP55,940 binding.

% stimulation above basal

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M JK263-2

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.8: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or JK263-2. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 6). 27

The enhancement observed in the [35S]GTPS assay was exciting. The result for the equilibrium binding assay was also interesting (Figure 5.9). The reference CP55,940 curve has a pEC50 and Emax values were 8.85 0.164 and 102.6 (95% confidence limits, 95.1-110.1) respectively. In the presence of JK263-2, the pEC50 and Emax values were 6.68 0.406 and 109.2 (95% confidence limits, 63.8-154.6)*. The asterisk here indicates that the values are negative. This means instead of displacing the [3H]CP55,940, it enhances the binding of the radiolabelled ligand.

% displacement of [3H]CP55940

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -11

JK-263-2 CP55940
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4

log concentration (M)

Figure 5.9: Equilibrium binding of [3H]CP55,940 (0.7 nM) in mouse brain membranes in the presence of unlabelled ligand the JK-263-2. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of displacement of [3H]CP55,940 S.E.M. (n = 12).

28

Further testing has been done with JK263-2, instead of running [35S]GTPS assay with synthetic agonist CP55,940, endogenous ligand anandamide is used in the assay. In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.10), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, anandamide produced pEC50 and Emax values of 5.96 0.207 and 61.5 (95% confidence limits, 47.3-75.6) respectively. In the presence of 100nM JK263-2, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 5.91 0.214 and 110.3 (95% confidence limits, 81.6-139.0),

% stimulation above basal

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4

DMSO 100nM JK263-2

AEA log concentration (M)

Figure 5.10: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by anandamide (AEA) in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or JK263-2. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 4).

29

5.8 ORG27569

In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.11), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 6.96 0.379 and 41.7 (95% confidence limits, 25.4-58.1) respectively. In the presence of 1M ORG27569, the curve has flatten and shifted down to the bottom. The pEC50 and Emax values were 6.28 0.983 and -9.89 (95% confidence limits, -16.4-(-3.39)). This is significantly different relative to vehicle.

% stimulation above basal

60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M ORG27569

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.11: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or ORG27569. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 6).

30

With ORG27569, the functional assay shows a significant effect, this is the same for the equilibrium binding assay. The result for the equilibrium binding assay was also interesting (Figure 5.12). The reference CP55,940 curve has a pEC50 and Emax values were 8.85 0.164 and 102.6 (95% confidence limits, 95.1-110.1) respectively. In the presence of ORG27569, the pEC50 and Emax values were 5.77 0.208 and 95.9 (95% confidence limits, 70.3-121.5)*. The asterisk here indicates that the values are negative. This means instead of displacing the [3H]CP55,940, it enhances the binding of the radiolabelled ligand.

% displacement of [3H]CP55940

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -10

ORG27569 CP55940
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4

log concentration (M)

Figure 5.12: Equilibrium binding of [3H]CP55,940 (0.7 nM) in mouse brain membranes in the presence of unlabelled ligand the ORG-27569. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of displacement of [3H]CP55,940 S.E.M. (n = 6).

31

5.9 URB597

In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.13), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.05 0.218 and 52.57 (95% confidence limits, 43.5-61.6) respectively. In the presence of 1M URB597, the curve has shifted downwards relative to the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 7.55 0.351 and 25.5 (95% confidence limits, 16.135.0). The effect was significant and hence an equilibrium binding assay would be a good way to determines the affinity.

% stimulation above basal

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -10

DMSO 1M URB597

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.13: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or URB597. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 5).

32

The result for the equilibrium binding assay was also interesting (Figure 5.14). The reference CP55,940 curve has a pEC50 and Emax values were 8.85 0.164 and 102.6 (95% confidence limits, 95.1-110.1) respectively. In the presence of URB597, the pEC50 and Emax values were 5.95 0.437 and 22.8 (95% confidence limits, 7.1038.5). The curve is shown as a flat line at the bottom, with little displacement of [3H]CP55,940.

% displacement of [3H]CP55940

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -11

URB597 CP55940

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

log concentration (M)

Figure 5.14: Equilibrium binding of [3H]CP55,940 (0.7 nM) in mouse brain membranes in the presence of unlabelled ligand the URB597. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of displacement of [3H]CP55,940 S.E.M. (n = 6).

33

5.10 F0870064

In the [35S]GTPS function assay (Figure 5.2), with the presence of DMSO vehicle, CP55,940 produced a pEC50 and Emax values of 7.65 0.278and 73.5 (95% confidence limits, 60.3-86.7) respectively. In the presence of 1M F0870064, the curve is largely the same as the curve with the presence of vehicle. The pEC50 and Emax values were 7.61 0.309 and 65.2 (95% confidence limits, 55.4-75.0), showing no significant statistical difference between them.

% stimulation above basal

100 80 60 40 20 0 -10

DMSO 1M F0870064

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

CP55940 log concentration (M)

Figure 5.15: Stimulation of binding of [35S]GTPS to mouse brain membranes by CP55,940 in the presence of vehicle (DMSO) or F0870064. Each symbol represents the mean percentage of stimulation above basal S.E.M. (n = 6).

34

5.11 Result summary

pEC50 DMSO O7756 DMSO O7757 DMSO O7758 DMSO O7759 DMSO O7760 DMSO O7761 DMSO JK263-2 DMSO ORG27569 DMSO URB597 DMSO F0870064 7.49 0.296 6.87 0.515 7.13 0.198 7.07 0.268 7.62 0.468 6.75 0.219 7.73 0.663 6.64 0.534 7.39 0.160 6.99 0.408 7.54 0.398 6.59 0.395 7.79 0.226 7.40 0.465 6.96 0.379 6.28 0.983 7.05 0.218 7.55 0.351 7.65 0.278 7.61 0.309

Emax (95% CL) (%) 97.5 (76.7-118.4) 110.0 (52.3-167.7) 96.0 (77.9-114.1) 92.8 (70.2-115.4) 79.8 (60.0-99.7) 100.8 (80.1-121.5) 61.8 (41.4-82.2) 89.9 (22.2-154.3) 70.3 (62.0-78.5) 89.28 (36.7-141.9) 67.8 (43.6-91.9) 73.7 (31.9-115.5) 41.4 (35.0-47.8) 55.2 (42.25-68.23) 41.7 (25.4-58.1) -9.89 (-16.4-(-3.39)) 52.57 (43.5-61.6) 25.5 (16.1-35.0) 73.5 (60.3-86.7) 65.2 (55.4-75.0)

Table 5.1 pEC50 and Emax values for vehicle (DMSO) and the drugs in the [35S]GTPS assay with CP55,940. The value for the corresponding (paired) vehicle is above the drug of interest.

35

pEC50 CP55940 O-7758 JK263-2 ORG27569 URB597 8.85 0.164 6.01 0.376 6.68 0.406 5.77 0.208 5.95 0.437

Emax (95% CL) (%) 102.6 (95.1-110.1) 87.4 (57.9-116.9) 109.2 (63.8-154.6)* 95.9 (70.3-121.5)* 22.8 (7.10-38.5)

Table 5.2 pEC50 and Emax values the drugs tested against [3H]CP55,940 in the equilibrium binding assay. Asterisk indicates the values go in the opposite direction, which is an enhancing the binding of [3H]CP55,940 instead of displacement.

pEC50 DMSO JK263-2 5.96 0.207 5.91 0.214

Emax (95% CL) (%) 61.5 (47.3-75.6) 110.3 (81.6-139.0)

Table 5.3 pEC50 and Emax values for vehicle (DMSO) and the drug (JK263-2) in the [35S]GTPS assay with anandamide.

36

6 Discussion

6.1 FAAH inhibitors

6.1.1 O-77 series

This is a completely new series of drugs developed based on a FAAH inhibitor. The initial intention was to see if these FAAH inhibitor analogues would demonstrate similar behaviour as the original FAAH inhibitor molecule.

There were six drugs in this series, from O-7756 up to O-7761. The first two drugs in the series, O-7756 and O-7757, shows no change in the CP55,940 induced G protein activity in the [35S]GTPS functional assay. O-7759, O-7760 and O-7761 showed similar behaviour, with no signs of significant effect to the efficacy of CP55,940.

Despite the aforementioned five drugs not giving much hope, O-7758 shows an increased in maximal effect of the [35S]GTPS stimulation by CP55,940, although not significant. It would make sense to have a closer look with an equilibrium binding assay. The results shows a displacement of [3H]CP55,940 by O-7758.

O-7758 has shown an interesting behaviour, as a potential FAAH inhibitor, it competes for the orthosteric site. The result needs to be verified by more repetition.

37

6.1.2 URB597

This is a well-known FAAH inhibitor (also known as KDS-4103) (Piomelli et al., 2006). It is one of the most promising FAAH inhibitor as an innovative antidepressant (Maccarrone et al., 2010).

The results obtain from the function assay was not consistent with literatures, and as a result, a conclusion cannot be drawn on this drug. However, the equilibrium binding assay did work correctly, and as previously literature have stated that it has no affinity for orthosteric site (Piomelli et al., 2006).

The only information obtain from this drug is that it does not compete for the orthosteric site. There can be a variety of reason for the error appear in the functional assay, including the preparation of membrane and buffer, as well as the shelf-life of the drug, how well the experiments were carried out. Unfortunately there is no single answer but repetition should eliminate the error.

Figure 6.1 Structure of URB597

38

6.2 Allosteric modulators

6.2.1 ORG27569

ORG27569 was one of the first drugs discovered for its ability to bind to the allosteric site of the CB1 receptor (Price et al., 2005). In the [35S]GTPS assay, with the presence of 1M ORG27569, the percentage stimulation above basal by CP55,940 has completely abolished. A similar compound, ORG29647 has shown similar results (Price et al., 2005).

The equilibrium binding assay was fascinating. In the presence of ORG27569, the displacement of [3H]CP55,940 was negative, in contrast with the presence of nonradiolabelled CP55,940. Instead of displacing the radiolabelled agonist, the binding of the ligand was enhanced. This is consistent with the results found in the literature, which has the most marked effect out of the ORG compounds (Price et al., 2005).

Figure 6.2 Structure of ORG27569

39

6.2.2 JK263-2

JK263-2 is a newly discovered allosteric enhancer, there are no published data available at the time of this report is being written. The results has shown that in the presence of the drug, both CP55,940 and anandamide efficacies were enhanced.

The equilibrium binding assay suggests that, rather than competing for the orthosteric site, JK263-2 enhances the affinity of [3H]CP55,940 binding. This behaviour was similar to the ORG27569, a known allosteric inhibitor (Price et al., 2005).

With JK263-2, there was an opportunity for testing with anandamide, an endogenous CB1 agonist. At 100nM anandamide was able to increase the efficacy of CP55,940.

JK263-2 as an allosteric enhancer would have similar outcome as if it was a FAAH inhibitor. At this stage the specificity of the drug is not known, but if proven to be CB1 specific, the drug would be better than FAAH inhibitor which also hydrolyses 2AG.

40

6.2.3 F0870064

This is a relatively new drug with very limited published data available. The only literature source available suggests it is a putative allosteric enhancer of the CB1 receptor (Baillie et al., 2009).

From the results, F0870064 does not appears to have a significant effect on the ability of CP55,940 to stimulate [35S]GTPS turnover. This is consistent with the literature source.

However, the previous study have shown that in the presence of F0870064 with either anandamide (endogenous), WIN55212-2 (synthetic) or 9-THC (phytocannabinoid), the efficacy of the agonist were significantly increased (Baillie et al., 2009).

This would have been an interesting drug to undergo further testing such as equilibrium binding assay to determine its affinity, or functional assay with anandamide to confirm how it affecting the efficacy of endogenous CB1 agonist.

41

6.3 Potential therapeutic uses

6.3.1 Pain and Inflammation

URB597 has been through much in vitro and in vivo experimentation and has shown positive signs as a drug treatment for pain (Schlosburg et al., 2009).

JK263-2 as an allosteric enhancer would be able to amplify the signal modulated by the endogenous ligand activating the CB1 receptors. This would prevent the mass activation if a direct orthosteric agonist is administered and should present little or no side effects..

6.3.2 Obesity

Obesity has been one of the major costs to the NHS in the UK and is also a global epidemic (Ogden et al., 2007). A low cost treatment is needed to reduce the cost. In many cases, surgery is needed and this may provide the answer to it.

ORG27569 as an allosteric inhibitor would be able to lower the CB1 activated by the endogenous ligand and therefore it should lower the signal for appetite, which would reduce food intake by the person and ultimately provide a cure to obesity.

42

7 Conclusion

In this project, 10 drugs were tested. 5 out of 6 from the O77 series did not show any signs of FAAH inhibitor actions. O-7758 has enhanced CP55,940 but also competes with it for the orthosteric site. URB597 results obtained were incorrect. The allosteric drugs were the only ones that have demonstrate positive results. Both ORG27569 and JK263-2 have shown marked increase in affinity and change in efficacy. F0870064 did not do much with synthetic ligand but results would have been fascinating if it was done with anandamide.

There were many drugs that additional testing could have been done to investigate their pharmacology further. Assays such as pERK, cAMP and -arrestin would have provided some more insightful results. Some of the results would have benefited from extra readings. However, due to the time limitation of this project it was impossible to carry out those extra analyses.

The future directions will obviously include further in vitro testing of the current and new potential FAAH inhibitors and allosteric modulators with anandamide. 2AG is another endogenous cannabinoid which has been proved difficult to test in vitro. One of the original intentions of the project was to investigate in vitro 2-AG analysis. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances this was unable to proceed.

43

8 References

Baillie, GL, Whyte, J, Pertwee, RG, Ross, RA (2009). Allosteric enhancement of the cannabinoid CB1 receptors. Proceedings of the British Pharmacological Society, London, 7, 039P Deutsch, DG, Chin, SA (1993). Enzymatic synthesis and degradation of anandamide, a cannabinoid receptor agonist. Biochem Pharmacol 46: 791-6. Devane, WA, Hanus, L, Breuer, A, Pertwee, RG, Stevenson, LA, Griffin, G, et al. (1992). Isolation and structure of a brain constituent that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Science 258: 1946. Elsohly, MA, Slade, D (2005). Chemical constituents of marijuana: the complex mixture of natural cannabinoids. Life Sci 78: 539-48. Goparaju, SK, Ueda, N, Yamaguchi, H & Yamamoto, S (1998). Anandamide amidohydrolase reacting with 2-arachidonoylglycerol, another cannabinoid receptor ligand. FEBS Lett 422: 69-73. Harrison, C, Traynor, JR (2003). The [35S]GTPS binding assay: approaches and applications in pharmacology. Life Sci 74: 489-508. Karschner, E, Darwin, W, McMahon, R, Liu, F, Wright, S, Goodwin, R, et al. (2011). Subjective and Physiological Effects After Controlled Sativex and Oral THC Administration. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 89: 400-7. Maccarrone, M, Gasperi, V, Catani, MV, Diep, TA, Dainese, E, Hansen, HS, et al. (2010). The endocannabinoid system and its relevance for nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr 30: 423-40.

44

McKinney, MK, Cravatt, BF (2005). Structure and function of fatty acid amide hydrolase. Annu Rev Biochem 74: 411-32. Mechoulam, R, Ben-Shabat, S, Hanus, L, Ligumsky, M, Kaminski, NE, Schatz, AR, et al. (1995). Identification of an endogenous 2-monoglyceride, present in canine gut, that binds to cannabinoid receptors. Biochem Pharmacol 50: 83-90. Ogden, CL, Yanovski, SZ, Carroll, MD & Flegal, KM (2007). The epidemiology of obesity. Gastroenterology 132: 2087-102. Pertwee, RG (1999). Pharmacology of cannabinoid receptor ligands. Curr Med Chem 6: 635-64. Pertwee, RG (1997). Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Pharmacol Ther 74: 129-80. Pertwee, R, Ross, R (2002). Cannabinoid receptors and their ligands* 1. Prostaglandins, leukotrienes and essential fatty acids 66: 101-21. Pertwee, RG (2006). Cannabinoid pharmacology: the first 66 years. Br J Pharmacol 147 Suppl 1: S163-71. Piomelli, D, Tarzia, G, Duranti, A, Tontini, A, Mor, M, Compton, TR, et al. (2006). Pharmacological profile of the selective FAAH inhibitor KDS-4103 (URB597). CNS Drug Rev 12: 21-38.

45

Price, MR, Baillie, GL, Thomas, A, Stevenson, LA, Easson, M, Goodwin, R, et al. (2005). Allosteric modulation of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. Mol Pharmacol 68: 1484-95. Ross, RA (2009). The enigmatic pharmacology of GPR55. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30: 156-63. Ross, RA (2007a). Allosterism and cannabinoid CB(1) receptors: the shape of things to come. Trends Pharmacol Sci 28: 567-72. Ross, RA (2007b). Tuning the endocannabinoid system: allosteric modulators of the CB1 receptor. Br J Pharmacol 152: 565-6. Schlosburg, JE, Kinsey, SG & Lichtman, AH (2009). Targeting fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) to treat pain and inflammation. AAPS J 11: 39-44.

46