A type II cannabis extract and a 1:1 blend of Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol display distinct antinociceptive profiles and engage different endocannabinoid targets when administered into the subarachnoid space.

Introduction: Cannabis extracts are being increasingly used to mitigate chronic pain. Current guidelines for their prescription rely on Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) content as well as the ratio of these major cannabinoids present in the blend. Here we assessed whether these descriptors were representative of product effectiveness to produce a desired outcome such as analgesia. Methods: In this study, we used a rat model of diabetic neuropathy and assessed the reduction in mechanical allodynia following intrathecal injection of pure THC, pure CBD, a 1:1 mix of these compounds and a "balanced" chemotype II cannabis extract. Engagement of endocannabinoid targets by different treatments was investigated using CB1 (AM251) and CB2 (AM630) receptor antagonists as well as a TRPV1 channel blocker (capsazepine). Results: Antinociceptive responses induced by an equivalent amount of THC administered in its pure form, as a THC:CBD mix or as a "balanced" extract were distinct. Furthermore, the 1:1 THC:CBD mix and the balanced extract had not only different response profiles but their relative engagement of CB1, CB2 receptors and TRPV1 channels was distinct. Discussion: These findings indicate that antinociceptive responses and targets engaged by blended cannabinoids are composition-specific, and cannot be simply inferred from THC and CBD contents. This information may have implications in relation to the way medicinal cannabis products are prescribed.

Author Correction: Exploring use of unsupervised clustering to associate signaling profiles of GPCR ligands to clinical response.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Exploring use of unsupervised clustering to associate signaling profiles of GPCR ligands to clinical response.

Signaling diversity of G protein-coupled (GPCR) ligands provides novel opportunities to develop more effective, better-tolerated therapeutics. Taking advantage of these opportunities requires identifying which effectors should be specifically activated or avoided so as to promote desired clinical responses and avoid side effects. However, identifying signaling profiles that support desired clinical outcomes remains challenging. This study describes signaling diversity of mu opioid receptor (MOR) ligands in terms of logistic and operational parameters for ten different in vitro readouts. It then uses unsupervised clustering of curve parameters to: classify MOR ligands according to similarities in type and magnitude of response, associate resulting ligand categories with frequency of undesired events reported to the pharmacovigilance program of the Food and Drug Administration and associate signals to side effects. The ability of the classification method to associate specific in vitro signaling profiles to clinically relevant responses was corroborated using ß2-adrenergic receptor ligands.

Ligand-specific conformational transitions and intracellular transport are required for atypical chemokine receptor 3-mediated chemokine scavenging.

The atypical chemokine receptor ACKR3 contributes to chemotaxis by binding, internalizing, and degrading the chemokines CXCL11 and CXCL12 to shape and terminate chemotactic gradients during development and immune responses. Although unable to trigger G protein activation, both ligands activate G protein-independent ACKR3 responses and prompt arrestin recruitment. This offers a model to specifically study ligand-specific receptor conformations leading to G protein-independent signaling and to functional parameters such as receptor transport and chemokine degradation. We here show chemokine specificity in arrestin recruitment, by different effects of single amino acid substitutions in ACKR3 on arrestin in response to CXCL12 or CXCL11. Chemokine specificity in receptor transport was also observed, as CXCL11 induced faster receptor internalization, slower recycling, and longer intracellular sojourn of ACKR3 than CXCL12. Internalization and recycling rates of the ACKR3 R1423.50A substitution in response to each chemokine were similar; however, ACKR3 R1423.50A degraded only CXCL12 and not CXCL11. This suggests that ligand-specific intracellular receptor transport is required for chemokine degradation. Remarkably, the failure of ACKR3 R1423.50A to degrade CXCL11 was not caused by the lack of arrestin recruitment; rather, arrestin was entirely dispensable for scavenging of either chemokine. This suggests the involvement of another, yet unidentified, ACKR3 effector in scavenging. In summary, our study correlates ACKR3 ligand-specific conformational transitions with chemokine-dependent receptor transport dynamics and points toward unexpected ligand specificity in the mechanisms of chemokine degradation.

Analyzing biased responses of GPCR ligands.

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are valuable targets for drug discovery. They exist in interconverting states differentially stabilized by diverse signaling partners. A ligand's capacity to distinguish among receptors associated with different partners is the basis of bias. This feature of GPCR signaling may allow development of ligands which specifically modulate effectors supporting desired actions. However, bias is time-dependent and cell-dependent such that in vitro bias may not predict bias displayed in vivo. Then again, certain signaling idiosyncrasies transcend these limitations and emerging signaling characteristics may be used to categorize ligands in terms of the signaling diversity, which is the other face of bias. Here, we discuss how time and cellular background influence magnitude/directionality of bias, and highlight approaches to categorize ligands according to signaling diversity.

Mutational Analysis of Atypical Chemokine Receptor 3 (ACKR3/CXCR7) Interaction with Its Chemokine Ligands CXCL11 and CXCL12.

Atypical chemokine receptors do not mediate chemotaxis or G protein signaling, but they recruit arrestin. They also efficiently scavenge their chemokine ligands, thereby contributing to gradient maintenance and termination. ACKR3, also known as CXCR7, binds and degrades the constitutive chemokine CXCL12, which also binds the canonical receptor CXCR4, and CXCL11, which also binds CXCR3. Here we report comprehensive mutational analysis of the ACKR3 interaction with its chemokine ligands, using 30 substitution mutants. Readouts are radioligand binding competition, arrestin recruitment, and chemokine scavenging. Our results suggest different binding modes for both chemokines. CXCL11 depends on the ACKR3 N terminus and some extracellular loop (ECL) positions for primary binding, ECL residues mediate secondary binding and arrestin recruitment potency. CXCL12 binding required key residues Asp-1794.60 and Asp-2756.58 (residue numbering follows the Ballesteros-Weinstein scheme), with no evident involvement of N-terminal residues, suggesting an uncommon mode of receptor engagement. Mutation of residues corresponding to CRS2 in CXCR4 (positions Ser-1032.63 and Gln-3017.39) increased CXCL11 binding, but reduced CXCL12 affinity. Mutant Q301E7.39 did not recruit arrestin. Mutant K118A3.26 in ECL1 showed moderate baseline arrestin recruitment with ablation of ligand-induced responses. Substitutions that affected CXCL11 binding also diminished scavenging. However, detection of reduced CXCL12 scavenging by mutants with impaired CXCL12 affinity required drastically reduced receptor expression levels, suggesting that scavenging pathways can be saturated and that CXCL12 binding exceeds scavenging at higher receptor expression levels. Arrestin recruitment did not correlate with scavenging; although Q301E7.39 degraded chemokines in the absence of arrestin, S103D2.63 had reduced CXCL11 scavenging despite intact arrestin responses.