The antinociceptive effects of intraplantar injections of 2‐arachidonoyl glycerol are mediated by cannabinoid CB<sub>2</sub>receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) is an endogenous cannabinoid with central antinociceptive properties. Its degradation is catalysed by monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) whose activity is inhibited by URB602, a new synthetic compound. The peripheral antinociceptive effects of 2-AG and URB602 in an inflammatory model of pain are not yet determined. We have evaluated these effects with and without the cannabinoid CB(1) (AM251) and CB(2) (AM630) receptor antagonists. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Inflammation was induced in rat hind paws by intraplantar injection of formalin. Nociception was assessed behaviourally over the next 60 min, in 19 experimental groups: (1) control; (2-6) 2-AG (0.01-100 microg); (7) AM251 (80 microg); (8) AM251+2-AG (10 microg); (9) AM630 (25 microg); (10) AM630+2-AG (10 microg); (11-16) URB602 (0.1-500 microg); (17) 2-AG+URB602 (ED(50)); (18) AM251+URB602 (ED(50)); (19) AM630+URB602 (ED(50)). Drugs were injected s.c. in the dorsal surface of the hind paw (50 microl), 15 min before formalin injection into the same paw. KEY RESULTS: 2-AG and URB602 produced dose-dependent antinociceptive effects for the late phases of the formalin test with ED(50) of 0.65+/-0.455 mug and 68+/-14.3 microg, respectively. Their combination at ED(50) doses produced an additive antinociceptive effect. These effects were inhibited by AM630 but not by AM251 for 2-AG and by the two cannabinoid antagonists for URB602. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Locally injected 2-AG and URB602 decreased pain behaviour in a dose-dependent manner in an inflammatory model of pain. The antinociceptive effect of 2-AG was mediated by the CB(2) receptor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".