MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212798879 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.238

A239 COMBINED CANNABINOID RECEPTOR 1 AND MU-OPIOID RECEPTOR AGONISTS SYNERGISTICALLY INHIBIT VISCERAL PAIN <i>IN VIVO</i> WITHOUT ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS OR TOLERANCE

2022· article· en· W4212798879 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin Tsang, Yang Yu, Alan Lomax, Stephen Vanner, David E. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgonistCannabinoidMedicineCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsPharmacologyOpioidCannabinoid receptor type 2μ-opioid receptorAnesthesiaCannabinoid receptorReceptorInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Previously we have shown that both cannabinoid 1 receptor (CB1R) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) agonists inhibit mechanosensitivity of colonic nociceptive nerves. However, it is unknown whether agonists of cannabinoid and opioid receptors have a synergistic interaction, such that very low doses of these agonists can be employed to reduce visceral pain and side effects. Aims To determine the effects of combined cannabinoid and opioid receptor agonists on visceral pain and its side effects. Methods Telemetric transmitters were surgically implanted into the abdominal cavity of C57/BL6 mice, with electrodes sutured to the external oblique muscle to measure the visceromotor response (VMR) to colorectal distention using a 4F arterial embolectomy catheter (volume range 20–80 µL). Mice were injected intraperitoneally with vehicle, arachidonyl-2’-chloroethylamide (ACEA), a selective CB1R agonist (0.3, 1, 3 mg/kg), HU-308, a selective CB2R agonist (0.3, 1, 3mg/kg), morphine, a MOR agonist (0.3, 3 mg/kg), or a combination, 30-minutes prior to distention. To assess side effects, pulse oximetry, heart rate, fecal pelleting, and locomotion (via an open-field maze) were measured. Data was analyzed with one or two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons test. Results ACEA dose-dependently reduced VMR (P<0.01 vs. vehicle, N=5); at the 80 µL distention, reductions of 35% (P<0.01) and 62% (P<0.01) were observed for 1 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg respectively. In contrast, HU-308 did not reduce VMR at any dose (P=0.17, N=8). Morphine (0.3 mg/kg) did not reduce VMR (P>0.99), while a higher dose (3 mg/kg) attenuated VMR (P<0.01 vs. vehicle, N=5); reductions of 32% (P<0.01) and 61% (P<0.01) at 60 and 80 µL distentions respectively. Interestingly, a combination of sub-analgesic doses of ACEA (0.3 mg/kg) and morphine (0.3 mg/kg) significantly reduced VMR (P<0.01 vs vehicle, N=5); compared to vehicle, VMR was reduced by 21% at 40 µL (P<0.05), 27% at 60 µL (P<0.01) and 60% at 80 µL (P<0.01). Chronic administration (2x/day for 6 days) of this combination did not alter the magnitude of its inhibitory effect (P=0.67, N=5), suggesting tolerance did not develop. While analgesic doses of morphine (3mg/kg) decreased oxygen saturation (P<0.01), heart rate (P<0.01) and fecal pelleting (i.e., GI motility; P<0.05), the sub-analgesic combination of ACEA and morphine had no effect (P>0.99 for all, N=5). Locomotion was unchanged by the agonists alone or combined (P=0.17). Conclusions A combination of sub-analgesic doses of CB1R and MOR agonists significantly inhibits visceral pain in vivo, without development of sides effects or tolerance with chronic use. Thus, combining low doses of CB1R and MOR agonists may be an effective visceral pain management strategy. Funding Agencies NSERC

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207