Propofol’s Anti-Inflammatory Action Is Independent of Endocannabinoid System Activation in Microglia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propofol is well-known for its inhibitory effects in the central nervous system (CNS) as an intravenous anesthetic. Less is known about propofol's impact on microglial activity. Studies have suggested a link to the endocannabinoid system (ECS). Propofol has been shown to indirectly modulate cannabinoid type 1 (CB1R) and type 2 (CB2R) receptors on microglia, with CB2R playing a key role in regulating anti-inflammatory immune responses. The objective of this study was to evaluate potential anti-inflammatory effects of propofol on microglia and to determine whether any observed effects are associated with the ECS. To investigate this, we treated LPS-stimulated SIMA9 microglial cells with propofol, both in the presence and absence of antagonists for CB2R and CB1R, and assessed the cell viability and the production of the cytokines TNF and IL-6. The results demonstrated that cell viability was stable at propofol concentrations of 20, 40, and 80 µM. Production of TNF and IL-6 was reduced significantly upon propofol treatment. This effect of cytokine production did not change following administration of CB1R and/or CB2R antagonists. In conclusion, the results demonstrated that propofol exhibits anti-inflammatory effects, which do not appear to be mediated through ECS activation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".