Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Submit
  • Visit jpet on Facebook
  • Follow jpet on Twitter
  • Follow jpet on LinkedIn
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Sialorphin Potentiates Effects of [Met5]Enkephalin without Toxicity by Action other than Peptidase Inhibition

Takugi Kan, Masanobu Yoshikawa, Mariko Watanabe, Masaaki Miura, Kenji Ito, Mitsumasa Matsuda, Kayoko Iwao, Hiroyuki Kobayashi, Takeshi Suzuki and Toshiyasu Suzuki
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 2020, 375 (1) 104-114; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.120.266080
Takugi Kan
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masanobu Yoshikawa
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mariko Watanabe
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masaaki Miura
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenji Ito
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitsumasa Matsuda
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kayoko Iwao
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hiroyuki Kobayashi
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takeshi Suzuki
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Toshiyasu Suzuki
Departments of Anesthesiology (T.K., M.W., M.Mi., K.I., M.Ma., Ta.S., To.S.) and Clinical Pharmacology (M.Y., H.K.) and Education and Research Support Center (K.I.), Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This dose-response study investigated the effects of sialorphin on [Met5]enkephalin (ME)-induced inhibition of contractions in mouse vas deferens and antinociception in male rats. Differences were compared among combinations of three chemical peptidase inhibitors: amastatin, captopril, and phosphoramidon. The ratio of potencies of ME in mouse vas deferens pretreated with both sialorphin (100 µM) and a mixture of the three peptidase inhibitors (1 µM each) was higher than that with the mixture of peptidase inhibitors alone at any dose. Intrathecal administration of sialorphin (100–400 nmol) significantly and dose dependently increased ME (3 nmol)-induced antinociception with the mixture of three peptidase inhibitors (10 nmol each). The degree of antinociception with a combination of any two of the peptidase inhibitors (10 nmol each) in the absence of sialorphin was less than that in the presence of sialorphin (200 nmol). Pretreatment with both sialorphin (200 nmol) and the mixture of three peptidase inhibitors (10 nmol each) produced an approximately 100-fold augmentation in ME (10 nmol)-induced antinociception, but without signs of toxicity such as motor dysfunction in rats. Radioligand receptor binding assay revealed that sialorphin did not affect either binding affinity or maximal binding capacity of [d-Ala2,N-MePhe4,Gly-ol5]enkephalin. These results indicate that sialorphin potentiates the effects of ME without toxicity by a mechanism other than peptidase inhibition and with no effect on its affinity to µ-opioid receptors.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Sialorphin is regarded as an endogenous peptidase inhibitor that interacts with enkephalin-degrading enzymes. The results of these in vitro and in vivo studies confirm that sialorphin potentiates the effects of [Met5]enkephalin without toxicity by an action other than peptidase inhibition. This suggests that sialorphin offers the advantage of reducing or negating the side effects of opioid drugs and endogenous opioid peptides.

Introduction

Earlier studies have demonstrated rapid degradation of opioid peptides by any of five types of peptidase: 1) aminopeptidase N (EC 3.4.11.2), which cleaves the Tyr1-Gly2 amide bond; 2) dipeptidyl peptidase III (EC 3.4.14.4), which hydrolyzes the Gly2-Gly3 bond; 3) dipeptidyl carboxypeptidase (EC 3.4.15.1, also known as the angiotensin I–converting enzyme); 4) neutral endopeptidase (EC 3.4.24.11, also known as enkephalinase), which cleaves the Gly3-Phe4 bond; and 5) carboxypeptidase A (EC 3.4.17.1) (Khaket et al., 2012; Morales-Mulia et al., 2012). The membrane-bound three enzymes, aminopeptidase N (APN), dipeptidyl carboxypeptidase, and neutral endopeptidase (NEP), play an essential role in the degradation of [Met5]enkephalin (ME) in three different types of isolated preparation: guinea pig ileum (Aoki et al., 1984), mouse vas deferens (MVD) (Aoki et al., 1986), and rat vas deferens (Cui et al., 1986). A mixture of the following three peptidase inhibitors (PIs) significantly increased the antinociceptive effects of ME: amastatin, an aminopeptidase inhibitor; captopril, a dipeptidyl carboxypeptidase inhibitor; and phosphoramidon, an endopeptidase-24.11 inhibitor (Murata et al., 2014). This finding was in good agreement with those of earlier studies employing high-performance liquid chromatography that showed that a mixture of these PIs almost completely inhibited the degradation of ME (Hiranuma and Oka, 1986).

Widely distributed throughout the human body, opioid receptors are activated by endogenous peptides and exogenous ligands (Stein, 1995). High-dose administration of opioids can lead to lethal toxicity in multiple organ systems (Boyer, 2012). Earlier studies by the present group revealed that administration of a mixture of PIs enhanced antinociception induced by low-dose administration of dynorphin without toxicity (Ajimi et al., 2015(Matsuda et al., 2017)). These results demonstrated that the use of PIs synergizes and potentiates intrinsic signaling pathways, which would allow a reduction in the doses required and subsequent avoidance of toxicity.

Two endogenous peptidase inhibitors have recently been isolated from rat and human saliva: sialorphin (Gln-His-Asn-Pro-Arg) from the former and opiorphin (Gln-Arg-Phe-Ser-Arg) from the latter (Kamysz et al., 2013). Administration of either was reported to induce an antinociceptive effect through activation of opioid receptors (Rougeot et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2006). Rougeot et al. (2003) suggested that opiorphin protects enkephalins from degradation by two peptidases (NEP and APN), thus improving the affinity of enkephalins without directly interacting with opioid receptors themselves (Tóth et al., 2012; Benyhe et al., 2014; Sitbon et al., 2016).

Increasingly, compounds are being discovered that directly modulate receptors via distinct allosteric, rather than orthosteric, sites. Allosteric modulators usually demonstrate higher selectivity for individual receptor subtypes, which means they are safer than orthosteric-site ligands (Conn et al., 2009). Allosteric modulators can be divided into three basic classes: the first class only affects the binding affinity of orthosteric ligands, whereas the second modulates the efficacy of orthosteric ligands, either in addition to or without affecting the affinity of orthosteric ligands. It is assumed that modulators in both of these classes (the so-called pure allosteric modulators) exert no detectable effect in the absence of orthosteric ligands. In contrast, the third class are effective independently of their allosteric effects (Langmead and Christopoulos, 2006).

Cannabidiol (CB1 cannabinoid receptor agonist) and salvinorin-A (a κ-opioid receptor agonist) were reported to be negative allosteric modulators of opioid receptors (Kathmann et al., 2006; Rothman et al., 2007). One earlier study using high-throughput screening also identified two compounds (BMS-986121 and BMS-986122) as positive allosteric modulators (PAM) of µ-opioid receptors (Burford et al., 2013). BMS-986122 enhances the recruitment of β-arrestin to µ-opioid receptors by endomorphin-1 and potentiates G protein–mediated decrease in cAMP accumulation produced by endomorphin-1. Two analogs (BMS-986123 and BMS-986124) of BMS-986122 were identified as silent allosteric modulators (SAMs) of this allosteric site. Although these SAMs exert no PAM activity, they have been shown to competitively antagonize the effects of BMS-986122 (Burford et al., 2013). In this dose-response study, the effects of sialorphin on ME-induced inhibition of contractions in MVD and antinociception in male rats were investigated to determine whether they were mediated as an inhibitor of neutral endopeptidase. Differences were compared among combinations of three PIs. A radioligand receptor binding assay was used to establish the effect of sialorphin on Bmax and binding affinity (Kd) of [d-Ala2,N-MePhe4,Gly-ol5]enkephalin (DAMGO).

Materials and Methods

All animal experiments were performed strictly in accordance with the guidelines of this institution (Tokai University, http://www.u-tokai.ac.jp/about/concept/guidance.html). Approval for the study protocol was obtained from the Animal Investigation Committee of Tokai University (Approval No: 191029 and 191031).

Animals

Male Wistar rats (7 to 8 weeks old, 180–220 g each, n = 276; Nihon Clea, Tokyo, Japan) and male ICR JCL mice (9 to 10 weeks old, weighing 30–40 g each, n = 40; Nihon Clea) were housed in an air-conditioned room at a control temperature of 24–26°C and 50%–60% humidity, with a 12-hour light/dark cycle (lights on: 07:00 hours) and food and water freely available. The animals were allowed 1 week to adapt to the novel laboratory environment. Opioid-induced antinociception is strongly affected by sex. Endopeptidase-24.11 inhibitor SCH 34826 induced significantly greater antinociceptive effects and stress-induced opioid analgesia in male than in female deer mice (Kavaliers and Innes, 1993). Remarkably, synthesis of sialorphin shows significant sexual dimorphism. The expression of gene and peptide levels in adult male rats are 1000-fold and 100- to 500-fold higher than those in adult females, respectively (Rosinski-Chupin et al., 1988, 1993, 2001; Messaoudi et al., 2004). Sialorphin is released into the bloodstream from the submandibular gland and prostate in response to acute stress, depending on the degree of adrenergic receptor activity. In view of this, all experimental procedures in the present study were performed exclusively on male mice and rats.

Chemicals

The following were obtained from the sources indicated: sialorphin (PH Japan, Hiroshima, Japan); and [Met5]enkephalin (ME), amastatin, and phosphoramidon (The Peptide Institute, Inc., Minoh, Japan). The following were all purchased from SIGMA Japan (Tokyo, Japan): captopril, d-Phe-Cys-Tyr-d-Trp-Orn-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2 (CTOP, a μ-opioid receptor antagonist), nor-binaltorphimine dihydrochloride (nor-BNI, a κ-opioid receptor antagonist), naltrindole hydrochloride (NTI, a δ-opioid receptor antagonist), and BMS-986124 (a silent allosteric modulator of µ-opioid receptor). The nonselective opioid receptor antagonist naloxone hydrochloride (NOX) was purchased from Daiichi-Sankyo Company, Limited (Tokyo, Japan). All of the above chemicals were dissolved in saline, except for nor-BNI and NTI, which were dissolved in water, and BMS-986124, which was dissolved in 50% DMSO and 50% saline. The desired concentration of each solution was prepared at the time it was to be used, and each was administered intrathecally at a volume of 10 µl. Administration of the PIs was performed at 10 minutes prior to that of the opioid receptor agonist or saline as a control.

Radioligand Receptor Binding Assay

A membrane fraction was prepared from rat whole brain according to the method of Benyhe et al. (1997) with some modifications. The animals were decapitated. The brains were then rapidly removed and washed several times with ice-cold 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4). Membrane fraction was resuspended in five volumes of 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing 0.32 M sucrose. Aliquots of the membrane fraction were frozen in liquid nitrogen and then stored at −80°C. Immediately before use in the binding assays, the membranes were thawed and resuspended in 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) and centrifuged (40,000g at 4°C for 20 minutes) to remove sucrose. After incubation in 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) containing ACP (final concentration 1 µM each) with or without sialorphin (final concentration 100 µM) for 15 minutes, the membrane suspensions (protein concentration of 0.5 mg/ml) were incubated in glass tubes for 60 minutes at 25°C with the radioligand [3H]DAMGO in a final volume of 1 ml. Assays for Scatchard analysis were carried out at various concentrations of [3H]DAMGO. Nonspecific binding was measured in the presence of unlabeled 10 mM DAMGO. Incubation was terminated by rapid filtration through Whatman GF/C glass fiber filters. After washing three times in 5 ml ice-cold buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4), radioactivity was measured in a scintillation cocktail (Pico-Fluor Plus; Perkin Elmer Japan, Tokyo) using a scintillation counter (2810; Perkin Elmer Japan). Experiments were carried out in duplicate and repeated two times. Ligand binding data were evaluated using computer software (GraphPad Prism, version 6.0c; GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).

In Vitro Isolated Preparations

Mouse vas deferens obtained from male ICR JCL mice (9 to 10 weeks old) were subjected to electrical stimulation according to a method previously reported (Hughes et al., 1975; Oka et al., 1982). Four MVD samples were suspended separately in organ baths containing 4 ml Krebs’ solution each (millimolar concentration: NaCl, 118; KCl, 4.75; CaCl2, 2.54; KH2PO4, 1.19; NaHCO3, 3.25; glucose, 11); the temperature in the bath was maintained at 36°C, and air bubbled through. Each drug was added in 40-µl amounts, after which it was washed out with 4 ml Krebs’ solution; the temperature in the bath was maintained at 36°C throughout this process. This was repeated four times, with a 5-minute interval between each experimental condition, unless specifically mentioned. Mouse vas deferens were stimulated with a supramaximal rectangular pulse of 1.0 millisecond in duration and at a frequency of 0.1 Hz using an electronic stimulator (SEN-3201; Nihon Koden, Tokyo, Japan). To determine IC50, the degree (%) to which each opioid depressed muscle twitch was plotted against its log concentration. The effect of each PI on ME-induced depression of contractions was determined by administering each inhibitor at least 3 minutes before the enkephalin. The percent difference was calculated as follows: percent difference = [(IC50 before each treatment − IC50 after each treatment)/IC50 before each treatment] × 100. These differences are shown in the tables.

Intrathecal Administration

Based on a method described in an earlier study (Murata et al., 2014), intrathecal catheters were implanted in male Wistar rats (7 to 8 weeks old) under inhalation anesthesia with nitrous oxide, oxygen, and isoflurane (2%). An 8.5-cm polyethylene catheter (PE-10; Clay Adams, Parsippany, NJ) was inserted caudally to the thoracolumbar level of the spinal cord in the intrathecal space through an incision in the atlanto-occipital membrane (Yaksh and Rudy, 1976). The external part of the catheter was tunneled subcutaneously to exit from the top of the skull and was plugged with a 30-gauge steel wire. Only rats with normal motor function and behavior were used for the study 7 days later. Drugs were injected at a volume of 10 µl, followed by 10 µl saline over 1 minute.

Tail-Flick Test

To eliminate bias, each investigator was blind to the drug administered. In accordance with the method in earlier studies by the present group (Kitamura et al., 2000; Takahashi et al., 2007; Akahori et al., 2008; Murata et al., 2014; Ajimi et al., 2015; Matsuda et al., 2017), nociceptive stimulation was achieved by immersing the tail of each rat in hot water (55°C) for a maximum of 5 seconds. This time limit was set to prevent injury to the animal in accordance with the result from earlier studies by the present group showing that persistent pain occurs when the tail is placed in hot water for more than 5 seconds (data not shown). The average baseline latency was approximately 0.8–1.6 seconds. After determining baseline latencies three times at 15-minute intervals, each drug was administered, and tail-flick latencies were determined at 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, and 120 minutes after. The following formula was used to calculate the percent of maximal possible effect (MPE) for each animal at each time: %MPE = [(test latency − baseline latency)/(5 − baseline latency)] × 100. The area under the curve (AUC) value for the antinociceptive action of each drug was also calculated in some of the experiments.

Assessment of Motor Function

Motor function was assessed using a method previously described, with some modification (Drummond and Moore, 1989; Kakinohana et al., 2006; Shirasawa et al., 2009). A motor deficit index (MDI) graded as follows was used: 0, normal; 1, toes flat under the body when walking, but ataxia present; 2, knuckle walking; 3, movement of legs but unable to walk; or 4, no movement, drags legs. Each drug was administered, and MDI was assessed at 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, and 120 minutes after. The AUC value for MDI of each drug was also calculated.

Statistical Analyses

The results are shown as means and S.E.M. The statistical analysis software package (GraphPad Prism, version 6.0c; GraphPad Software) was used to compare across experimental conditions. The Friedman test and Dunn’s post hoc test were used to evaluate differences among groups. Dunn’s multiple comparison test was used to determine significance at each time point when a significant difference among the %MPE data after drug administration was obtained by means of a two-way (drugs and time) repeated measures ANOVA. Dunn’s multiple comparison test was also used to determine significance at each dose when a significant difference among groups in the AUC data were obtained with a two-way (drugs and dose) ANOVA. When a significant difference within groups was obtained in the Kruskal-Wallis test, Dunn’s comparison test was applied to determine significance. The Mann-Whitney test was used for intergroup comparisons. A P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistical significance.

In Vitro Isolated Preparations Experimental Protocol

Ratio of Potencies of ME in MVD Pretreated with ACP with or without Sialorphin.

Four MVDs were tested (Fig. 1). After administration of ACP alone, ME was added and washed out with Krebs’ solution after their maximal effects had been noted. Subsequent to this experiment, the evaluation of ACP with sialorphin was carried out.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Ratio of potencies of ME in MVD pretreated with ACP with or without sialorphin (200 µM). Significantly different from ME alone (open circle) or sialorphin-ME (closed circle) according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Significantly different from under pretreatment with ACP at the same dose of ACP according to Dunn’s post hoc test after two-way repeated measures ANOVA; ###P < 0.001.

Enhanced Effect of Sialorphin on the Inhibitory Potency of ME.

Four MVD were tested (Table 1). ME was added and washed out after their maximal effects had been noted among each dose of sialorphin from low to high dose.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Enhanced effect of sialorphin on the inhibitory potency of ME in MVD

Enhanced Effect of Combination of ACP on the Inhibitory Potency of ME in the Presence or Absence of Sialorphin.

Sixteen MVDs were divided into four groups: AC, CP, AP, ACP (n = 4 each) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Enhanced effect of combination of three PIs on the inhibitory potency of ME in MVD in the presence or absence of sialorphin

Enhanced Effect of Sialorphin on the Inhibitory Potency of ME in the Presence of ACP.

Four MVDs were tested. ME was added and washed out after their maximal effects had been noted among each dose of ACP and sialorphin from low to high dose (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Enhanced effect of sialorphin on the inhibitory potency of ME in MVD in the presence of ACP

Inhibitory Effect of Sialorphin and ACP on Electrically Evoked Contractions in MVD before and after Administration of ME.

Sixteen MVDs were divided two groups (n = 4) (Fig. 2). Each drug was sequentially added to the MVD.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Inhibitory effect of sialorphin and ACP on electrically evoked contractions in MVD before and after administration of ME. Compounds were added sequentially (dots shown in upper figures). In the lower table, data are reported as the means of results from four samples in independent experiments (A and B). Significantly different from in ACP (1 × 10−5 M) pretreated control according to Mann-Whitney test. Sia, sialorphin.

Animal Experimental Protocol

Combination of ME and Sialorphin Together with ACP.

A previous study demonstrated that pretreatment with intrathecal administration of a combination of 10 nmol each of amastatin, captopril, and phosphoramidon completely inhibited peptidase-induced degradation of ME (Murata et al., 2014). In the present study, intrathecal administration of ME (1 nmol) was performed at 10 minutes after intrathecal administration of sialorphin alone or in combination with ACP (amastatin, captopril, and phosphoramidon; 10 nmol each). The rats were put into the following groups to determine whether joint administration of sialorphin and ACP increased the antinociceptive effect of ME: group 1, ME alone; group 2, ME with sialorphin; group 3, ME with ACP; or group 4, ME with the combination of sialorphin and ACP.

Dose-Response Study.

Intrathecal administration of ME was performed at 10 minutes after intrathecal administration of ACP (10 nmol each) or saline. The rats were placed in the following groups to determine whether administration of ACP increased the antinociceptive effect: group 1, ME (1–10 nmol) with ACP (10 nmol each) alone or together with sialorphin (200 nmol); group 2, ME (3 nmol) with sialorphin (100–300 nmol) alone or together with ACP (10 nmol each); or group 3, ME (3 nmol) with sialorphin (200 nmol) alone or together with ACP (3–30 nmol each).

Effect of Sialorphin with Paired Combinations of PIs on ME-Induced Antinociception.

To investigate the effects of sialorphin together with paired combinations of PIs on ME-induced antinociception, ME (3 nmol) was administered intrathecally under pretreatment with each of the following combinations: AC (10 nmol each), CP (10 nmol each), or AP (10 nmol each).

Sialorphin-Induced Antinociception.

Sialorphin alone, ACP (10 nmol each) alone, or both in combination were administered intrathecally to determine their antinociceptive effect.

Selective or Nonselective Opioid Receptor Antagonists.

The effect of opioid receptor antagonists on ME (3 nmol, i.t.)-induced antinociception under pretreatment with saline (intrathecal), sialorphin (intrathecal), and ACP (10 nmol each, i.t.) was investigated by injection of NOX (0.5–2.0 mg/kg, subcutaneously), CTOP (3 nmol, i.t.) (Walker, 2006), NTI (132 nmol, i.t.; final concentration of DMSO, 0.5%) (Malmberg and Yaksh, 1992), or nor-BNI (20 mg/kg, subcutaneously; final concentration of DMSO, 8%) (Xie et al., 2008) at 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 24 hours, respectively, before intrathecal administration of ME. These antagonists caused no observable toxicity after administration.

Silent Allosteric Modulator of µ-Opioid Receptors.

The effect of a silent allosteric modulator (SAM) of µ-opioid receptors on ME (1 nmol)-induced antinociception under pretreatment with sialorphin (400 nmol) and ACP (10 nmol each) was investigated by intrathecal injection of BMS-986124 (1 or 5 nmol; final concentration of DMSO, 0.75%) at 15 minutes before intrathecal administration of sialorphin and ACP. This SAM caused no observable toxicity after administration.

Results

Enhancement of Potency of ME by Sialorphin in MVD.

The results showed that electrically evoked contractions in MVD were significantly inhibited by administration of ME and that this inhibitory potency was dose dependently augmented under pretreatment with sialorphin (Table 1, Friedman test, P < 0.0001) (mean rank difference: 10−6 M, 4.0; 10−5 M, 8.0; 10−4 M, 15.0; 2 × 10−4 M, 13.0). Figure 1 shows ME-induced inhibition after administration of ME (1, 3, or 10 nmol) alone or with sialorphin (200 nmol). The results revealed that sialorphin augmented ME-induced inhibition at any dose of ACP (F5, 38 = 5.618, P = 0.0006). The sharp symbol above the ratio of potency values with ACP at doses of 20 nmol each under pretreatment with sialorphin indicates significant differences compared with that at the same dose without sialorphin. The enhancing effect of ACP on ME-induced inhibition was also dose-dependent, reaching a maximum at a dose of 1 × 10−5 M (Fig. 1, Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post hoc test, *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01, n = 4). The inhibitory potency of ME on electrically evoked contractions in MVD was significantly higher under pretreatment with AP and sialorphin than with AP alone; that with AC, CP, or ACP with sialorphin was also higher than that without sialorphin, but not significantly so (Table 2, Friedman test, P = 0.0003). Sialorphin itself had no intrinsic efficacy (A-2 in Fig. 2, Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.1143, n = 4). In contrast, sialorphin enhanced the efficacy of ME with ACP (B-6 in Fig. 2, Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.0286, n = 4) in a dose-dependent manner (Table 3, Friedman test, P < 0.0001) (mean rank difference: sialorphin 0 M, 4.00; 10−4 M, 9.75; 2 × 10−4 M, 10.25). Each drug was sequentially added to the MVD (Fig. 2). The ratio of potencies of ME in MVD under pretreatment with sialorphin (2 × 10−4 M) and ACP was higher than those with ACP alone at any dose (Fig. 1, F5, 38 = 5.618, P = 0.0006).

Effect of Sialorphin on ME-Induced Antinociception.

The antinociceptive effect observed with intrathecal administration of 1 nmol ME with 400 nmol sialorphin was similar to that with ACP (10 nmol each) in terms of onset, offset, and duration of action (Fig. 3A, F30, 210 = 4.074, P < 0.0001). The AUC0–45 min value for %MPE of 1 nmol ME with 400 nmol sialorphin was approximately equal to that with a mixture of the three PIs (10 nmol each) (Fig. 3B, Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0007). Figure 4A shows ME-induced antinociception from 10 minutes after intrathecal administration of the combination of 200 nmol sialorphin and ACP (10 nmol each) (n = 6 each dose) or ACP alone (n = 6 each dose). A dose-dependent and prolonged antinociceptive effect on the tail-flick response was observed with administration of ME (1, 3, or 10 nmol) (F3, 40 = 4.350, P = 0.0096). The sharp symbols above the AUC0–45 min values with 3 nmol ME under pretreatment with sialorphin and ACP indicate significant differences compared with that with ME under pretreatment with ACP. Asterisks placed above the AUC0–45 min values for ME at doses of 3 or 10 nmol under pretreatment with sialorphin and ACP indicate significant differences compared with that for sialorphin and ACP without ME (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0009). Asterisks placed above the AUC0–45 min values for ACP (10 nmol each) with or without sialorphin on ME indicate significant differences compared with that with or without sialorphin on saline (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0381). Figure 4B shows ME (3 nmol)-induced antinociception from 10 minutes after intrathecal administration of sialorphin (100, 200, or 400 nmol) (n = 5 each sialorphin dose) alone or with ACP (10 nmol each) (n = 5 each sialorphin dose). The results revealed that sialorphin augmented ME-induced antinociception under pretreatment with ACP in a dose-dependent manner (F3, 32 = 3.675, P = 0.0221). Sharp symbols above the AUC0–45 min values for sialorphin at all doses with ACP on ME indicate significant differences compared with that for sialorphin with saline on ME. Asterisks placed below the AUC0–45 min values for 200 nmol sialorphin with ACP on ME indicate significant differences compared with saline with ACP on ME (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0090). Figure 4C shows ME-induced antinociception from 10 minutes after intrathecal administration of 200 nmol sialorphin (n = 5 each ACP dose) or saline (n = 5 each ACP dose) with ACP at doses of 0, 3, 10, or 30 nmol each. The results showed that ACP augmented ME-induced antinociception under pretreatment with or without sialorphin in a dose-dependent manner (F3, 32 = 4.531, P = 0.0093). The AUC0–45 min value demonstrated that induction of ME-induced antinociception by 200 nmol sialorphin and ACP (3, 10, or 30 nmol each) was significantly greater than that with ACP alone. Sharp symbols above the AUC0–45 min values for ACP (10 nmol each) together with 200 nmol sialorphin on ME indicate significant differences compared with that for ACP alone on ME. Asterisks placed above the AUC0–45 min values for ACP (10 nmol each) with 200 nmol sialorphin on ME indicate significant differences compared with that for saline with sialorphin on ME (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0045). Asterisks placed above the AUC0–45 min values for ACP (10 nmol each) alone on ME indicate significant differences compared with that for saline on ME (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0209).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Potentiating effect of PIs on antinociception induced by intrathecal administration of ME with or without sialorphin. Upper panel (A) indicates time course of %MPE of ME (1 nmol) under pretreatment with saline and ACP with or without sialorphin. Significantly different from ME alone–treated control (open circle) according to Dunn’s post hoc test after two-way repeated measures ANOVA; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Lower panel (B) shows AUC0–45 min for value of %MPE indicated in upper panel (A). A value of zero indicates intrathecal administration of saline. Significantly different from ME alone–treated control according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; ***P < 0.001.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

(A) ME-dependent antinociception with intrathecal administration of a mixture of PIs (ACP) with or without sialorphin by dose. Significantly different from saline pretreated with ACP with (closed circle; n = 6 each dose) or without (open circle; n = 6 each dose) sialorphin according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. Significantly different from under pretreatment with ACP alone in control at the same dose of ME according to Dunn’s post hoc test after two-way repeated measures ANOVA; #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01. (B) Sialorphin-dependent antinociception with intrathecal administration of ME under pretreatment with (closed circle; n = 5 each dose) or without (open circle; n = 5 each dose) a mixture of PIs (ACP) by dose. Significantly different from sialorphin-treated control at the same dose according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; ##P < 0.01; ###P < 0.001. Significantly different from ME (3 nmol) under pretreatment with ACP alone in control according to Dunn’s post hoc test after two-way repeated measures ANOVA; *P < 0.05. (C) ACP-dependent antinociception with intrathecal administration of ME (3 nmol) under pretreatment with (closed circle; n = 5 each dose) or without sialorphin (open circle; n = 5 each dose) by dose. Significantly different from ME under pretreatment with or without sialorphin according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Significantly different from under pretreatment with ACP without sialorphin at the same dose of ACP according to Dunn’s post hoc test after two-way repeated measures ANOVA; ###P < 0.001. (D) Comparison of effect of paired combinations of PIs (AC, CP, and AP; 10 nmol each) on antinociception induced by intrathecal administration of ME (3 nmol) with (closed circle; n = 4 each combination of PIs) or without sialorphin (200 nmol) (open circle; n = 5 each combination of PIs). A value of zero indicates intrathecal administration of saline. Significantly different from in control treated with pairs of PIs alone according to Mann-Whitney test; *P < 0.05.

Effect of Sialorphin with Combinations of PIs (AC, CP, AP) on ME-Induced Antinociception.

A significant increase was observed in the antinociceptive potency of ME (3 nmol) under pretreatment with AC (10 nmol each), CP (10 nmol each), or AP (10 nmol each) in the presence of 200 nmol sialorphin in comparison with AC, CP, or AP alone (Fig. 4D) (AC, AP, CP each; P = 0.0286).

Antinociceptive Effects of Sialorphin or ACP Alone.

A significant increase in antinociception was observed after intrathecal administration of ACP (10 nmol each) alone or in combination with sialorphin (200 nmol each); sialorphin alone, however, yielded no increase in antinociception (Fig. 5A) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0003) (mean rank difference: sialorphin + saline, −5.667; ACP + saline, −10.40; sialorphin + ACP, −16.33).

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

(A) Antinociceptive effect of saline alone (n = 5), sialorphin alone (n = 6), ACP alone (n = 5), or sialorphin with ACP (n = 6). A value of zero indicates intrathecal administration of saline. Significantly different from saline-treated control (open circle) according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; *P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001. (B) The effect of naloxone (0.5–2.0 mg/kg, subcutaneously, n = 4 each) on ME (3 nmol, i.t.)-induced antinociception under pretreatment with saline (i.t.), sialorphin (200 nmol, i.t.), and ACP (10 nmol each, i.t.). To evaluate the effects of naloxone, saline was administered subcutaneously and intrathecally (n = 5). A value of zero indicates administration of saline. Significantly different from in saline-administered group (open circle, subcutaneously and intrathecal administration, n = 5) according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test, ***P < 0.001. (C) ME (1 nmol)-induced antinociception under pretreatment with sialorphin and PIs after administration of three opioid receptor selective antagonists CTOP (3 nmol; n = 4), NTI (132 nmol; n = 5), or nor-BNI (20 mg/kg; n = 5). A value of zero indicates intrathecal administration of saline. Significantly different from ME under pretreatment with saline (intrathecal) (open circle, n = 5), sialorphin, and PIs according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test, *P < 0.05. (D) Effect of BMS-986124 (0, 1, and 5 nmol; n = 5 each), a silent allosteric modulator of µ-opioid receptor, on antinociception by intrathecal administration of ME under pretreatment with sialorphin (400 nmol) and a mixture of PIs (ACP). Significantly different from ME under pretreatment with a mixture of PIs (ACP, 10 nmol each) alone after administration of DMSO (final concentration, 0.14%) (open circle; n = 5) according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Effect of Antagonists on ME-Induced Antinociception under Pretreatment with Sialorphin and ACP.

The results showed that NOX significantly attenuated the antinociceptive effect of ME under pretreatment with ACP (Fig. 5B). The antinociceptive potency of ME under pretreatment with ACP after administration of NOX (1 mg/kg) was approximately equal to that under pretreatment with saline (data not shown). The antinociceptive effect of ME was attenuated dose dependently by NOX under pretreatment with sialorphin (200 nmol) and ACP (10 nmol each) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0028). The antinociceptive potency of ME (3 nmol) under pretreatment with sialorphin and ACP after administration of NOX (1 or 2 mg/kg) was approximately equal to that of saline alone (mean rank difference: NOX 0.5 mg/kg, 3.75; 1 mg/kg, 10.63; 2 mg/kg, 8.50; saline, 15.30) (Fig. 5B). The antinociceptive potency of ME under pretreatment with sialorphin (200 nmol) and ACP (10 nmol each) was significantly attenuated by CTOP (3 nmol) or NTI (132 nmol); it was not attenuated by nor-BNI (20 mg/kg) (Fig. 5C) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0032) (mean rank difference: CTOP, 10.95; NTI, 9.60; nor-BNI, 1.40).

Effect of Silent Allosteric Modulator of µ-Opioid Receptor on ME-Induced Antinociception under Pretreatment with Sialorphin and ACP.

Assuming that allosteric modulators have higher selectivity for receptor subtypes and that PAMs have an ability to augment the efficacy of orthosteric ligands in addition to affecting the affinity of orthosteric ligands, the effect of BMS-986124 was assessed in the presence of a high dose of sialorphin and a low dose of ME. The results showed that BMS-986124 significantly and dose dependently attenuated the enhancing effects of sialorphin (400 nmol) on ME (1 nmol)-induced antinociception in the presence of ACP (Fig. 5D) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0019). The antinociceptive potency of ME under pretreatment with sialorphin and ACP after administration of BMS-986124 (5 nmol) was approximately equal to that under pretreatment with ACP alone (mean rank difference: 5 nmol, −2.00; 1 nmol, −9.00; 0 nmol, −12.60).

Effect of Sialorphin and PIs on Motor Dysfunction Induced by Intrathecal Administration of ME.

No significant differences were observed in the antinociceptive effects between 1000 nmol ME alone and 10 nmol ME under pretreatment with sialorphin (200 nmol) and ACP (Fig. 6, A and B) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0092) (mean rank difference: saline + ME, 3.4; ACP + ME, 8.0). Intrathecal administration of 1000 nmol ME induced significant motor dysfunction (Fig. 6, C and D) (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.0010). In contrast, no motor dysfunction was observed with 10 nmol ME under pretreatment with sialorphin and ACP (mean rank difference: saline + ME, −7.5; ACP + ME, 0.0).

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

Effects of sialorphin or ACP on ME-induced antinociception without motor dysfunction. (A) Time course of %MPE of ME (1000 nmol) under pretreatment with saline, and ME (10 nmol) under pretreatment with ACP with or without sialorphin. (B) Effects of sialorphin or ACP on ME-induced antinociception. AUC0–45 min for value of % MPE indicated in left panel (A). Significantly different from 10 nmol ME with both sialorphin and ACP-treated group according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; **P < 0.01. (C) Time course of value of MDI of ME (1000 nmol) under pretreatment with saline and ME (10 nmol) under pretreatment with ACP with or without sialorphin. (D) Effects of sialorphin or ACP on ME-induced motor dysfunction. AUC0–45 min for value of MDI indicated in left panel (C). Significantly different from ME alone–treated control according to Dunn’s post hoc test after Kruskal-Wallis test; **P < 0.01.

Effect of Sialorphin on Kd and Bmax of DAMGO in Presence of ACP.

Sialorphin showed no effect on the binding affinity of [3H]DAMGO: Kd in the absence of sialorphin was 1.149 nM (95% CI: 0.7834–1.515); Kd in the presence of 100 µM sialorphin was 1.272 nM (95% CI: 0.9092–1.635) (Fig. 7). Sialorphin also showed no effect on maximal binding capacity of [3H]DAMGO: Bmax in the absence of sialorphin was 9.11 fmol/mg tissue (95% CI: 8.232–9.99), whereas Bmax in the presence of 100 µM sialorphin was 9.228 fmol/mg (95% Cl: 8.41–10.048) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 7.

Saturation binding experiments using [3H]DAMGO (a µ-opioid receptor agonist) were carried out in the absence or presence of sialorphin (100 µM) under treatment with ACP (1 µM each). The graph presents the specific binding signal of [3H]DAMGO. Scatchard analysis subsequently was performed (inset graph).

Discussion

The results of the present study showed that pretreatment with both sialorphin and a mixture of three PIs produced an at least 100-fold augmentation in antinociception induced by intrathecal administration of ME without signs of toxicity such as motor dysfunction in rat. This supports the hypothesis that augmenting the affinity and efficacy of low doses of opioid drugs or endogenous opioids would increase antinociception, but with no concomitant increase in toxicity (Thompson et al., 2015). The present results do not preclude the notion that sialorphin may enhance inhibition of peptidases; rather, they suggest that another mechanism is involved in sialorphin-induced increase in the efficacy of ME. This is in good agreement with the results of an earlier study showing that acetylcholinesterase inhibitor galantamine increased the frequency of ion-channel opening of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors as PAM (Samochocki et al., 2003). This earlier result suggests that galantamine-enhanced activity in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors is mainly due to potentiation of orthosteric ligands as allosteric modulators rather than by inhibition of acetylcholine degradation. Either PAM or PIs can potentiate the analgesic effects of opioid drugs or endogenous opioids, without potentiation of the side effects. Thus, administration of opioid compounds containing sialorphin may offer the advantage of reducing or negating the side effects of the former.

Sialorphin did not affect the Bmax of DAMGO in the presence of ACP. This suggests that sialorphin only inhibits amastatin-sensitive aminopeptidase, captopril-sensitive dipeptidyl carboxypeptidase I, and phosphoramidon-sensitive endopeptidase-24.11. This is in good agreement with the results of an earlier high-performance liquid chromatography analysis, which revealed that ME was almost solely catabolized by these three peptidases in ileal and striatal membrane preparations (Hiranuma and Oka, 1986).

The present study demonstrated that BMS-986124 significantly attenuated the enhancing effects of sialorphin on ME-induced antinociception and that sialorphin affected neither the binding affinity nor the maximal binding capacities of [3H]DAMGO. These results are not, however, in agreement with the results of an earlier study showing that BMS-986124 acted as a silent allosteric modulator at the site where BMS-986121 or 986122 binds (Burford et al., 2013). This discrepancy may be related to “activity switching” of allosteric modulators. Similar to orthosteric opioid ligands (Morgan et al., 1999), allosteric modulators appear to act as agonists or antagonists, or to act as a positive or negative allosteric modulators, depending on the pain test and drugs used (Burford et al., 2015). For example, positive allosteric modulator BMS-986122 increased the affinity of full µ-opioid receptor agonists (high intrinsic efficacy) with no change in maximal response, whereas it increased maximal response with minimal effects on agonist affinity for partial (low intrinsic efficacy) agonists (Livingston and Traynor, 2014). Although BMS-986124 did not significantly increase the potency of morphine at a high dose, it increased the maximal response of morphine at a high dose, but with only a slight decrease at low dose (Burford et al., 2013). Further investigation using PAMs such as BMS-9861242 to assess the impact of allosteric modulators on the antinociceptive effects of ME compared with sialorphin is required.

Rougeot et al. (2003) suggested that opiorphin interacts indirectly with opioid receptors (Toth et al., 2012; Benyhe et al., 2014; Sitbon et al., 2016). This was proposed based on two findings (Toth et al., 2012): 1) that opiorphin increased the maximal binding capacities (Bmax) of [3H][Met5]enkephalin-Arg6-Phe7 ([3H]MERF), but not [3H]endomorphin-1, at both 0°C and 24°C in a saturation binding assay and 2) that opiorphin increased the affinity of MERF in competition studies with [3H]MERF binding more than a mixture of PIs (bestatin, captopril, thiorphan, bacitracin, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, benzamidine, soybean trypsin inhibitor, EDTA, and EGTA) not only at 24°C (MERF IC50 in the presence of opiorphin was 5.8 nM; IC50 in the presence of a mixture of the PIs was 59 nM) but also at 0°C (IC50 in the presence of opiorphin was 15.2 nM; IC50 in the presence of a mixture of the PIs was 26.4 nM). The finding of the present study that sialorphin did not affect the binding affinity of [3H]DAMGO is in agreement with this earlier observation. Two parallel signaling cascades have been reported in opioid receptors (Georgoussi et al., 2012). They functionally interact with G protein, inhibiting the “adenylate cyclase–cAMP–protein kinase A” signaling pathway and subsequently inducing opioid analgesia. β-Arrestin–mediated signaling is critical for receptor desensitization and trafficking, including phosphorylation and internalization of opioid receptors (Shukla et al., 2011; Allouche et al., 2014). Further investigation into the molecular features of such signal cascades in opioid receptors would help elucidate functions of sialorphin other than that involved in peptidase inhibition.

Sialorphin was identified as the amino terminal region of submandibular rat 1, a 146-amino-acid region encoded by the variable coding sequence A1 (Vcsa1) gene. The VCS genes are divided into two subgroups: VCSA, which includes Vcsa1, and VCSB (Rosinski-Chupin and Rougeon, 1990). Human VCSB includes proline-rich lacrimal 1, which encodes opiorphin, which is functionally equal to sialorphin as an endogenous PI (Wisner et al., 2006; Morris et al., 2007). Expression of Vcsa1 and proline-rich lacrimal 1 is hormonally regulated by androgens (Rosinski-Chupin et al., 2001; Messaoudi et al., 2004; Tong et al., 2008). Interestingly, androgen or testosterone reduces pain-induced response (English et al., 2000; Kaergaard et al., 2000; Aloisi et al., 2004). Independently of hormonal regulation, intraperitoneal administration of β-adrenergic agonists increased submandibular rat 1 levels in rat submandibular gland, resulting in secretion into plasma and saliva (Rougeot et al., 1994, 2000). A large number of experimental and clinical studies demonstrated that pain is associated with increased activity of the sympathoadrenal system, leading to elevation of the plasma concentrations of epinephrine, an endogenous β-adrenergic receptor agonist (Cryer, 1980; DeTurck and Vogel, 1980; Taylor et al., 1989). Taken together, these findings suggest that pain induces expression and secretion of sialorphin by hormonal and adrenergic regulation, resulting in relief of pain.

In the present study, sialorphin was observed to enhance ME-induced inhibition of electrically evoked contractions in MVD in the absence of ACP; no such effect was seen in the tail-flick test, however. This discrepancy may be explained by differences in peptidase activity in MVD and rat spinal cord. Indeed, high amounts of NEP and APN were detected in rat spinal cord (Waksman et al., 1986; Noble et al., 2001). In the present study, the IC50 values of ME were approximately 20 nM in the in vitro experiments using isolated MVD, which was in good agreement with the results of earlier studies. However, one earlier study found that intrathecal administration of ME at a dose of 20 nmol had no antinociceptive effect (Murata et al., 2014). This dose can be taken to correspond to approximately 200 µM based on the finding that the amount of cerebrospinal fluid was approximately 100 µl in rat (200–300 body weight) (Consiglio and Lucion, 2000).

Although sialorphin alone induced no increase in antinociception in the tail-flick test in the present study, intravenous administration of sialorphin alone did induce an antinociceptive effect in the pin-pain and formalin tests in another study (Rougeot et al., 2003). Such discrepancies may be explained by differences in the nociceptive stimulus applied between any two studies (Mélik Parsadaniantz et al., 2015), such as that seen between the present study and that of Rougeot et al. (2003).

In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that sialorphin increases the antinociceptive effects of ME to µ-opioid receptors without toxicity by an action other than peptidase inhibition.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jeremy David Williams, Tokyo Medical University, for his assistance with the English of the manuscript.

Authorship Contributions

Participated in research design: Kan, Yoshikawa, Miura.

Conducted experiments: Kan, Yoshikawa, Watanabe, Iwao.

Contributed new reagents or analytic tools: Ito, Matsuda.

Performed data analysis: Kan, Yoshikawa.

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Kan, Yoshikawa, Kobayashi, Ta. Suzuki, To. Suzuki.

Footnotes

    • Received March 2, 2020.
    • Accepted July 28, 2020.
  • This work was partially supported by grants from 2020 Tokai University School of Medicine Research Aid and JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) KAKENHI: Grant [18K0886], [18K08830], and [18K08831].

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.120.266080.

Abbreviations

AC
amastatin and captopril
ACP
amastatin and captopril and phosphoramidon
AP
amastatin and phosphoramidon
APN
aminopeptidase N
AUC
area under the curve
CP
captopril and phosphoramidon
CTOP
d-Phe-Cys-Tyr-d-Trp-Orn-Thr-Pen-Thr-NH2
DAMGO
[d-Ala2,N-MePhe4,Gly-ol5]enkephalin
MDI
motor deficit index
ME
[Met5]enkephalin
MERF
[Met5]enkephalin-Arg6-Phe7
MPE
maximal possible effect
MVD
mouse vas deferens
NEP
neutral endopeptidase
nor-BNI
nor-binaltorphimine dihydrochloride
NOX
naloxone hydrochloride
NTI
naltrindole hydrochloride
PAM
positive allosteric modulator
PI
peptidase inhibitor
SAM
silent allosteric modulators
Vcsa1
variable coding sequence A1
  • Copyright © 2020 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ajimi J,
    2. Yoshikawa M,
    3. Takahashi S,
    4. Miura M,
    5. Tsukamoto H,
    6. Kawaguchi M,
    7. Kobayashi H, and
    8. Suzuki T
    (2015) Effect of three peptidase inhibitors on antinociceptive potential and toxicity with intracerebroventricular administration of dynorphin A (1-17) or (1-13) in the rat. J Anesth 29:65–77.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Akahori K,
    2. Kosaka K,
    3. Jin XL,
    4. Arai Y,
    5. Yoshikawa M,
    6. Kobayashi H, and
    7. Oka T
    (2008) Great increase in antinociceptive potency of [Leu5]enkephalin after peptidase inhibition. J Pharmacol Sci 106:295–300.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Allouche S,
    2. Noble F, and
    3. Marie N
    (2014) Opioid receptor desensitization: mechanisms and its link to tolerance. Front Pharmacol 5:280.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Aloisi AM,
    2. Ceccarelli I,
    3. Fiorenzani P,
    4. De Padova AM, and
    5. Massafra C
    (2004) Testosterone affects formalin-induced responses differently in male and female rats. Neurosci Lett 361:262–264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Aoki K,
    2. Kajiwara M, and
    3. Oka T
    (1984) The role of bestatin-sensitive aminopeptidase, angiotensin converting enzyme and thiorphan-sensitive “enkephalinase” in the potency of enkephalins in the Guinea-pig ileum. Jpn J Pharmacol 36:59–65.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Aoki K,
    2. Kajiwara M, and
    3. Oka T
    (1986) The inactivation of [Met5]-enkephalin by bestatin-sensitive aminopeptidase, captopril-sensitive peptidyl dipeptidase A and thiorphan-sensitive endopeptidase-24.11 in mouse vas deferens. Jpn J Pharmacol 40:297–302.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Benyhe S,
    2. Farkas J,
    3. Tóth G, and
    4. Wollemann M
    (1997) Met5-enkephalin-Arg6-Phe7, an endogenous neuropeptide, binds to multiple opioid and nonopioid sites in rat brain. J Neurosci Res 48:249–258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Benyhe Z,
    2. Toth G,
    3. Wollemann M,
    4. Borsodi A,
    5. Helyes Z,
    6. Rougeot C, and
    7. Benyhe S
    (2014) Effects of synthetic analogues of human opiorphin on rat brain opioid receptors. J Physiol Pharmacol 65:525–530.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Boyer EW
    (2012) Management of opioid analgesic overdose. N Engl J Med 367:146–155.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Burford NT,
    2. Clark MJ,
    3. Wehrman TS,
    4. Gerritz SW,
    5. Banks M,
    6. O’Connell J,
    7. Traynor JR, and
    8. Alt A
    (2013) Discovery of positive allosteric modulators and silent allosteric modulators of the μ-opioid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:10830–10835.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Burford NT,
    2. Traynor JR, and
    3. Alt A
    (2015) Positive allosteric modulators of the μ-opioid receptor: a novel approach for future pain medications. Br J Pharmacol 172:277–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Conn PJ,
    2. Christopoulos A, and
    3. Lindsley CW
    (2009) Allosteric modulators of GPCRs: a novel approach for the treatment of CNS disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8:41–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Consiglio AR and
    2. Lucion AB
    (2000) Technique for collecting cerebrospinal fluid in the cisterna magna of non-anesthetized rats. Brain Res Brain Res Protoc 5:109–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Cryer PE
    (1980) Physiology and pathophysiology of the human sympathoadrenal neuroendocrine system. N Engl J Med 303:436–444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Cui SY,
    2. Kajiwara M,
    3. Ishii K,
    4. Aoki K,
    5. Sakamoto J,
    6. Matsumiya T, and
    7. Oka T
    (1986) The enhancing effects of amastatin, phosphoramidon and captopril on the potency of [Met5]-enkephalin in rat vas deferens. Jpn J Pharmacol 42:43–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. DeTurck KH and
    2. Vogel WH
    (1980) Factors influencing plasma catecholamine levels in rats during immobilization. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 13:129–131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Drummond JC and
    2. Moore SS
    (1989) The influence of dextrose administration on neurologic outcome after temporary spinal cord ischemia in the rabbit. Anesthesiology 70:64–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. English KM,
    2. Steeds RP,
    3. Jones TH,
    4. Diver MJ, and
    5. Channer KS
    (2000) Low-dose transdermal testosterone therapy improves angina threshold in men with chronic stable angina: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Circulation 102:1906–1911.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Georgoussi Z,
    2. Georganta EM, and
    3. Milligan G
    (2012) The other side of opioid receptor signalling: regulation by protein-protein interaction. Curr Drug Targets 13:80–102.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Hiranuma T and
    2. Oka T
    (1986) Effects of peptidase inhibitors on the [Met5]-enkephalin hydrolysis in ileal and striatal preparations of Guinea-pig: almost complete protection of degradation by the combination of amastatin, captopril and thiorphan. Jpn J Pharmacol 41:437–446.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Hughes J,
    2. Kosterlitz HW, and
    3. Leslie FM
    (1975) Effect of morphine on adrenergic transmission in the mouse vas deferens. Assessment of agonist and antogonist potencies of narcotic analgesics. Br J Pharmacol 53:371–381.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kaergaard A,
    2. Hansen AM,
    3. Rasmussen K, and
    4. Andersen JH
    (2000) Association between plasma testosterone and work-related neck and shoulder disorders among female workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 26:292–298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Kakinohana M,
    2. Nakamura S,
    3. Fuchigami T,
    4. Davison KJ,
    5. Marsala M, and
    6. Sugahara K
    (2006) Mu and delta, but not kappa, opioid agonists induce spastic paraparesis after a short period of spinal cord ischaemia in rats. Br J Anaesth 96:88–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Kamysz E,
    2. Sałaga M,
    3. Sobczak M,
    4. Kamysz W, and
    5. Fichna J
    (2013) Characterization of the effects of opiorphin and sialorphin and their analogs substituted in position 1 with pyroglutamic acid on motility in the mouse ileum. J Pept Sci 19:166–172.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Kathmann M,
    2. Flau K,
    3. Redmer A,
    4. Tränkle C, and
    5. Schlicker E
    (2006) Cannabidiol is an allosteric modulator at mu- and delta-opioid receptors. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 372:354–361.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Kavaliers M and
    2. Innes DG
    (1993) Sex differences in the antinociceptive effects of the enkephalinase inhibitor, SCH 34826. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 46:777–780.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Khaket TP,
    2. Singh J,
    3. Attri P, and
    4. Dhanda S
    (2012) Enkephalin degrading enzymes: metalloproteases with high potential for drug development. Curr Pharm Des 18:220–230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Kitamura K,
    2. Akahori K,
    3. Yano H,
    4. Iwao K, and
    5. Oka T
    (2000) Effects of peptidase inhibitors on anti-nociceptive action of dynorphin-(1-8) in rats. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 361:273–278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Langmead CJ and
    2. Christopoulos A
    (2006) Allosteric agonists of 7TM receptors: expanding the pharmacological toolbox. Trends Pharmacol Sci 27:475–481.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Livingston KE and
    2. Traynor JR
    (2014) Disruption of the Na+ ion binding site as a mechanism for positive allosteric modulation of the mu-opioid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:18369–18374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Malmberg AB and
    2. Yaksh TL
    (1992) Isobolographic and dose-response analyses of the interaction between intrathecal mu and delta agonists: effects of naltrindole and its benzofuran analog (NTB). J Pharmacol Exp Ther 263:264–275.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Matsuda M,
    2. Yoshikawa M,
    3. Kan T,
    4. Watanabe M,
    5. Ajimi J,
    6. Takahashi S,
    7. Miura M,
    8. Ito K,
    9. Kobayashi H, and
    10. Suzuki T
    (2017) Effect of peptidase inhibitors on dynorphin A (1-17) or (1-13)-induced antinociception and toxicity at spinal level. Pharmacol Pharm 8:33–51.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Mélik Parsadaniantz S,
    2. Rivat C,
    3. Rostène W, and
    4. Réaux-Le Goazigo A
    (2015) Opioid and chemokine receptor crosstalk: a promising target for pain therapy? Nat Rev Neurosci 16:69–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Messaoudi M,
    2. Desor D,
    3. Nejdi A, and
    4. Rougeot C
    (2004) The endogenous androgen-regulated sialorphin modulates male rat sexual behavior. Horm Behav 46:684–691.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Morales-Mulia M,
    2. de Gortari P,
    3. Amaya MI, and
    4. Méndez M
    (2012) Activity and expression of enkephalinase and aminopeptidase N in regions of the mesocorticolimbic system are selectively modified by acute ethanol administration. J Mol Neurosci 46:58–67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Morgan D,
    2. Cook CD,
    3. Smith MA, and
    4. Picker MJ
    (1999) An examination of the interactions between the antinociceptive effects of morphine and various mu-opioids: the role of intrinsic efficacy and stimulus intensity. Anesth Analg 88:407–413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Morris K,
    2. Kuo B,
    3. Wilkinson MD,
    4. Davison JS,
    5. Befus AD, and
    6. Mathison RD
    (2007) Vcsa1 gene peptides for the treatment of inflammatory and allergic reactions. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov 1:124–132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Murata T,
    2. Yoshikawa M,
    3. Watanabe M,
    4. Takahashi S,
    5. Kawaguchi M,
    6. Kobayashi H, and
    7. Suzuki T
    (2014) Potentiation of [Met5]enkephalin-induced antinociception by mixture of three peptidase inhibitors in rat. J Anesth 28:708–715.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Noble F,
    2. Banisadr G,
    3. Jardinaud F,
    4. Popovici T,
    5. Lai-Kuen R,
    6. Chen H,
    7. Bischoff L,
    8. Parsadaniantz SM,
    9. Fournie-Zaluski MC, and
    10. Roques BP
    (2001) First discrete autoradiographic distribution of aminopeptidase N in various structures of rat brain and spinal cord using the selective iodinated inhibitor [125I]RB 129. Neuroscience 105:479–488.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Oka T,
    2. Negishi K,
    3. Suda M,
    4. Sawa A,
    5. Fujino M, and
    6. Wakimasu M
    (1982) Evidence that dynorphin-(1-13) acts as an agonist on opioid kappa-receptors. Eur J Pharmacol 77:137–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Rosinski-Chupin I,
    2. Huaulmé JF,
    3. Rougeot C, and
    4. Rougeon F
    (2001) The transcriptional response to androgens of the rat VCSA1 gene is amplified by both binary and graded mechanisms. Endocrinology 142:4550–4559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Rosinski-Chupin I and
    2. Rougeon F
    (1990) The gene encoding SMR1, a precursor-like polypeptide of the male rat submaxillary gland, has the same organization as the preprothyrotropin-releasing hormone gene. DNA Cell Biol 9:553–559.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Rosinski-Chupin I,
    2. Rougeot C,
    3. Courty Y, and
    4. Rougeon F
    (1993) Localization of mRNAs of two androgen-dependent proteins, SMR1 and SMR2, by in situ hybridization reveals sexual differences in acinar cells of rat submandibular gland. J Histochem Cytochem 41:1645–1649.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Rosinski-Chupin I,
    2. Tronik D, and
    3. Rougeon F
    (1988) High level of accumulation of a mRNA coding for a precursor-like protein in the submaxillary gland of male rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:8553–8557.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Rothman RB,
    2. Murphy DL,
    3. Xu H,
    4. Godin JA,
    5. Dersch CM,
    6. Partilla JS,
    7. Tidgewell K,
    8. Schmidt M, and
    9. Prisinzano TE
    (2007) Salvinorin A: allosteric interactions at the mu-opioid receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320:801–810.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Rougeot C,
    2. Messaoudi M,
    3. Hermitte V,
    4. Rigault AG,
    5. Blisnick T,
    6. Dugave C,
    7. Desor D, and
    8. Rougeon F
    (2003) Sialorphin, a natural inhibitor of rat membrane-bound neutral endopeptidase that displays analgesic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8549–8554.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Rougeot C,
    2. Rosinski-Chupin I,
    3. Mathison R, and
    4. Rougeon F
    (2000) Rodent submandibular gland peptide hormones and other biologically active peptides. Peptides 21:443–455.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Rougeot C,
    2. Rosinski-Chupin I,
    3. Njamkepo E, and
    4. Rougeon F
    (1994) Selective processing of submandibular rat 1 protein at dibasic cleavage sites. Salivary and bloodstream secretion products. Eur J Biochem 219:765–773.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Samochocki M,
    2. Höffle A,
    3. Fehrenbacher A,
    4. Jostock R,
    5. Ludwig J,
    6. Christner C,
    7. Radina M,
    8. Zerlin M,
    9. Ullmer C,
    10. Pereira EF, et al.
    (2003) Galantamine is an allosterically potentiating ligand of neuronal nicotinic but not of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305:1024–1036.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Shirasawa Y,
    2. Matsumoto M,
    3. Yoshimura M,
    4. Yamashita A,
    5. Fukuda S,
    6. Ishida K, and
    7. Sakabe T
    (2009) Does high-dose opioid anesthesia exacerbate ischemic spinal cord injury in rabbits? J Anesth 23:242–248.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Shukla AK,
    2. Xiao K, and
    3. Lefkowitz RJ
    (2011) Emerging paradigms of β-arrestin-dependent seven transmembrane receptor signaling. Trends Biochem Sci 36:457–469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Sitbon P,
    2. Van Elstraete A,
    3. Hamdi L,
    4. Juarez-Perez V,
    5. Mazoit JX,
    6. Benhamou D, and
    7. Rougeot C
    (2016) STR-324, a stable analog of opiorphin, causes analgesia in postoperative pain by activating endogenous opioid receptor-dependent pathways. Anesthesiology 125:1017–1029.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Stein C
    (1995) The control of pain in peripheral tissue by opioids. N Engl J Med 332:1685–1690.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Takahashi S,
    2. Jin XL,
    3. Kosaka K,
    4. Yoshikawa M,
    5. Kobayashi H, and
    6. Oka T
    (2007) The enhancing effects of peptidase inhibitors on the antinociceptive action of [Met5]enkephalin-Arg6-Phe7 in rats. J Pharmacol Sci 105:117–121.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Taylor J,
    2. Weyers P,
    3. Harris N, and
    4. Vogel WH
    (1989) The plasma catecholamine stress response is characteristic for a given animal over a one-year period. Physiol Behav 46:853–856.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Thompson GL,
    2. Kelly E,
    3. Christopoulos A, and
    4. Canals M
    (2015) Novel GPCR paradigms at the μ-opioid receptor. Br J Pharmacol 172:287–296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Tong Y,
    2. Tar M,
    3. Melman A, and
    4. Davies K
    (2008) The opiorphin gene (ProL1) and its homologues function in erectile physiology. BJU Int 102:736–740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Tóth F,
    2. Tóth G,
    3. Benyhe S,
    4. Rougeot C, and
    5. Wollemann M
    (2012) Opiorphin highly improves the specific binding and affinity of MERF and MEGY to rat brain opioid receptors. Regul Pept 178:71–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Waksman G,
    2. Hamel E,
    3. Fournié-Zaluski MC, and
    4. Roques BP
    (1986) Autoradiographic comparison of the distribution of the neutral endopeptidase “enkephalinase” and of mu and delta opioid receptors in rat brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:1523–1527.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Walker EA
    (2006) In vivo pharmacological resultant analysis reveals noncompetitive interactions between opioid antagonists in the rat tail-withdrawal assay. Br J Pharmacol 149:1071–1082.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Wisner A,
    2. Dufour E,
    3. Messaoudi M,
    4. Nejdi A,
    5. Marcel A,
    6. Ungeheuer MN, and
    7. Rougeot C
    (2006) Human Opiorphin, a natural antinociceptive modulator of opioid-dependent pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:17979–17984.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Xie H,
    2. Woods JH,
    3. Traynor JR, and
    4. Ko MC
    (2008) The spinal antinociceptive effects of endomorphins in rats: behavioral and G protein functional studies. Anesth Analg 106:1873–1881.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Yaksh TL and
    2. Rudy TA
    (1976) Chronic catheterization of the spinal subarachnoid space. Physiol Behav 17:1031–1036.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics: 375 (1)
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Vol. 375, Issue 1
1 Oct 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sialorphin Potentiates Effects of [Met5]Enkephalin without Toxicity by Action other than Peptidase Inhibition
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Sialorphin Potentiates Effects of [Met5]Enkephalin

Takugi Kan, Masanobu Yoshikawa, Mariko Watanabe, Masaaki Miura, Kenji Ito, Mitsumasa Matsuda, Kayoko Iwao, Hiroyuki Kobayashi, Takeshi Suzuki and Toshiyasu Suzuki
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 1, 2020, 375 (1) 104-114; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.120.266080

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Sialorphin Potentiates Effects of [Met5]Enkephalin

Takugi Kan, Masanobu Yoshikawa, Mariko Watanabe, Masaaki Miura, Kenji Ito, Mitsumasa Matsuda, Kayoko Iwao, Hiroyuki Kobayashi, Takeshi Suzuki and Toshiyasu Suzuki
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics October 1, 2020, 375 (1) 104-114; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.120.266080
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Authorship Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Ventilatory effects of fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine
  • Cromakalim Prodrugs are Analgesics in Chronic Pain Models
  • Chronic Naltrexone: Opioid-Seeking and Antinociception
Show more Behavioral Pharmacology

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About JPET
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0103 (Online)

Copyright © 2023 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics