14 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
A four PDZ domain-containing splice variant form of GRIP1 is localized in GABAergic and glutamatergic synapses in the brain
We have isolated, from a rat brain cDNA library, a clone corresponding to a 2779-bp cDNA encoding a novel splice form of the glutamate receptor interacting protein-1 (GRIP1). We call this 696-amino acid splice form GRIP1c 4-7 to differentiate it from longer splice forms of GRIP1a/b containing seven PDZ domains. The four PDZ domains of GRIP1c 4-7 are identical to PDZ domains 4-7 of GRIP1a/b. GRIP1c 4-7 also contains 35 amino acids at the N terminus and 12 amino acids at the C terminus that are different from GRIP1a/b. In transfected HEK293 cells, a majority of GRIP1c 4-7 was associated with the plasma membrane. GRIP1c 4-7 interacted with GluR2/3 subunits of the alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazoleproprionic acid receptor. In low density hippocampal cultures, GRIP1c 4-7 clusters colocalized with GABAergic (where GABA is gamma-aminobutyric acid) and glutamatergic synapses, although a higher percentage of GRIP1c 4-7 clusters colocalized with gamma-aminobutyric acid, type A, receptor (GABA(A)R) clusters than with alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazoleproprionic acid receptor clusters. Transfection of hippocampal neurons with hemagglutinin-tagged GRIP1c 4-7 showed that it could target to the postsynaptic complex of GABAergic synapses colocalizing with GABA(A)R clusters. GRIP1c 4-7-specific antibodies, which did not recognize previously described splice forms of GRIP1, recognized a 75-kDa protein that is enriched in a postsynaptic density fraction isolated from rat brain. EM immunocytochemistry experiments showed that in intact brain GRIP1c 4-7 concentrates at postsynaptic complexes of both type I glutamatergic and type II GABAergic synapses although it is also presynaptically localized. These results indicate that GRIP1c 4-7 plays a role not only in glutamatergic synapses but also in GABAergic synapses
Recommended from our members
Molecular targets of cannabidiol in neurological disorders
Cannabis has a long history of anecdotal medicinal use
and limited licensed medicinal use. Until recently, alleged clinical effects from anecdotal reports and the use of licensed cannabinoid medicines are most likely mediated by tetrahydrocannabinol by virtue of: 1) this cannabinoid being present in the most significant quantities in these preparations; and b) the proportion:potency relationship between tetrahydrocannabinol and other plant cannabinoids derived from cannabis. However, there has recently been
considerable interest in the therapeutic potential for the plant cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), in neurological disorders but the current evidence suggests that CBD does not directly interact with the endocannabinoid system except in vitro at supraphysiological concentrations. Thus, as further evidence for CBD’s beneficial
effects in neurological disease emerges, there remains an urgent need to establish the molecular targets through which it exerts its therapeutic effects. Here, we conducted a systematic search of the extant literature for original articles describing the molecular phar-
macology of CBD. We critically appraised the results for the validity of the molecular targets proposed. Thereafter, we considered whether the molecular targets of CBD identified hold therapeutic potential in relevant neurological diseases. The molecular targets identified include numerous classical ion channels, receptors, transporters, and enzymes. Some CBD effects at these targets in in vitro assays only manifest at high concentrations, which may be difficult to achieve in vivo, particularly given CBD’s relatively poor bioavailability. Moreover, several targets were asserted
through experimental designs that demonstrate only correlation with a given target rather than a causal proof. When the molecular targets of CBD that were physiologically plausible were considered for their potential for exploitation in neurological therapeu-
tics, the results were variable. In some cases, the targets identified had little or no established link to the diseases considered. In others, molecular targets of CBD were entirely consistent with those already actively exploited in relevant, clinically used, neurological treatments. Finally, CBD was found to act upon a number of targets that are linked to neurological therapeutics but that its actions were not consistent with modulation of such targets that would derive a therapeutically beneficial outcome. Overall, we find that while >65 discrete molecular targets have been reported in the literature for CBD, a relatively limited number represent
plausible targets for the drug’s action in neurological disorders when judged by the criteria we set. We conclude that CBD is very unlikely to exert effects in neurological diseases through modulation of the endocannabinoid system. Moreover, a number of other
molecular targets of CBD reported in the literature are unlikely to be of relevance owing to effects only being observed at supraphysiological concentrations. Of interest and after excluding unlikely and implausible targets, the remaining molecular targets of CBD with plausible evidence for involvement in therapeutic
effects in neurological disorders (e.g., voltage-dependent anion channel 1, G protein-coupled receptor 55, CaV3.x, etc.) are associated with either the regulation of, or responses to changes in, intracellular calcium levels. While no causal proof yet exists for CBD’s effects at these targets, they represent the most probable for such investigations and should be prioritized in further studies of CBD’s therapeutic mechanism of action