Skip to main content
Canna~Fangled Abstracts

Non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid interactions with voltage-gated sodium channels: An update on cannabidiol and cannabigerol

By November 12, 2022December 1st, 2022No Comments


Journal List > Front Physiol > PMC9691960

Abstract

Phytocannabinoids, found in the plant, Cannabis sativa, are an important class of natural compounds with physiological effects. These compounds can be generally divided into two classes: psychoactive and non-psychoactive. Those which do not impart psychoactivity are assumed to predominantly function via endocannabinoid receptor (CB) -independent pathways and molecular targets, including other receptors and ion channels. Among these targets, the voltage-gated sodium (Nav) channels are particularly interesting due to their well-established role in electrical signalling in the nervous system. The interactions between the main non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), and Nav channels were studied in detail. In addition to CBD, cannabigerol (CBG), is another non-psychoactive molecule implicated as a potential therapeutic for several conditions, including pain via interactions with Nav channels. In this mini review, we provide an update on the interactions of Nav channels with CBD and CBG.

Keywords: cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), voltage-gated sodium (Nav) channels, excitability, pharmacology

Introduction

The cannabis plant contains over 120 active phytocannabinoids (). Among these molecules, there are some that are psychotropic, and others that are not. Cannabidiol (CBD) is the primary non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid (). CBD has received extensive attention in recent years due to many anecdotal and some clinically substantiated reports of efficacy against various conditions (). The interest in CBD has increased since the success of Epidiolex (therapeutic CBD) in large-scale clinical trials against Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes, which are severe pediatric-onset epileptic encephalopathies (). However, despite its clinical efficacy, the exact mechanism of action for CBD remains undetermined.

In contrast to CBD, the main psychotropic phytocannabinoid, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has a relatively clearcut mode of action. THC is a potent agonist at the human endocannabinoid (CB) receptors (∼13–90 nM) (). The physiological function of these receptors is to respond to endogenous lipid agonists, anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (). Similar to CBD, THC has been shown to possess anticonvulsant properties in animal models; however, the noted psychotropic effects of this compound make it a less than ideal therapeutic candidate ().

CBD has low affinity for the CB receptors, where it has mild antagonistic effects (). Therefore, CB-independent targets are the most likely molecular mechanisms underlying CBD’s efficacy. CBD was shown to interact with GPR55 receptors (), which are proteins that are expressed in excitatory and inhibitory synapses and which modulate synaptic plasticity. CBD is also a modulator of several TRP channels (), 5-HT1A receptors (), and an inhibitor of adenosine reuptake by voltage-dependent anion channel 1 (). Importantly, CBD is an inhibitor of voltage-dependent sodium (Nav) channels (), some potassium channels (e.g., Kv2.1) (), calcium channels () and, in contrast, an activator of Kv7 channels in the nanomolar range (). Additionally, CBD directly modulates the biophysical properties of the bio-membrane itself (), which may facilitate an allosteric modulation of membrane proteins including, but not limited to, those noted above.

Among the CBD targets, the family of Nav channels are particularly interesting for three reasons. First, Dravet syndrome, the most notable condition for which CBD is efficacious, is commonly linked to genetic mutations in Nav1.1 (). Nav1.1 is a key regulator of excitability in inhibitory circuits within the central nervous system. Second, CBD is reputed to have therapeutic value, substantiated by preclinical and animal studies, for a variety of excitability related disorders including pain, seizures, muscular problems, and arrhythmias, among others (). Dysfunction of various Nav channels in different tissues could trigger any of the noted conditions (). Third, amphiphilic compounds (e.g., Triton X-100) () that modulate membrane elasticity (with properties that are similar to CBD) have been shown to allosterically stabilize Nav channel inactivation (). These reasons prompted us and others to study effects of CBD on Nav channels in detail over the past several years. CBD is now established as an effective Nav channel inhibitor (). Furthermore, these investigations suggested Nav channels are a promising pathway for cannabinoid-mediated reductions in macro excitability, with a substantial therapeutic potential. This pathway could be explored not just with CBD, but also with other compounds with similar physicochemical properties.

A common precursor for THC and CBD is cannabigerol (CBG) (). Like THC (ChEMBL-calculated-LogD = 5.94) and CBD (ChEMBL-calculated-LogD = 6.60), CBG (ChEMBL-calculated-LogD = 7.04) is also a highly hydrophobic compound. Although CBG is less well studied than THC or CBD, the existing literature suggests that CBG’s pharmacological profile falls in between these two cannabinoids. Importantly, while CBG’s affinity for CB receptors is higher than CBD, CBG is non-psychotropic (). This suggests that CBG could work through both CB-dependent and CB-independent (e.g., Nav channels, TRP channels, etc.) pathways without THC’s unwanted psychoactive effects (). With this combination of properties, CBG offers the potential to be a superior therapeutic compound than either CBD or THC. A comparison of the key targets between CBD and CBG is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Comparison of a list of key receptors and ion channel targets between CBD and CBG. See () for more extensive reviews of these targets.

Target CBD CBG References
CB1 Inverse agonist/antagonist Weak agonist ()
CB2 Inverse agonist Partial agonist ()
GPR55 Antagonist Unknown ()
Nav Inhibitor Inhibitor ()
TRPA1 Agonist Agonist ()
TRPV1 Agonist Agonist ()
TRPV2 Agonist Agonist ()
TRPV3 Agonist Agonist
TRPV4 Agonist Agonist
TRPM8 Antagonist Antagonist ()
Kv7 Potentiator Unknown
Kv2.1 Inhibitor Unknown
Cav Inhibitor Inhibitor ()
Biomembrane Modulator Unknown

Much of the molecular details of CBD’s interactions with Nav channels is reviewed in . In this short report, we provide new important updates on Nav channel mediated-cannabinoid pathway with a focus on CBD and CBG.

Cannabidiol—Mechanism of action on sodium channels

We previously found that CBD is a non-selective Nav channel inhibitor. Using voltage-clamp experiments, we found that CBD inhibits all human Nav1.1-7 from the inactivated states, with potencies ranging from 1.9 to 3.8 µM, and steep Hill slopes of ∼3. We also found that CBD imparts similar effects on Nav gating: inhibiting Gmax without changing voltage-dependence of activation, but hyperpolarizing steady-state inactivation and slowing recovery from inactivation (). Furthermore, we found that when Nav channels enter deeper inactivated states, CBD slows the recovery kinetics even further, consistent with state-dependent Nav channel inhibition. CBD has an approximately 10-fold state-dependence, which makes it a moderately state-dependent Nav channel inhibitor (). From a molecular perspective, it may be theoretically conceivable to use CBD against Nav channelopathies that greatly impair inactivation ().

The effects of CBD on Nav channels are the result of interactions at the interface of the channel pore and fenestrations in which CBD directly blocks the pore (in part via the local anesthetic phenylalanine), and alterations to the membrane elasticity which indirectly stabilizes Nav channel inactivation (Figure 1A). These results were elucidated using structural- (), functional- (), and molecular dynamics simulation-based () studies. It is important to note that the drug pathway from the membrane phase and through the Nav channel fenestrations is pharmacologically important, and has been elucidated with various drugs previously ().

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fphys-13-1066455-g001.jpg

Cartoon summary of CBD and CBG effects on Nav channels. This figure is a redrawn version of our previously published papers (). (A) Shows the pathway of CBD from the lipid phase through the mammalian Nav fenestration and into the pore, where it interacts to some extent by the local anesthetic (LA) site with the pore phenylalanine (F) residue. (B) Cartoon representation of the concentration-dependent modality of CBG effects on Nav channels. CBG, like CBD is a state-dependent Nav inhibitor with an increased affinity for the inactivated state. Overall, however, CBG causes a reduction in total conductance/channel opening more potently than inactivation is stabilized in the presence of CBG.

One of CBD’s main proposed clinical application is in pain treatment (). There are several different Nav channels within the peripheral sensory pathway (), which include both tetrodotoxin-sensitive (TTX-S) and resistant (TTX-R) (Nav1.8/9) subtypes (). In contrast to most other Nav channels, the TTX-R channels have a hyperpolarized voltage-dependence of slow inactivation relative to their fast inactivation and a more rapid entry into slow inactivation than other Nav channels (). Therefore, the slow inactivation properties of these channels can limit repetitive firing in their native environment. Because of these properties, drugs that target slow inactivated states could be effective for reducing repetitive firing in sensory neurons.

A recent study determined that CBD at 500 nM has tight binding to the slow inactivated states of Nav1.8 (). These low concentrations of CBD had little effect on the first several action potentials, but as the current injection became larger, CBD reduced firing. Furthermore, CBD reduced the action potential height, widened the action potential, reduced afterhyperpolarization, and increased the propensity of entering depolarization block ().

Another recent study has shown that CBD-dominant nutraceutical products can inhibit Nav channels even more potently than pure CBD (difference is in the order of nanomolar to low micromolar range) (). This suggests that individual components of these nutraceutical products, such as other phytocannabinoids and terpenes, may synergistically further modulate or inhibit Nav channels ().

In addition to Nav channels, a new study showed that CBD at sub-micromolar concentrations, hyperpolarizes the voltage-dependence of Kv7.2/3. This shift results in an enhancement of the M-current which has a powerful effect on dampening down neuronal excitability and has previously been clinically exploited by effective drugs such as Retigabine (). This effect may be a key contribution to the anticonvulsive and proposed analgesic activities of CBD, independently of other ion channel modulating effects ().

Cannabigerol—A potentially promising avenue for pain treatment via sodium channels

The role of Nav1.7 in the pain pathway is well-established (). Many gain- and loss-of-function mutations in Nav1.7 have been identified. Hyperexcitability in this channel has been shown to elicit several pain syndromes (), whilst hypoexcitability in this channel is linked with complete insensitivity to pain, which is not accompanied with any cognitive, cardiac, or motor defects (). These findings highlight the importance of Nav1.7 as an excellent target for pain therapy; however, the efforts that have gone into developing small molecules for Nav1.7 inhibition have thus far been unsuccessful. This lack of success has been attributed to problems in achieving optimum channel occupancy and, thus, problems in effective target engagement (). To get around this problem, in vivo treatments with many folds above IC50 could be utilized, but at these high dosages, this would cause unwanted side effects.

A potential advantage of highly hydrophobic compounds like cannabinoids is that they might more readily get absorbed into the lipid dense neuronal tissues and nerve membranes. This would require the mode of administration of the compound to reduce exposure in the central nervous system and increase the probability of distribution into the peripheral nerves, to avoid off target effects in the CNS: central nervous system. If the compound also had either structural or functional selectivity for Nav1.7, then efficacy may be achievable. Whilst structural selectivity would refer to a unique amino acid sequence or motif that is present in one channel (), but not others, functional selectivity refers to the ligand’s (in this case CBG) increased affinity for the channel that occupies one particular state within its local environment (). As the resting membrane potential of sensory dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons is considerably more depolarized than the availability voltage-dependence of Nav1.7 (relative to other sensory Nav channels), Nav1.7 in these neurons accumulates a lot more inactivation than other Nav channels (). Thus, the state-dependent drug that has a higher apparent potency for the inactivated states of these channels, would be predicted to more effectively inhibit Nav1.7 in DRG neurons than the other Nav channels.

CBD and CBG are both highly hydrophobic compounds with very high distribution coefficients for the hydrophobic phase. In fact, CBG (ChEMBL-calculated-LogD = 7.04) is even more hydrophobic than CBD (ChEMBL-calculated-LogD = 6.60), which suggests that CBG may have a higher propensity to enter and remain within the lipid membranes. However, neither compound has much structural selectivity for Nav channels. As noted above, CBD has been shown to bind at the Nav channel pore, which is a highly conserved region of the channel (). Thus, like the other classic pore blockers that bind this region (), CBD is not structurally selective. Although CBG has not been functionally tested for its binding site on the Nav channel, it likely interacts within the same site at the pore-fenestration interface.

Because CBG was implicated as an analgesic (), we investigated its effects on Nav channels. We determined that CBG is also a moderately state-dependent Nav channel inhibitor, and shares (CBG is slightly less potent than CBD) many of the same features in its modulation of Nav channels with CBD (). We found that CBG does not alter the voltage-dependence of activation or alter open-state inactivation, it hyperpolarizes inactivation curves, slows recovery from inactivation (with this effect becoming more pronounced as the channels enter deeper inactivated states, e.g., slow inactivation), accelerates onset of closed-state fast inactivation, and reduces spontaneous firing of DRG neurons. Importantly, we found that CBG inhibits total channel conductance more potently than it stabilizes the inactivated state of channels (inactivation shift potency = 13.3 ± 1.0 µM, Gmax inhibition potency=3.4 ± 1.0 µM) () (Figure 1B). As Nav1.7 is known as the threshold channel for peripheral firing (), these results suggest that CBG may be more effective in preventing pain episodes from initiating. Given that poly-pharmacological compounds will display more promiscuity in their interactions with various targets at higher concentrations (hence toxicity), the best therapeutic window for CBG’s potential therapeutic efficacy will occur by taking advantage of the Nav channel Gmax block at the low to sub-micromolar concentrations where CBG’s hyperpolarization of inactivation would be physiologically inconsequential (). Finally, the noted mechanism could, in principle, work in concert with CBG’s CB-dependent (without psycho-activity) pathways to target pain.

We suggest that the development of CBD/CBG as Nav channel-targeting drugs may be achievable via exploring various modes of administration. For instance, with respect to pain, if the compound could be localized to the nociceptors, then given the physicochemical properties of the compound, along with local resting membrane potential and the availability voltage-dependences of the local Nav channels, the channel that is most inactivated would be most modulated (as noted above, Nav1.7 ()). We also note that the concentrations at which CBD targets slow inactivation of Nav1.8 and Kv7.2/3, on the low end are comparable (). Studies suggest that in the case of CBD, mode of administration can substantially alter pharmacokinetics and bioavailability, and hence tissue distribution of the drug (e.g., local administration to work alongside compound hydrophobicity to accumulate in tissues with high lipid content ()) (); however, even then, the drug effect on phenotype would not likely be able to be attributed to activity on a single target (e.g., Na or K currents, TRP channels, etc.), but we propose that Nav channels are likely an important part of the pleiotropic pharmacology of CBD. These considerations would be critical in translation of using these compounds from the bench to the bedside.

Concluding remarks

CBD and CBG, and indeed other cannabinoids and terpenes are intriguing molecules with highly complex pharmacological profiles. Despite enormous progress in recent years, the precise mechanism of clinical efficacy remains unknown. The Nav channel family is vital to nervous system signalling, and it is likely an important receptor for these molecules. Future investigations into the intricate interactions between Nav channels (and other receptors) and cannabinoids will facilitate unravelling how cannabinoids impart their effects on physiology, which could aid the identification of novel therapeutics for various disorders of neuronal excitability.

Acknowledgments

The Center for Neuroscience and Regeneration Research is a Collaboration of the Paralyzed Veterans of America with Yale University. M-RG is a Banting Fellow and is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). SG is funded by Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. PR is funded by a Discovery grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author contributions

M-RG wrote the manuscript, and all other co-authors edited, revised, and confirmed the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

SG is an employee of Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. No funders were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  • Almeida D. L., Devi L. A. (2020). Diversity of molecular targets and signaling pathways for CBDPharmacol. Res. Perspect. 8. 10.1002/prp2.682 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Amir R., Michaelis M., Devor M. (1999). Membrane potential oscillations in dorsal root ganglion neurons: Role in Normal electrogenesis and neuropathic painJ. Neurosci. 19 (19), 8589–8596. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-19-08589.1999 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Bankar G., Goodchild S. J., Howard S., Nelkenbrecher K., Waldbrook M., Dourado M., et al. (2018). Selective NaV1.7 antagonists with Long residence Time Show Improved efficacy against Inflammatory and neuropathic painCell Rep. 24, 3133–3145. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.063 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Bean B. P., Cohen C. J., Tsien R. W. (1983). Lidocaine block of cardiac sodium channelsJ. Gen. Physiol. 81, 613–642. 10.1085/jgp.81.5.613 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Bennett D. L., Clark X. A. J., Huang J., Waxman S. G., Dib-Hajj S. D. (2019). The role of voltage-gated sodium channels in pain signalingPhysiol. Rev. 99, 1079–1151. 10.1152/physrev.00052.2017 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Billakota S., Devinsky O., Marsh E. (2019). Cannabinoid therapy in epilepsyCurr. Opin. Neurol. 32, 220–226. 10.1097/wco.0000000000000660 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Blair N. T., Bean B. P. (2003). Role of tetrodotoxin-resistant Na+ current slow inactivation in adaptation of action potential firing in small-diameter dorsal root ganglion neuronsJ. Neurosci. 23, 10338–10350. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-32-10338.2003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Campos A. C., Guimarães F. S. (2008). Involvement of 5HT1A receptors in the anxiolytic-like effects of cannabidiol injected into the dorsolateral periaqueductal gray of ratsPsychopharmacol. Berl. 199, 223–230. 10.1007/S00213-008-1168-X [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Cascio M. G., Gauson L. A., Stevenson L. A., Ross R. A., Pertwee R. G. (2010). Evidence that the plant cannabinoid cannabigerol is a highly potent alpha2-adrenoceptor agonist and moderately potent 5HT1A receptor antagonistBr. J. Pharmacol. 159, 129–141. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00515.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Catterall W. A., Swanson T. M. (2015). Structural basis for pharmacology of voltage-gated sodium and calcium channelsMol. Pharmacol. 88, 141–150. 10.1124/mol.114.097659 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Cox J. J., Reimann F., Nicholas A. K., Thornton G., Roberts E., Springell K., et al. (2006). An SCN9A channelopathy causes congenital inability to experience painNature 444, 894–898. 10.1038/nature05413 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Cummins T. R., Sheets P. L., Waxman S. G. (2007). The roles of sodium channels in nociception: Implications for mechanisms of painPain 131, 243–257. 10.1016/J.PAIN.2007.07.026 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • De Petrocellis L., Ligresti A., Moriello A. S., Allarà M., Bisogno T., Petrosino S., et al. (2011). Effects of cannabinoids and cannabinoid-enriched Cannabis extracts on TRP channels and endocannabinoid metabolic enzymesBr. J. Pharmacol. 163, 1479–1494. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01166.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • De Petrocellis L., Orlando P., Moriello A. S., Aviello G., Stott C., Izzo A. A., et al. (2012). Cannabinoid actions at TRPV channels: Effects on TRPV3 and TRPV4 and their potential relevance to gastrointestinal inflammationActa Physiol. 204, 255–266. 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2011.02338.x [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Devane W. A., Dysarz F. A., Johnson M. R., Melvin L. S., Howlett A. C. (1988). Determination and characterization of a cannabinoid receptor in rat brainMol. Pharmacol. 34, 605–613. (Accessed February 11, 2019). [PubMed[]
  • Devane W. A., Hanuš L., Breuer A., Pertwee R. G., Stevenson L. A., Griffin G., et al. (1992). Isolation and structure of a brain constituent that binds to the cannabinoid receptorScience 258, 1946–1949. 10.1126/SCIENCE.1470919 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Devinsky O., Cilio M. R., Cross H., Fernandez-Ruiz J., French J., Hill C., et al. (2014). Cannabidiol: Pharmacology and potential therapeutic role in epilepsy and other neuropsychiatric disordersEpilepsia 55, 791–802. 10.1111/epi.12631 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Devinsky O., Cross J. H., Laux L., Marsh E., Miller I., Nabbout R., et al. (2017). Trial of cannabidiol for drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndromeN. Engl. J. Med. 376, 2011–2020. 10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Devinsky O., Patel A. D., Cross J. H., Villanueva V., Wirrell E. C., Privitera M., et al. (2018). Effect of cannabidiol on Drop seizures in the Lennox–Gastaut syndromeN. Engl. J. Med. 378, 1888–1897. 10.1056/nejmoa1714631 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Di Marzo V. (2008). CB(1) receptor antagonism: Biological basis for metabolic effectsDrug Discov. Today 13, 1026–1041. 10.1016/J.DRUDIS.2008.09.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Dib-Hajj S. D., Cummins T. R., Black J. A., Waxman S. G. (2010). Sodium channels in Normal and Pathological painAnnu. Rev. Neurosci. 33, 325–347. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153234 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Dib-Hajj S. D., Rush A. M., Cummins T. R., Hisama F. M., Novella S., Tyrrell L., et al. (2005). Gain-of-function mutation in Nav1.7 in familial erythromelalgia induces bursting of sensory neuronsBrain 128, 1847–1854. 10.1093/brain/awh514 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Dib-Hajj S. D., Yang Y., Black J. A., Waxman S. G. (2013). The Na v 1.7 sodium channel: From molecule to manNat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 49–62. 10.1038/nrn3404 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Dravet C. (2011). The core Dravet syndrome phenotypeEpilepsia 52, 3–9. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.02994.x [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Evans F. J. (1991). Cannabinoids: The separation of central from peripheral effects on a structural basisPlanta Med. 57, S60–S67. 10.1055/s-2006-960231 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Fertleman C. R., Baker M. D., Parker K. A., Moffatt S., Elmslie F. V., Abrahamsen B., et al. (2006). SCN9A mutations in Paroxysmal Extreme pain disorder: Allelic Variants underlie Distinct channel defects and phenotypesNeuron 52, 767–774. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.10.006 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Fogaça M. V., Reis F. M. C. V., Campos A. C., Guimarães F. S. (2014). Effects of intra-prelimbic prefrontal cortex injection of cannabidiol on anxiety-like behavior: Involvement of 5HT1A receptors and previous stressful experienceEur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 24, 410–419. 10.1016/J.EURONEURO.2013.10.012 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Fouda M. A., Ghovanloo M.-R., Ruben P. C. (2020). Cannabidiol protects against high glucose-induced oxidative stress and cytotoxicity in cardiac voltage-gated sodium channelsBr. J. Pharmacol. 177, 2932–2946. 10.1111/bph.15020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Fouda M. A., Ghovanloo M.-R., Ruben P. C. (2022). Late sodium current: Incomplete inactivation triggers seizures, myotonias, arrhythmias, and pain syndromesJ. Physiol. 600, 2835–2851. 10.1113/JP282768 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Gamal El-Din T. M., Lenaeus M. J., Zheng N., Catterall W. A. (2018). Fenestrations control resting-state block of a voltage-gated sodium channelProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 13111–13116. 10.1073/pnas.1814928115 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Aimar K., Ghadiry-Tavi R., Yu A., Ruben P. C. (2016). Physiology and Pathophysiology of sodium channel inactivationCurr. Top. Membr. 78, 479–509. 10.1016/bs.ctm.2016.04.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Atallah J., Escudero C. A., Ruben P. C. (2020). Biophysical characterization of a novel SCN5A mutation associated with an Atypical phenotype of Atrial and Ventricular arrhythmias and Sudden deathFront. Physiol. 11, 610436. 10.3389/fphys.2020.610436 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Choudhury K., Bandaru T. S., Fouda M. A., Rayani K., Rusinova R., et al. (2021). Cannabidiol inhibits the skeletal muscle nav1.4 by blocking its pore and by altering membrane elasticityJ. Gen. Physiol. 153, e202012701. 10.1085/jgp.202012701 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Estacion M., Higerd-Rusli G. P., Zhao P., Dib-Hajj S., Waxman S. G. (2022a). Inhibition of sodium conductance by cannabigerol contributes to a reduction of dorsal root ganglion neuron excitabilityBr. J. Pharmacol. 179, 4010–4030. 10.1111/bph.15833 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Goodchild S. J., Ruben P. C. (2022b). Cannabidiol increases gramicidin current in human embryonic kidney cells: An observational studyPLoS One 17, e0271801. 10.1371/journal.pone.0271801 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Ruben P. C. (2021). Cannabidiol and sodium channel pharmacology: General overview, mechanism, and clinical ImplicationsNeuroscientist. 28, 318–334. 10.1177/10738584211017009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ghovanloo M.-R., Shuart N. G., Mezeyova J., Dean R. A., Ruben P. C., Goodchild S. J. (2018). Inhibitory effects of cannabidiol on voltage-dependent sodium currentsJ. Biol. Chem. 293, 16546–16558. 10.1074/jbc.RA118.004929 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Goldberg Y. P., Macfarlane J., Macdonald M. L., Thompson J., Dube M. P., Mattice M., et al. (2007). Loss-of-function mutations in the Nav1.7 gene underlie congenital indifference to pain in multiple human populationsClin. Genet. 71, 311–319. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2007.00790.x [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Gorman K. M., Peters C. H., Lynch B., Jones L., Bassett D. S., King M. D., et al. (2021). Persistent sodium currents in SCN1A developmental and degenerative epileptic dyskinetic encephalopathyBrain Commun. 3, fcab235. 10.1093/braincomms/fcab235 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Guard S. E., Chapnick D. A., Poss Z. C., Ebmeier C. C., Jacobsen J., Nemkov T., et al. (2022). Multi-omic analysis Reveals Disruption of Cholesterol Homeostasis by cannabidiol in human cell LinesMol. Cell. Proteomics 21 (10), 100262. 10.1016/j.mcpro.2022.100262 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Harding S. D., Sharman J. L., Faccenda E., Southan C., Pawson A. J., Ireland S., et al. (2018). The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY in 2018: Updates and expansion to encompass the new guide to IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGYNucleic Acids Res. 46, D1091–D1106. 10.1093/nar/gkx1121 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Hassan S., Eldeeb K., Millns P. J., Bennett A. J., Alexander S. P. H., Kendall D. A. (2014). Cannabidiol enhances microglial phagocytosis via transient receptor potential (TRP) channel activationBr. J. Pharmacol. 171, 2426–2439. 10.1111/BPH.12615 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Hille B. (1977). Local anesthetics: Hydrophilic and hydrophobic pathways for the drug-receptor reactionJ. Gen. Physiol. 69, 497–515. 10.1085/jgp.69.4.497 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Howlett A. C. (2005). Cannabinoid receptor signalingHandb. Exp. Pharmacol. 168, 53–79. 10.1007/3-540-26573-2_2 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Iannotti F. A., Pagano E., Moriello A. S., Alvino F. G., Sorrentino N. C., D’Orsi L., et al. (2019). Effects of non-euphoric plant cannabinoids on muscle quality and performance of dystrophic mdx miceBr. J. Pharmacol. 176, 1568–1584. 10.1111/bph.14460 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Johnson J. R., Burnell-Nugent M., Lossignol D., Ganae-Motan E. D., Potts R., Fallon M. T. (2010). Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Parallel-Group study of the efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in patients with Intractable Cancer-related painJ. Pain Symptom Manage. 39, 167–179. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Kalume F., Oakley J. C., Westenbroek R. E., Gile J., de la Iglesia H. O., Scheuer T., et al. (2015). Sleep impairment and reduced interneuron excitability in a mouse model of Dravet SyndromeNeurobiol. Dis. 77, 141–154. 10.1016/J.NBD.2015.02.016 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Kalume F., Yu F. H., Westenbroek R. E., Scheuer T., Catterall W. A. (2007). Reduced sodium current in Purkinje neurons from NaV1.1 mutant mice: Implications for Ataxia in severe myoclonic epilepsy in infancyJ. Neurosci. 27, 11065–11074. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2162-07.2007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Kaplan J. S., Stella N., Catterall W. A., Westenbroek R. E. (2017). Cannabidiol attenuates seizures and social deficits in a mouse model of Dravet syndromeProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 114, 11229–11234. 10.1073/pnas.1711351114 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Kuo C. C., Bean B. P. (1994). Slow binding of phenytoin to inactivated sodium channels in rat hippocampal neuronsMol. Pharmacol. 46, 716–725. [PubMed[]
  • Lim S. Y., Sharan S., Woo S. (2020). Model-based analysis of cannabidiol Dose-exposure relationship and bioavailabilityPharmacotherapy 40, 291–300. 10.1002/phar.2377 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Lundbæk J. A., Collingwood S. A., Ingólfsson H. I., Kapoor R., Andersen O. S. (2010). Lipid bilayer regulation of membrane protein function: Gramicidin channels as molecular force probesJ. R. Soc. Interface 7, 373–395. 10.1098/rsif.2009.0443 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Lundbæk J., Birn P., Tape S. E., Toombes G. E. S., SogaaRd R., Koeppe R. E., et al. (2005). Capsaicin Regulates voltage-dependent sodium Channelsby altering lipid bilayer elasticityMol. Pharmacol. 68, 680–689. 10.1124/mol.105.013573 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Lynch J. J., Wade C. L., Zhong C. M., Mikusa J. P., Honore P. (2004). Attenuation of mechanical allodynia by clinically utilized drugs in a rat chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain modelPain 110, 56–63. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.03.010 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Mammana S., Cavalli E., Gugliandolo A., Silvestro S., Pollastro F., Bramanti P., et al. (2019). Could the combination of two non-psychotropic cannabinoids counteract neuroinflammation? Effectiveness of cannabidiol associated with cannabigerolMedicina 55, E747. 10.3390/medicina55110747 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Marinho A. L. Z., Vila-Verde C., Fogaça M. V., Guimarães F. S. (2015). Effects of intra-infralimbic prefrontal cortex injections of cannabidiol in the modulation of emotional behaviors in rats: Contribution of 5HT₁A receptors and stressful experiencesBehav. Brain Res. 286, 49–56. 10.1016/J.BBR.2015.02.023 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Mechoulam R., Peters M., Murillo-Rodriguez E., Hanuš L. O. (2007). Cannabidiol – recent advancesChem. Biodivers. 4, 1678–1692. 10.1002/cbdv.200790147 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Millar S. A., Stone N. L., Yates A. S., O’Sullivan S. E. (2018). A Systematic review on the pharmacokinetics of cannabidiol in humansFront. Pharmacol. 9, 1365. 10.3389/fphar.2018.01365 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Milligan C. J., Anderson L. L., Bowen M. T., Banister S. D., McGregor I. S., Arnold J. C., et al. (2022). A nutraceutical product, extracted from Cannabis sativa, modulates voltage-gated sodium channel functionJ. cannabis Res. 4, 30. 10.1186/S42238-022-00136-X [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Mirlohi S., Bladen C., Santiago M. J., Arnold J. C., McGregor I., Connor M. (2022). Inhibition of human recombinant T-type calcium channels by phytocannabinoids in vitro Br. J. Pharmacol. 179, 4031–4043. 10.1111/BPH.15842 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Morales P., Hurst D. P., Reggio P. H. (2017). Molecular targets of the phytocannabinoids: A complex PictureProg. Chem. Org. Nat. Prod. 103, 103–131. 10.1007/978-3-319-45541-9_4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Muller C., Morales P., Reggio P. H. (2019). Cannabinoid ligands targeting TRP channelsFront. Mol. Neurosci. 11, 487. 10.3389/fnmol.2018.00487 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Nachnani R., Raup-Konsavage W. M., Vrana K. E. (2021). The pharmacological case for cannabigerolJ. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 376, 204–212. 10.1124/jpet.120.000340 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Orvos P., Pászti B., Topal L., Gazdag P., Prorok J., Polyák A., et al. (2020). The electrophysiological effect of cannabidiol on hERG current and in Guinea-pig and rabbit cardiac preparationsSci. Rep. 10, 16079. 10.1038/s41598-020-73165-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Pertwee R. G. (2008). The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarinBr. J. Pharmacol. 153, 199–215. 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707442 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Peters C., Rosch R. E., Hughes E., Ruben P. C. (2016). Temperature-dependent changes in neuronal dynamics in a patient with an SCN1A mutation and hyperthermia induced seizuresSci. Rep. 6, 31879. 10.1038/srep31879 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Pinsger M., Schimetta W., Volc D., Hiermann E., Riederer F., Pölz W. (2006). Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain–a randomized controlled trialWien. Klin. Wochenschr. 118, 327–335. 10.1007/S00508-006-0611-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Pollastro F., Taglialatela-Scafati O., Allarà M., Muñoz E., Di Marzo V., De Petrocellis L., et al. (2011). Bioactive prenylogous cannabinoid from fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa)J. Nat. Prod. 74, 2019–2022. 10.1021/np200500p [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Pumroy R. A., Samanta A., Liu Y., Hughes T. E., Zhao S., Yudin Y., et al. (2019). Molecular mechanism of TRPV2 channel modulation by cannabidiolElife 8, e48792. 10.7554/elife.48792 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Rimmerman N., Ben-Hail D., Porat Z., Juknat A., Kozela E., Daniels M. P., et al. (2013). Direct modulation of the outer mitochondrial membrane channel, voltage-dependent anion channel 1 (VDAC1) by cannabidiol: A novel mechanism for cannabinoid-induced cell deathCell Death Dis. 4, e949. 10.1038/CDDIS.2013.471 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ross H. R., Napier I., Connor M. (2008). Inhibition of recombinant human T-type calcium channels by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiolJ. Biol. Chem. 283, 16124–16134. 10.1074/jbc.M707104200 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Rundfeldt C., Netzer R. (2000). The novel anticonvulsant retigabine activates M-currents in Chinese hamster ovary-cells tranfected with human KCNQ2/3 subunitsNeurosci. Lett. 282, 73–76. 10.1016/S0304-3940(00)00866-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Rush A. M., Cummins T. R., Waxman S. G. (2007). Multiple sodium channels and their roles in electrogenesis within dorsal root ganglion neuronsJ. Physiol. 579, 1–14. 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.121483 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Russo E., Guy G. W. (2006). A tale of two cannabinoids: The therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiolMed. Hypotheses 66, 234–246. 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.08.026 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Sait L. G., Sula A., Ghovanloo M.-R., Hollingworth D., Ruben P. C., Wallace B. A. (2020). Cannabidiol interactions with voltage-gated sodium channelsElife 9, 585933–e58617. 10.7554/eLife.58593 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Skrabek R. Q., Galimova L., Ethans K., Perry D. (2008). Nabilone for the treatment of pain in FibromyalgiaJ. Pain 9, 164–173. 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Sylantyev S., Jensen T. P., Ross R. A., Rusakov D. A. (2013). Cannabinoid- and lysophosphatidylinositol-sensitive receptor GPR55 boosts neurotransmitter release at central synapsesProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 5193–5198. 10.1073/pnas.1211204110 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Tham M., Yilmaz O., Alaverdashvili M., Kelly M. E. M., Denovan-Wright E. M., Laprairie R. B. (2019). Allosteric and orthosteric pharmacology of cannabidiol and cannabidiol-dimethylheptyl at the type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptorsBr. J. Pharmacol. 176, 1455–1469. 10.1111/bph.14440 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Turner S. E., Williams C. M., Iversen L., Whalley B. J. (2017). Molecular pharmacology of phytocannabinoidsProg. Chem. Org. Nat. Prod. 103, 61–101. 10.1007/978-3-319-45541-9_3 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Vilin Y. Y., Ruben P. C. (2001). Slow inactivation in voltage-gated sodium channels: Molecular substrates and contributions to channelopathiesCell biochem. Biophys. 35, 171–190. 10.1385/CBB:35:2:171 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Vogel Z., Barg J., Levy R., Saya D., Heldman E., Mechoulam R. (1993). Anandamide, a brain endogenous compound, interacts specifically with cannabinoid receptors and inhibits adenylate cyclaseJ. Neurochem. 61, 352–355. 10.1111/J.1471-4159.1993.TB03576.X [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Wade D. T., Makela P., Robson P., House H., Bateman C. (2004). Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patientsMult. Scler. 10, 434–441. 10.1191/1352458504ms1082oa [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ward S. J., McAllister S. D., Kawamura R., Murase R., Neelakantan H., Walker E. A. (2014). Cannabidiol inhibits paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain through 5-HT 1A receptors without diminishing nervous system function or chemotherapy efficacyBr. J. Pharmacol. 171, 636–645. 10.1111/bph.12439 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Ware M. A., Wang T., Shapiro S., Robinson A., Ducruet T., Huynh T., et al. (2010). Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: A randomized controlled trialC. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 182, E694–E701. 10.1503/CMAJ.091414 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Yu F. H., Mantegazza M., Westenbroek R. E., Robbins C. A., Kalume F., Burton K. A., et al. (2006). Reduced sodium current in GABAergic interneurons in a mouse model of severe myoclonic epilepsy in infancyNat. Neurosci. 9, 1142–1149. 10.1038/nn1754 [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Zhang H. X. B., Bean B. P. (2021). Cannabidiol inhibition of murine primary nociceptors: Tight binding to slow inactivated states of Nav1.8 channelsJ. Neurosci. 41, 6371–6387. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3216-20.2021 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
  • Zhang H. X. B., Heckman L., Niday Z., Jo S., Fujita A., Shim J., et al. (2022). Cannabidiol activates neuronal Kv7 channelsElife 11, e73246. 10.7554/ELIFE.73246 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]

Articles from Frontiers in Physiology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

Leave a Reply