CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Opioid Use

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Enhancement of Morphine Antinociception in Mice by Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol

Smith, F·1998·Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
DOI 10.1016/s0091-3057(98)00012-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We have previously reported that intracerebroventricular or intrathecal administration of inactive doses of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) greatly enhance the antinociceptive potency of morphine in the mouse tail-flick test. Experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that morphine's potency would be enhanced in mice receiving THC and morphine by conventional per os (p.o.) and subcutaneously (s.c.) routes of administration. Antinociception was measured in the tail-flick test of radiant heat after administration of different combinations of THC and morphine p.o. and s.c. Subcutaneous administration of THC (4 and 25 mg/kg) increased the potency of s.c. morphine 8.5- and 22.3-fold, respectively, while s.c. THC (25 mg/kg) increased the potency of p.o. morphine 3.1-fold. Per os administration of THC (10 and 20 mg/kg) increased the potency of s.c. and p.o. morphine 11.4-fold and 7.6-fold, respectively. Thus, morphine's potency was significantly increased regardless of the enteral and parenteral routes of THC and morphine administration. The synthetic receptor selective cannabinoid CP-55, 940 (0.1 mg/kg, s.c.) also enhanced morphine's potency. Finally, the ability of the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A to antagonize the enhancement of morphine by THC indicates that THC was acting through a cannabinoid receptor mechanism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0091-3057(98)00012-4

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–146 of 146

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smith, F.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, F
ORCID
Smith, F
Venue
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-06
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
559-566
ISSN
0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0091-3057(98)00012-4
OpenAlex
W2016026978
Cited by
146
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (K02-00186)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 05274, DA‐03672)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
morphine, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, antinociception, cannabinoid receptors, CB1 receptor, CP55,940, SR141716A, route of administration, tail-flick test, analgesia
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Animals, Drug Synergism, Hallucinogens, Male, Mice, Inbred ICR, Morphine, Pain Measurement, Reaction Time, Receptors, Drug, Dronabinol, Receptors, Cannabinoid, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review