PreprintCited by 2Receptor Mechanisms and SignalingOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology

Potency, dissociation kinetics and reversibility of fentanyls and nitazenes by naloxone at the μ opioid receptor

Open access
Alhosan, Norah, Cavallo, Damiana, Santiago, Marina, Kelly, Eamonn, Henderson, Graeme·2024·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

Background and Purpose Fentanyls and nitazenes are μ opioid receptor agonists responsible for a large number of opioid overdose deaths. Here, we compared the potency, dissociation kinetics and antagonism by naloxone at the μ receptor of several fentanyl and nitazene analogues and compared them to morphine and DAMGO. Experimental Approach In vitro assays of G protein activation and signalling and arrestin recruitment were performed. AtT20 cells expressing μ receptors were loaded with a membrane potential dye and changes in fluorescence used to determine agonist potency, dissociation kinetics and susceptibility to antagonism by naloxone. BRET experiments were undertaken in HEK293T cells expressing μ opioid receptors, to assess Gi protein activation and β-arrestin 2 recruitment. Key Results The rate of agonist dissociation from the μ receptor varied, with morphine, DAMGO, alfentanil and fentanyl dissociating rapidly whereas isotonitazene, etonitazene, ohmefentanyl and carfentanil dissociated slowly. Slowly dissociating agonists were more resistant to antagonism by naloxone. For carfentanil, the slow rate of dissociation was not due to G protein receptor kinase-mediated arrestin recruitment as its rate of dissociation was not affected by inhibition of GRKs with Compound 101. The in vitro relative potencies of fentanyls and nitazenes compared to morphine were much lower than that previously observed in in vivo experiments. Conclusions and Implications With fentanyls and nitazenes,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2024.06.04.597322

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alhosan, N., Cavallo, D., Santiago, M., Kelly, E., & Henderson, G.
Affiliations
  • Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (SA)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Henderson, Graeme
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2024-06-05
OpenAlex
W4399917024
Cited by
1
References
5
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Keywords
fentanyl analogs, nitazenes, mu-opioid receptor, naloxone antagonism, opioid overdose, carfentanil, etonitazene, isotonitazene, alfentanil, morphine, DAMGO, arrestin recruitment, G protein activation, opioid potency, opioid overdose reversal

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