Table 2.
Compound | Dose details | Efficacy in acute nausea-induced gaping | Efficacy in contextually elicited gaping |
---|---|---|---|
CB1 receptor agonists | |||
THC | 0.5 mg/kg, i.p. 30 min pretreatment |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Limebeer and Parker59; Parker and Mechoulam60; Parker et al.61) |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Limebeer et al.78; Rock et al.79)Compared to 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: • More effective (Rock et al.79) |
Endocannabinoid manipulations | |||
Anandamide | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | |
2-AG | 1.5, 2 mg/kg, i.p. 15 min pretreatment 0.5, 1 μg, bilaterally, after acute nausea test |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Sticht et al.67) Administration to the IC, compared to VEH: • More effective (Sticht et al.57) |
Not evaluated |
FAAH inhibition | |||
PF-3845 | 10 mg/kg, i.p. 120 min pretreatment 2 ug, bilaterally, 30 or 70 min pretreatment |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Rock et al.64) Administration to the IC, compared to VEH: • As effective (Sticht et al.76) |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Rock et al.64) Administration to the IC, compared to VEH, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: • As effective (Limebeer et al.83) |
MAGL inhibition | |||
MJN110 | 10, 20 mg/kg, i.p. 120 min pretreatment 2 ug, bilaterally, 30 or 70 min pretreatment |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Parker et al.68) Administration to the IC, compared to VEH: • More effective (Sticht et al.76) |
Compared to VEH: • More effective (Parker et al.68) Administration to the IC, compared to VEH: 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: • More effective (Limebeer et al.83) |
Dual FAAH/MAGL inhibition | |||
JZL195 | 10 mg/kg, i.p. 120 min pretreatment |
Not evaluated | Compared to VEH: • More effective (Limebeer et al.82) |
CB1, cannabinoid 1; 2-AG, 2-arachidonylglyercol; FAAH, fatty acid amide hydrolase; IC, insular cortex; MAGL, monoacylglycerol lipase.