Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 16.
Published in final edited form as: ACS Chem Neurosci. 2019 Sep 24;10(10):4350–4360. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.9b00429

Table 2.

Operational Analysis Results (ΔΔlog R ± SEM), Showing All Possible Pathway Comparisons for CP55,940, AMB-FUBINACA, WIN55,212–2, and Δ9-THCa

CP55,940 AMB-FUBINACA WIN55,212–2 Δ9-THC
ΔΔlog R SEM ΔΔlog R SEM ΔΔlog R SEM ΔΔlog R SEM
pERK-cAMP 0.036 0.262 0.506 0.299 0.000 0.266 0.581 0.441
Intern-cAMP 0.302 0.262 0.228 0.285 0.000 0.320 0.544 0.460
pERK-Intern −0.266 0.300 0.279 0.274 0.000 0.312 0.037 0.225
cAMP-βArr1 0.581 0.558 −0.061 0.261 0.000 0.257 0.415 0.464
pERK-βArr1 0.616 0.576 0.446 0.250 0.000 0.247 0.996 0.233
Intern-βArr1 0.882 0.577 0.167 0.233 0.000 0.304 0.959 0.267
cAMP-βArr2 0.651 0.228 0.025 0.232 0.000 0.219 1.041 0.436
pERK-βArr2 0.687 0.271 0.532 0.219 0.000 0.207 1.621 0.168
Intern-βArr2 0.953 0.271 0.253 0.199 0.000 0.272 1.585 0.213
βArr1-βArr2 0.070 0.562 0.086 0.164 0.000 0.195 0.625 0.221
a

The reference ligand is WIN55,212–2 (n = 3−4).