TABLE 3
FROM:
Meta-analysis of cannabinoid ligand binding affinity and receptor distribution: interspecies differences
J M McPartland, M Glass and R G Pertwee
BACK TO ARTICLETable 3. Meta-analytic K i values for ligands at human (Hs) and rat (Rn) cannabinoid receptors
| Ligand | HsCB1 | RnCB1 | HsCB2 | RnCB2 | HsCB1 | HsCB2 | RnCB1 | RnCB2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Ki s.e.
| Kd s.e.
| |
| THC |
25.1 5.54 (n=16) |
42.6 5.01 (n=18) |
35.2 5.86 (n=16) | 13.0 7.70 (n=3) |
25.1 5.54 (n=16) |
35.2 5.86 (n=16) |
42.6 5.01 (n=18) | 13.0 7.70 (n=3) |
| Difference between species, P=0.010; K i ratio=0.59 | No difference between CB1 and CB2, P=0.12; K i ratio=0.71 | |||||||
| CBD | ND | 2210.5 558.08 (n=6) | 2860 (n=1) | 1000 (n=1) | ND | 2860 (n=1) | 2210.5 558.08 (n=6) | 1000 (n=1) |
| CBN | 525.3 308.1 (n=3) | 368.0 121.1 (n=8) | 168.2 32.16 (n=7) | ND | 525.3 308.1 (n=3) | 168.2 32.16 (n=7) | 368.0 121.1 (n=8) | ND |
| AEA |
239.2 61.77 (n=16) |
87.7 11.32 (n=26) |
439.5 95.89 (n=22) | 267.8 67.94 (n=5) |
239.2 61.77 (n=16) |
439.5 95.89 (n=22) |
87.7 11.32 (n=26) | 267.8 67.94 (n=5) |
| No difference between species, P=0.23; K i ratio=2.7 | No difference between CB1 and CB2, P=0.06; K i ratio=0.54 | |||||||
| 2-AG | 3423.6 3288.24 (n=3) | 1180.5 538.59 (n=4) | 1193.8 327.71 (n=9) | 1900.0 1800.0 (n=2) | 3423.6 3288.24 (n=3) | 1193.8 327.71 (n=9) | 1180.5 538.59 (n=4) | 1900.0 1800.0 (n=2) |
| HU210 |
0.25 0.069 (n=9) |
0.34 0.102 (n=7) |
0.40 0.095 (n=15) | ND |
0.25 0.069 (n=9) |
0.40 0.095 (n=15) |
0.34 0.102 (n=7) | ND |
| No difference between species, P=0.49; K i ratio=0.74 | No difference between CB1 and CB2, P=0.34; K i ratio=0.63 | |||||||
Abbreviations: AEA, anandamide; CB1, cannabinoid receptor subtype 1; CB2, cannabinoid receptor subtype 2; CBD, cannabidiol; cannabinol; Hs, Homo sapiens; Rn, Rattus norvegicus; 2-AG, sn-2 arachidonoyl glycerol.
The results in the table are expressed as K
i
s.e. (nM) and the number of studies extracted for determination of pooled means. Means in bold typeface had their numerical validity confirmed by sensitivity analyses. Differences between validated means were tested for statistical significance with Mann–Whitney U-test (Systat; Evanston, IL, USA). ND=no K
i data in Supplementary Table 1.
