Acamprosate Inhibits the Binding and Neurotoxic Effects of Trans‐ACPD, Suggesting a Novel Site of Action at Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors

Abstract

Background Several reported effects of acamprosate within the glutamatergic system could result from interactions with metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs). The following experiments were performed to determine whether acamprosate could compete with trans‐ACPD (±‐1‐aminocyclopentane‐trans‐1,3‐dicarboxylic acid, an equimolecular mixture of 1 S, 3 R and 1 R, 3 S‐ACPD and an agonist at both group I and group II mGluRs) sensitive binding sites and protect against trans‐ACPD–induced neurotoxicity in organotypic hippocampal slice cultures.Methods A P2 membrane preparation of cortices, cerebellums, and hippocampi of adult, male Sprague Dawley rats was used to determine the abilities of N‐methyl‐d‐aspartic acid (NMDA) and trans‐ACPD to displace [3H]glutamate in both the absence and the presence of the sodium salt of acamprosate (sodium mono N‐acetyl homotaurine or Na‐acamprosate). A comparison of the effects of 100 μM guanosine 5′‐triphosphate on unlabeled glutamate, trans‐ACPD, and Na‐acamprosate was performed in the same paradigm. For the neurotoxicity studies, organotypic hippocampal slice cultures from male and female 8‐day‐old neonatal rats were exposed to either 500 μM trans‐ACPD or 50 μM NMDA for 24 hr in normal culture medium containing serum on day 20 in vitro. The effects of Na‐acamprosate and 2‐methyl‐6‐(2‐phenylethenyl)pyridine (SIB‐1893), a noncompetitive antagonist at metabotropic type 5 receptors (mGluR5s), were assessed by determining differences in propidium iodide uptake as compared with neurotoxic challenges alone.Results Na‐acamprosate displaced 31% of [3H]glutamate but did not compete with NMDA for [3H]glutamate binding sites. Na‐acamprosate displayed total competition with trans‐ACPD. The presence of 100 μM guanosine 5′‐triphosphate differentially altered the displacing capabilities of the two mGluR agonists, unlabeled glutamate and trans‐ACPD, as compared with Na‐acamprosate. Na‐acamprosate (200–1000 μM) and SIB‐1893 (20–500 μM) both were neuroprotective against trans‐ACPD induced neurotoxicity that likely results from mGluR potentiation of NMDARs. In turn, Na‐acamprosate and SIB‐1893 had no direct effects on NMDA‐induced neurotoxicity.Conclusions Na‐acamprosate demonstrates the binding and functional characteristics that are consistent with a group I mGluR antagonist. The functional similarities between Na‐acamprosate and SIB‐1893 support an interaction of Na‐acamprosate at mGluR5s. The neuroprotective properties of acamprosate and possibly its ability to reduce craving in alcohol‐dependent patients may result from its alterations in glutamatergic transmission through mGluRs.