Cannabinoid Antinociception Research Articles

Sex-specific cannabinoid 1 receptors on GABAergic neurons in the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray mediate analgesia in mice.

Sex differences in analgesic effects have gradually attracted public attention in preclinical and clinical studies. Both human and animal females are more sensitive to cannabinoid antinociception than males. Expression of the cannabinoid 1 receptor (CB1 R) and the function of the endocannabinoid system have been explored in both male and female mice and CB1 Rs in the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray (vlPAG) participate in antinociception. However, whether there are cell-type- and sex-specific patterns of vlPAG CB1 R expression that affect analgesia is unknown. In the current study, we either activated or inhibited CB1 Rs in the vlPAG and found that female mice produced stronger analgesia or developed more robust mechanical allodynia than males did. Specific deletion of GABAergic CB1 Rs in the vlPAG promoted stronger mechanical allodynia in female mice than that in male mice. However, no sex differences in cannabinoid antinociception were found following chemogenetic inhibition of GABAergic neurons. Using fluorescence in situ hybridization, we found that the sex difference in cannabinoid antinociception was due to females having higher expression of GABAergic CB1 Rs in the vlPAG than males. Furthermore, activation of CB1 Rs in the vlPAG significantly reduced the frequency of GABA-mediated spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents recorded in vGlut2-tdTomato positive neurons in both sexes. This effect was greater in females than males and this reduction was closely related to CB1 R expression difference between sexes. Our work indicates that vlPAG GABAergic CB1 Rs modulate cannabinoid-mediated analgesia in a sex-specific manner, which may provide a potential explanation of sex difference found in the analgesic effect of cannabinoids.

Sex-specific mechanisms of tolerance for the cannabinoid agonists CP55,940 and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC).

Tolerance to cannabinoids could limit their therapeutic potential. Male mice expressing a desensitization-resistant form (S426A/S430A) of the type-1 cannabinoid receptor (CB1R) show delayed tolerance to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) but not CP55,940. With more women than men using medical cannabis for pain relief, it is essential to understand sex differences in cannabinoid antinociception, hypothermia, and resultant tolerance. Our objective was to determine whether female mice rely on the same molecular mechanisms for tolerance to the antinociceptive and/or hypothermic effects of cannabinoids that we have previously reported in males. We determined whether the S426A/S430A mutation differentially disrupts antinociceptive and/or hypothermic tolerance to CP55,940 and/or Δ9-THC in male and female S426A/S430A mutant and wild-type littermates. The S426A/S430A mutation conferred an enhanced antinociceptive response for ∆9-THC and CP55,940 in both male and female mice. While the S426A/S430A mutation conferred partial resistance to ∆9-THC tolerance in male mice, disruption of CB1R desensitization had no effect on tolerance to ∆9-THC in female mice. The mutation did not alter tolerance to the hypothermic effects of ∆9-THC or CP55,940 in either sex. Interestingly, female mice were markedly less sensitive to the antinociceptive effects of 30mg/kg ∆9-THC and 0.3mg/kg CP55,940 compared with male mice. Our results suggest that disruption of the GRK/βarrestin2 pathway of desensitization alters tolerance to Δ9-THC but not CP55,940 in male but not female mice. As tolerance to Δ9-THC appears to develop differently in males and females, sex should be considered when assessing the therapeutic potential and dependence liability of cannabinoids.

Changes in nociceptin/orphanin FQ levels in rat brain regions after acute and chronic cannabinoid treatment in conjunction with the development of antinociceptive tolerance.

It has been indicated that acute and chronic morphine administrations enhance nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) levels in the brain, which might play role in the development of tolerance to the antinociceptive effect of morphine. Accordingly, N/OFQ receptor (NOP) antagonists have been shown to prevent the development of antinociceptive tolerance to morphine. Our aim is to observe whether cannabinoids, similarly to opioids, enhance N/OFQ levels in pain-related brain regions and whether antagonism of NOP receptors attenuates the development of tolerance to the antinociceptive effect of cannabinoids. Hot plate and Tail flick tests are used to assess the antinociceptive response in Sprague-Dawley rats. N/OFQ levels are measured in cortex, amygdala, hypothalamus, periaqueductal gray, nucleus raphe magnus and locus coeruleus of rat brains using Western blotting and immunohistochemistry. Within 9 days, animals became completely tolerant to the antinociceptive effect of the cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 (2, 4, 6 mg/kg, i.p.). Chronic administration of JTC-801, a NOP receptor antagonist, at a dose that exerted no effect on its own (1 mg/kg, i.p.), attenuated development of tolerance to the antinociceptive effect of WIN 55,212-2 (4 mg/kg, i.p.). Western blotting and immunohistochemistry results showed that N/OFQ levels significantly increased in amygdala, periaqueductal gray, nucleus raphe magnus and locus coeruleus of rat brains when WIN 55,212-2 was combined with JTC-801. We hypothesize that, similar to opioids, chronic cannabinoid + NOP antagonist administration may enhance N/OFQ levels and NOP receptor antagonism prevents development of tolerance to cannabinoid antinociception.

Sex differences in cannabinoid antinociception against inflammatory pain

We examined sex differences in antinociceptive and anti‐inflammatory effects of delta‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) using the complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) model of inflammatory pain (hindpaw CFA injection). Gonadally intact adult rats received THC systemically (0, 0.32, 10, 3.2 mg/kg i.p.) or intraplantar (0, 250, 500 μg i.pl.), on days 1, 3 and 7 post‐CFA. THC attenuated mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia in both sexes via both routes of administration, but tended to be more effective in females than males when given i.pl. THC also was more effective in females in reversing CFA‐suppressed drinking one day after CFA injection. In contrast, i.pl. THC decreased paw inflammation more in males. These results agree with previous studies demonstrating greater cannabinoid antinociception in females than males using acute pain models, and suggest that sex differences in the antinociceptive effects of THC in the CFA model are not related to its anti‐inflammatory properties. Additionally, i.pl. THC did not affect locomotor activity (or response latency in the uninflamed paw), indicating that greater antinociceptive effects of THC in females are not secondary to THC's greater sedative effect in females (observed when THC is given systemically). These results suggest that cannabinoids may be more effective analgesics in females than males. Supported by the State of Washington Initiative Measure No. 171.

THC−methadone and THC−naltrexone interactions on discrimination, antinociception, and locomotion in rats

This study examined cannabinoid-opioid interactions within the same subjects on measures of discrimination, antinociception, horizontal locomotion, and catalepsy. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, 3 mg/kg) from vehicle. THC alone (0.32-10 mg/kg) dose-dependently increased THC-appropriate lever responding and decreased response rate. THC alone also produced paw pressure antinociception and decreased locomotor activity, but did not produce catalepsy. Methadone (0.32-5.6 mg/kg) and naltrexone (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) alone produced low THC-appropriate lever responding up to doses that decreased response rate. When combined with THC, methadone (1.0 mg/kg) flattened the THC discrimination curve, but did not affect antinociceptive or motoric effects of THC. Naltrexone did not alter any effects of THC. In rats that were not trained to discriminate THC from vehicle, 1.0 mg/kg methadone did enhance THC antinociception. These results suggest that μ-opioid receptor agonists can disrupt the discriminative stimulus effects of cannabinoids while not significantly altering their antinociceptive or motoric effects, in chronically drug-exposed subjects. Further research is required to determine whether opioid enhancement of cannabinoid antinociception is limited to acute exposure, or simply requires higher doses in chronically drug-exposed subjects.

Neural basis for improgan antinociception

Improgan, the prototype compound of a novel class of non-opioid analgesic drugs derived from histamine antagonists, attenuates thermal and mechanical nociception in rodents following intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) administration. Improgan does not bind to known opioid, histamine or cannabinoid receptors, and its molecular target has not been identified. It is known however, that improgan acts directly in the periaqueductal gray and the rostral ventromedial medulla to produce its antinociceptive effects, and that inactivation of the rostral ventromedial medulla prevents the antinociceptive effect of improgan given i.c.v. Here we used in vivo single-cell recording in lightly anesthetized rats to show that improgan engages pain-modulating neurons in the medulla to produce antinociception. Following improgan administration, OFF-cells, which inhibit nociception, became continuously active and no longer paused during noxious stimulation. The increase in OFF-cell firing does not represent a non-specific neuroexcitant effect of this drug, since ON-cell discharge, associated with net nociceptive facilitation, was depressed. NEUTRAL-cell firing was unaffected by improgan. The net response of rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) neurons to improgan is thus comparable to that evoked by μ-opioids and cannabinoids, well known RVM-active analgesic drugs. This common basis for improgan, opioid, and cannabinoid antinociception in the RVM supports the idea that improgan functions as a specific analgesic agent.

Opioids and Cannabinoids Interactions: Involvement in Pain Management

Among several pharmacological properties, analgesia is the most common feature shared by either opioid or cannabinoid systems. Cannabinoids and opioids are distinct drug classes that have been historically used separately or in combination to treat different pain states. Indeed, it is widely known that activation of either opioid or cannabinoid systems produce antinociceptive properties in different pain models. Moreover, several biochemical, molecular and pharmacological studies support the existence of reciprocal interactions between both systems, suggesting a common underlying mechanism. Further studies have demonstrated that the endogenous opioid system could be involved in cannabinoid antinociception and recent data have also provided evidence for a role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in opioid antinociception. These interactions may lead to additive or even synergistic antinociceptive effects, emphasizing their clinical relevance in humans in order to enhance analgesic effects with lower doses and consequently fewer undesirable side effects. Thus, the present review is focused on bidirectional interactions between opioids and cannabinoids and their potent repercussions on pain modulation.

Involvement of kappa/dynorphin system in the development of tolerance to nicotine‐induced antinociception

The aim of the present study was to explore the possible role of kappa/dynorphin system in the development of tolerance to nicotine antinociception in mice. First, we observed that kappa-opioid receptor (KOP-r) participates in the acute spinal antinociception produced by nicotine (3 and 5 mg/kg, s.c.) since the pre-treatment with the selective kappa antagonist nor-binaltorphimine (3 mg/kg, i.p.) attenuated this response in the tail-immersion test but not in the hot-plate test nor in locomotor responses. Possible changes in the expression of KOP-r were investigated in tolerant mice to nicotine antinociception by using autoradiography of [3H]CI-977 binding. The density of KOP-r decreased in the spinal cord of tolerant mice. In addition, bi-directional cross-tolerance between nicotine (3 and 5 mg/kg, s.c.) and the selective kappa agonist U50,488H (10 mg/kg, s.c.) was found in the tail-immersion test. Recent evidences indicate that an up-regulation of dynorphin levels in the spinal cord and subsequent activation of NMDA receptors participate in the development of tolerance to opioid and cannabinoid antinociception. In this study, dynorphin content in the lumbar spinal cord was similar in control and nicotine tolerant mice. Furthermore, the administration of the NMDA antagonist MK-801 (0.03 and 0.01 mg/kg, i.p.) before each daily nicotine injection did not modify the development of nicotine tolerance. In summary, these data indicate that KOP-r is directly involved in the development of tolerance to nicotine antinociception by a mechanism independent from dynorphin and NMDA receptors.

Cross-sensitization and cross-tolerance between exogenous cannabinoid antinociception and endocannabinoid-mediated stress-induced analgesia

Footshock stress induces both endocannabinoid mobilization and antinociception. The present studies investigated behavioral plasticity in cannabinoid antinociceptive mechanisms following repeated activation using the tail-flick test. A secondary objective was to ascertain whether blockade of stress antinociception by the CB1 antagonist rimonabant could be attributed to changes in locomotor activity. The cannabinoid agonist WIN55,212-2 induced hypoactivity in the open field relative to vehicle-treated controls. By contrast, rimonabant, administered at a dose that virtually eliminated endocannabinoid-mediated stress antinociception, failed to alter locomotor behavior (i.e. time resting, ambulatory counts, distance traveled) in rats subjected to the same stressor. Rats exposed acutely to footshock were hypersensitive to the antinociceptive effects of WIN55,212-2 and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC). The converse was also true; acute Δ9-THC and WIN55,212-2 administration potentiated stress antinociception, suggesting a bidirectional sensitization between endocannabinoid-mediated stress antinociception and exogenous cannabinoid antinociception. Stress antinociception was also attenuated following chronic relative to acute treatment with WIN55,212-2 or Δ9-THC. Repeated exposure to footshock (3min/day for 15days), however, failed to attenuate antinociception induced by either footshock stress or WIN55,212-2. Our results demonstrate that endocannabinoid-mediated stress antinociception cannot be attributed to motor suppression. Our results further identify a functional plasticity of the cannabinoid system in response to repeated activation. The existence of cross-sensitization between endocannabinoid-mediated stress antinociception and exogenous cannabinoid antinociception suggests that these phenomena are mediated by a common mechanism. The observation of stress-induced hypersensitivity to effects of exogenous cannabinoids may have clinical implications for understanding marijuana abuse liability in humans.

CC12, a high-affinity ligand for [3H]cimetidine binding, is an improgan antagonist

Improgan, a chemical congener of cimetidine, is a highly effective non-opioid analgesic when injected into the CNS. Despite extensive characterization, neither the improgan receptor, nor a pharmacological antagonist of improgan has been previously described. Presently, the specific binding of [3H]cimetidine (3HCIM) in brain fractions was used to discover 4(5)-((4-iodobenzyl)thiomethyl)-1H-imidazole, which behaved in vivo as the first improgan antagonist. The synthesis and pharmacological properties of this drug (named CC12) are described herein. In rats, CC12 (50–500nmol, i.c.v.) produced dose-dependent inhibition of improgan (200–400nmol) antinociception on the tail flick and hot plate tests. When given alone to rats, CC12 had no effects on nociceptive latencies, or on other observable behavioral or motor functions. Maximal inhibitory effects of CC12 (500nmol) were fully surmounted with a large i.c.v. dose of improgan (800nmol), demonstrating competitive antagonism. In mice, CC12 (200–400nmol, i.c.v.) behaved as a partial agonist, producing incomplete improgan antagonism, but also limited antinociception when given alone. Radioligand binding, receptor autoradiography, and electrophysiology experiments showed that CC12's antagonist properties are not explained by activity at 25 sites relevant to analgesia, including known receptors for cannabinoids, opioids or histamine. The use of CC12 as an improgan antagonist will facilitate the characterization of improgan analgesia. Furthermore, because CC12 was also found presently to inhibit opioid and cannabinoid antinociception, it is suggested that this drug modifies a biochemical mechanism shared by several classes of analgesics. Elucidation of this mechanism will enhance understanding of the biochemistry of pain relief.

Cannabinoids blocks tactile allodynia in diabetic mice without attenuation of its antinociceptive effect

Diabetic neuropathic pain is one of the most commonly encountered neuropathic pain syndromes. However, the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain is challenging because of partial effectiveness of currently available pain relievers. It is well known that diabetic animals are less sensitive to the analgesic effect of morphine, and opioids are found to be ineffective in the treatment of diabetic neuropathic pain. Cannabinoids are promising drugs and they share a similar pharmacological properties with opioids. It has been reported that cannabinoid analgesia remained intact and to be effective in some models of nerve injury. Thus, we investigated antinociceptive efficacy and the effects of cannabinoids on behavioral sign of diabetic neuropathic pain in diabetic mice by using WIN 55, 212-2, a cannabinoid receptor agonist. Diabetes was induced by streptozotocin (STZ) (200 mg/kg) and animals were tested between 45 and 60 days after onset of diabetes. Antinociception was assessed using the radiant tail-flick test. Mechanical and thermal sensitivities were measured by Von Frey filaments and hot-plate test, respectively. Tactile allodynia, but not thermal hyperalgesia developed in diabetic mice. Systemic WIN 55, 212-2 (1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) produced a dose-dependent antinociception both in diabetic and control mice. WIN 55, 212-2-induced antinociception were found to be similar in diabetic mice when compared to controls suggesting efficacy of cannabinoid antinociception was not diminished in diabetic mice. WIN 55, 212-2 also produced a dose-dependent antiallodynic effect in diabetic mice. This study suggests that cannabinoids have a potential beneficial effect on experimental diabetic neuropathic pain.

Participation of the opioid system in cannabinoid-induced antinociception and emotional-like responses

Several anatomical, biochemical and pharmacological evidence support the existence of bidirectional interactions between cannabinoid and opioid systems. The present review is focused on the participation of the endogenous opioid system in the antinociceptive and emotional-like responses induced by cannabinoids, and the development of tolerance to cannabinoid pharmacological effects. Cannabinoid and opioid agonists produce antinociception by acting on similar structures within the central nervous system, and a peripheral mechanism has been also proposed for both compounds. Pharmacological studies have suggested that the endogenous opioid system could be involved in cannabinoid antinociception and the development of cannabinoid tolerance. Recent studies using knockout mice have also demonstrated the role of the opioid system in cannabinoid antinociception and tolerance, although some discrepancies with the previous pharmacological results have been reported when using knockout mice. On the other hand, cannabinoid administration can induce anxiolytic-like responses that are mediated at least in part by an endogenous opioid activity on μ- and δ-opioid receptors.

Effects of neurotoxic destruction of descending noradrenergic pathways on cannabinoid antinociception in models of acute and tonic nociception

The effects of neurotoxic destruction of catecholaminergic projections to the spinal cord on cannabinoid antinociception were examined in models of acute and tonic nociception. High performance liquid chromatography was used to quantify monoamine levels in sham-operated and lesioned rats. Intrathecal administration of the catecholamine neurotoxin 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) induced a selective depletion of norepinephrine (by ∼85% of control) in rat lumbar spinal cord without altering levels of dopamine or serotonin. By contrast, brain levels of monoamines did not differ in sham-operated and lesioned rats. Pain behavior was similar in sham-operated and lesioned rats receiving vehicle in models of both acute and tonic nociception. The cannabinoid agonist WIN55,212-2 (5 or 10 mg/kg, i.p.) produced antinociception in the tail-flick test in sham-operated rats. The antinociceptive effect of WIN55,212-2 was attenuated relative to control conditions in rats depleted of spinal norepinephrine. WIN55,212-2 suppressed tonic pain behavior in the formalin test in sham-operated rats during phase 2 (15–60 min post formalin) of nociceptive responding. By contrast, in lesioned rats, WIN55,212-2 suppressed pain behavior during phase 1 (0–9.9 min) and phase 2A (10–39.9 min), but not during phase 2B (40–60 min). The cannabinoid agonist suppressed formalin-evoked Fos protein expression, a marker of neuronal activity, in the lumbar dorsal horn of sham-operated rats, but no suppression was observed in lesioned rats. The number of formalin-evoked Fos-like immunoreactive (FLI) cells was greater in lamina I and II of lesioned rats relative to sham-operated rats. These data indicate that the suppressive effect of the cannabinoid on formalin-evoked Fos protein expression in the superficial dorsal horn was attenuated following destruction of descending noradrenergic pathways. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that cannabinoids produce antinociception, in part, by modulating descending noradrenergic systems and support a differential involvement of noradrenergic projections to the spinal cord in cannabinoid modulation of acute versus tonic nociception.

Topical cannabinoid antinociception: synergy with spinal sites

Analgesic effects of cannabimimetic compounds have been known to be related to their central effects. Cannabinoid receptors also exist in the periphery but their role in pain perception has been remained to be clarified. Therefore, we assessed topical antinociceptive effects of WIN 55, 212-2, a mixed CB 1 and CB 2 receptors agonist, in mice using tail-flick test. Immersion of the tail of mouse into the WIN 55, 212-2 solution produced dose-dependent antinociception. This antinociceptive activity was limited to the portion of the tail exposed to WIN 55, 212-2. The antinociceptive response was dependent on duration of exposure to WIN 55, 212-2 solution. The topical antinociceptive effects of WIN 55, 212-2 were dose dependently blocked by topical pretreatment of CB 1 receptor-selective antagonist, AM 251. Thus, topical antinociceptive action of WIN 55, 212-2 involve CB 1 receptors. Intrathecal (i.th.) administration of WIN 55, 212-2 produced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect. Interestingly, ineffective i.th. doses of WIN 55, 212-2 produced a marked antinociception when combined with topical application of WIN 55, 212-2 and topical antinociceptive effect was potentiated. The dose–response curve of i.th. WIN 55, 212-2 was shifted to the left 15-fold by topical WIN 55, 212-2. This finding suggests that there is an antinociceptive synergy between peripheral and spinal sites of cannabinoid action and it also implicates that local activaton of cannabinoid system may regulate pain initiation in cutaneous tissue. Our findings support that cannabinoid system participates in buffering the emerging pain signals at the peripheral sites in addition to their spinal and supraspinal sites of action. In addition, an antinociceptive synergy between topical and spinal cannabinoid actions exists. These results also indicate that topically administered cannabinoid agonists may reduce pain without the dysphoric side effects and abuse potential of centrally acting cannabimimetic drugs.

CB 2 cannabinoid receptor-mediated peripheral antinociception

Cannabinoid receptor agonists diminish responses to painful stimuli. Extensive evidence implicates the CB 1 receptor in the production of antinociception. However, the capacity of CB 2 receptors, which are located outside the central nervous system (CNS), to produce antinociception is not known. Using AM1241, a CB 2 receptor-selective agonist, we demonstrate that CB 2 receptors produce antinociception to thermal stimuli. Injection of AM1241 in the hindpaw produced antinociception to a stimulus applied to the same paw. Injection of an equivalent dose of AM1241 into the paw contralateral to the side of testing did not. The antinociceptive actions of AM1241 were blocked by the CB 2 receptor-selective antagonist AM630, but not by the CB 1 receptor-selective antagonist AM251. AM1241 also produced antinociception when injected systemically (intraperitoneally). The antinociceptive actions of systemic AM1241 were blocked by injection of AM630 into the paw where the thermal stimulus was applied, but not the contralateral paw. These findings demonstrate the local, peripheral nature of CB 2 cannabinoid antinociception. AM1241 did not produce the CNS cannabinoid effects of hypothermia, catalepsy, inhibition of activity or impaired ambulation, while this tetrad of effects was produced by the mixed CB 1/CB 2 receptor agonist WIN55,212-2. Peripheral antinociception without CNS effects is consistent with the peripheral distribution of CB 2 receptors. CB 2 receptor agonists may have promise clinically for the treatment of pain without CNS cannabinoid side effects.

A diminution of Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol modulation of dynorphin A-(1–17) in conjunction with tolerance development

Previous research in this laboratory concerning Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced spinal antinociception indicated the critical role of dynorphin A-(1–17) in spinal antinociception following acute intrathecal (i.t.) administration. In the present study, tolerance development to Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced spinal antinociception attenuated Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced modulation of immunoreactive dynorphin A-(1–17). These data indicate that at lower doses of drug, desensitization of the cannabinoid receptor inhibits stimulation of downstream dynorphinergic neurons. However, at higher doses of drug, desensitization is overcome and spinal dynorphin A concentrations are increased by Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol Antinociception in the absence of elevated dynorphin A-(1–17) levels in the tolerant rat suggests that factors other than the attenuated dynorphin release are components of antinociception in the tolerant state. The shift from the critical role of dynorphin A in cannabinoid antinociception vs. that in the non-tolerant state may indicate tolerance also at the κ-opioid receptor, a role as yet undetermined.

An examination of the central sites of action of cannabinoid-induced antinociception in the rat

Microinjections of low doses of the potent and selective cannabinoids WIN 55,212-2 and CP 55,940 into the lateral ventricle produce long-lasting reduction in sensitivity to noxious thermal stimuli (1). To determine the central distribution of ventricularly administered WIN55,212-2, we microinjected an analgesic dose of the drug with [ 3H]WIN55,212-2. At the peak time of antinociception, the radiolabeled drug was confined to periventricular sites throughout the brain. The contribution of particular periventricular structures to the antinociceptive effect was evaluated using intracerebral microinjection techniques and the tail-flick test. Guide cannulae were implanted above the following periventricular structures: the medial septal area, lateral habenlua, perihypothalamic area, arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus, dorsal raphe nucleus and the dorsolateral and ventrolateral aspects of the periaqueductal gray. Microinjections of WIN55,212-2 (5 μg/0.5 μl) into the medial septal area, lateral habenula, perihypothalamic area, arcuate nucleus, and ventrolateral periaqueductal gray did not significantly affect tail-flick latencies. By contrast, microinjections of WIN55,212-2 into the dorsolateral periaqueductal gray and the dorsal raphe significantly elevated tail-flick latencies. The results of this study indicate that at least two periventricular structures within the brain are involved in cannabinoid antinociception.