KOR/κ Opioid Receptor

Norbinaltorphimine, with pA2 values of 10.2-10.4, reversibly opposes the effects of kappa agonists. Venatorfimin has pA2 values of 7.4-7.6 and 7.6-7.8, respectively, making it a substantially less effective antagonist of the mu and delta receptors [1].

In adolescent rats, nortrophimine weakly and inconsistently boosts and attenuates taste avoidance based on the dose and trial, which results in inconsistent taste avoidance in response to THC. Nortropenine did not affect the two-bottle preference test and only slightly affected final bottle avoidance. It's interesting to note that nortrophenine had no effect on adult rats' THC-induced taste avoidance [2]. Pretreatment with nobinatofamine had no effect on nicotine-induced recovery, but it dramatically reduced the recovery caused by stress-induced nicotine-CPP [3].

---

Objectives: The present study was designed to assess the impact of KOR antagonism on the aversive effects of THC in adolescent and adult rats using the conditioned taste avoidance (CTA) procedure. [2]
Methods: Following a single pretreatment injection of norbinaltorphimine (norBNI; 15 mg/kg), CTAs induced by THC (0, 0.56, 1.0, 1.8, and 3.2 mg/kg) were assessed in adolescent (n = 84) and adult (n = 83) Sprague-Dawley rats. [2]
Results: The KOR antagonist, norBNI, had weak and inconsistent effects on THC-induced taste avoidance in adolescent rats in that norBNI both attenuated and strengthened taste avoidance dependent on dose and trial. norBNI had limited impact on the final one-bottle avoidance and no effects on the two-bottle preference test. Interestingly, norBNI had no effect on THC-induced taste avoidance in adult rats as well. [2]
Conclusions: That norBNI had no significant effect on THC-induced avoidance in adults, and a minor and inconsistent effect in adolescents demonstrates that the aversive effects of THC are not mediated by KOR activity as assessed by the CTA design in Sprague-Dawley rats.

---

Objectives: In the current study, we determined whether the selective KOR antagonist, norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI), would block stress-induced reinstatement of nicotine preference. [3]
Methods: Adult Institute of Cancer Research mice were conditioned with 0.5 mg/kg nicotine, injected subcutaneously (s.c.) for 3 days and tested in the nicotine-conditioned place preference (CPP) model. After 3 days extinction, nor-BNI (10 mg/kg, s.c.) was administered 16 h prior to a priming dose of nicotine (0.1 mg/kg, s.c.), and mice were tested in the CPP model for nicotine-induced reinstatement of CPP. A separate group of mice was subjected to a 2-day modified forced swim test (FST) paradigm to induce stress after 3 days extinction from CPP. Mice were given vehicle or nor-BNI (10 mg/kg, s.c.) 16 h prior to each FST session.[3]
Results: Nor-BNI pretreatment significantly attenuated stress-induced reinstatement of nicotine-CPP, but had no effect on nicotine-primed reinstatement.[3]
Conclusions: Blockade of KORs by selective antagonists attenuates stress-induced reinstatement of nicotine-CPP. Overall, the kappa opioid system may serve as a therapeutic target for suppressing multiple signaling processes which contribute to maintenance of smoking, smoking relapse, and drug abuse in general.[3]

The pharmacological profile of the opioid antagonist norbinaltorphimine has been characterised in vitro and in vivo. In vitro, norbinaltorphimine reversibly antagonised the effects of kappa agonists with pA2 values of 10.2-10.4. Norbinaltorphimine was much less potent as an antagonist at mu and delta receptors, pA2 values were 7.4-7.6 and 7.6-7.8, respectively. In all cases Schild slopes were unity. In vivo, norbinaltorphimine was an effective antagonist only at high dose levels and was not very selective between mu and kappa. The results indicate that in vitro norbinaltorphimine is a potent selective kappa antagonist; however, this antagonist profile is not maintained in vivo[1].

Norbinaltorphimine was dissolved in sterile H2O at a concentration of 15 mg/ml and administered subcutaneously (SC) at a dose of 15 mg/kg. [2]
Norbinaltorphimine dihydrochloride was dissolved in a physiological saline solution (0.9 % sodium chloride) and injected subcutaneously (s.c.) at a volume of 10 ml/kg body weight.[3]

---

Experiment 1: Adolescents [2]
Phase I: HabituationAbbreviated CTA procedures designed to maintain proper growth rates in adolescent animals were utilized as published previously (Hurwitz et al. 2012; Wetzell et al. 2014). Beginning on PND 22, subjects (n = 84) were weighed daily to acclimate them to experimenter handling. On PND 28, they were deprived of water for 24 h prior to the start of water habituation. On PND 29, they were transferred to test cages and given 45-min access to water presented in graduated 50 ml Nalgene centrifuge tubes each affixed with a rubber stopper and sipper tube, after which they had ad-libitum access to water in their home bins for 23¼ h. This 2-day cycle (23¼-h water deprivation/45-min test cage access followed by 24-h water access) was repeated two more times (final day on PND 33).

---

Phase II: Drug pretreatment [2]
Animals were ranked according to average water consumption on all habituation cycles and assigned to one of two groups [norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) (n = 42) and Vehicle (n = 42)], such that mean water intake was comparable among groups. On PND 34 (approximately 24 h prior to conditioning, see below), subjects assigned to the norBNI group were injected with norBNI (15 mg/kg) and subjects assigned to the Vehicle group were injected with the norBNI vehicle at an equal volume. The timing of the norBNI injection was based on research by Munro and colleagues (2012) demonstrating that SC administration of norBNI produced long-lasting antagonistic effects that were selective to KOR.

---

Phase III. Taste avoidance conditioning [2]
Following the injection of norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) or vehicle, animals were deprived of water for 23¼ h (PND 34). A novel saccharin solution was then presented instead of water for 45 min on PND 35. Following saccharin access, animals in each pretreatment group (norBNI and Vehicle) were immediately rank-ordered according to saccharin consumption and assigned to one of five groups [0 (n = 18), 0.56 (n = 16), 1.0 (n = 16), 1.8 (n = 16), 3.2 (n = 18)], such that mean saccharin intake was comparable. This procedure yielded a total of 10 groups; N0, N0.56, N1.0, N1.8, N3.2, V0, V0.56, V1.0, V1.8 and V3.2, where N or V refers to the pretreatment group (norBNI or Vehicle) and the number refers to the dose of THC administered during conditioning. THC doses were chosen based on their range from potentially rewarding to aversive (Braida et al. 2004; Wakeford and Riley 2014). Within 20 min of saccharin access, subjects were injected with drug or vehicle and given ad-libitum water access in their home bins for 23¼ h. This 2-day cycle was repeated three more times for a total of four conditioning trials (final day on PND 41).

---

Phase IV. Two-bottle test [2]
Following the final two-day cycle during conditioning, animals were deprived of water on Day 42 for 24h prior to being given 45-min access to two Nalgene tubes (one containing tap water and the other containing the saccharin solution) in a two-bottle assessment of the CTA (Day 43). Bottle placement was counterbalanced to control for positioning effects on this test. Following this access, the animals were returned to their home bins and no injections were administered.

---

Experiment 2: Adults [2]
The procedures for the adults were identical to those described above with the following exceptions: 83 subjects were brought into the facility on PND 21 and maintained on ad-libitum food and water with no manipulations until PND 76 when daily weighing began. Water bottles were removed on PND 83, and the habituation phase began on PND 84. The norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) or vehicle injections were given on PND 89, and the four CTA conditioning trials occurred from PND 90 to 96. The final two-bottle test was performed on PND 98.

---

Nicotine-primed reinstatement of nicotine-CPP [3]
Two individual cohorts of seven to nine mice were tested in the CPP paradigm and classified into groups A and B. On day 6, 1 day after test day, the test day procedure was repeated in both groups for three additional days to measure extinction of nicotine-CPP. All mice received saline injections (s.c.) prior to entering the chambers on these days. After day 8 test session, group A mice received an injection of norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) (10 mg/kg, s.c.), and group B mice received an injection of vehicle, 16 h prior to day 9 test session. On day 9, mice received an injection of nicotine (0.1 mg/kg, s.c.), and a subset of animals from group A, the nor-BNI pre-treated group (n=4 for saline and nicotine) received vehicle, and were immediately placed in the chamber for testing. A timeline for the experiment is shown in Fig. 1a.

---

Stress-induced reinstatement of nicotine-CPP [3]
As in the nicotine-primed reinstatement study, two individual cohorts of six to eight mice, groups A and B, were tested in the CPP paradigm. After three CPP extinction days (day 8), nicotine-conditioned mice from group B received injections of norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) (10 mg/kg, s.c.), while nicotine-conditioned mice from group A received vehicle. Saline-conditioned mice served as a control group (unstressed) and were treated with vehicle (group A) or norbinaltorphimine (nor-BNI or norBNI) (group B) in the home cage, according to the same treatment schedule as mice subjected to the FST. On day 9, 16 h after nor-BNI pretreatment, to induce stress, mice were exposed to a 2-day modified forced swim test (Porsolt et al. 1977; McLaughlin et al. 2003). Briefly, mice swam in opaque 5-l beakers filled with 3.5 l of 30°C water. After each trial, the mice were dried with towels and returned to their home cages before further testing. On day 1 of the FST (experiment day 9), mice were placed in water to swim for a single trial of 15 min. At the end of FST day 1, mice were again pretreated with nor-BNI or vehicle 16 h prior to FST day 2. On day 2 of the FST (experiment day 10), mice were placed in water to swim through a series of four trials, each 6 min long. Trials were separated by a 10-min return to the home cage. Difficulties in swimming or staying afloat were the criteria for exclusion in this study; however, no mice met these criteria. On day 11, mice were reexposed to the CPP chambers for testing. A timeline for the experiment is shown in Fig. 1b.

[1]. Norbinaltorphimine: antagonist profile at kappa opioid receptors. Eur J Pharmacol. 1987 Dec 15;144(3):405-8.

[2]. Effect of norbinaltorphimine on ∆⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-induced taste avoidance in adolescent and adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2015 Sep;232(17):3193-201.

[3]. Effects of the kappa opioid receptor antagonist, norbinaltorphimine, on stress and drug-induced reinstatement of nicotine-conditioned place preference in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013 Apr;226(4):763-8.

Norbinatopinine is a member of the isoquinoline class of compounds. Similar to previous findings with cocaine and ethanol, nor-BNI did not block the recovery of nicotine conditioned position preference (CPP) induced by nicotine, suggesting that its action is specific to stress-induced responses and implying a difference in stress-induced and drug-induced drug relapse mechanisms. The κ-opioid receptor antagonist JDTic and nor-BNI also had no effect on nicotine conditioned position preference (CPP) expression (Jackson et al., 2010). Subsequent studies in our laboratory showed that JDTic did not enhance nicotine CPP when mice were conditioned with a dose of nicotine (0.1 mg/kg, subcutaneously) that did not produce significant CPP (nicotine (0.1) = 52 ± 10 vs. JDTic (16) - (nicotine (0.1) = 75 ± 22)), indicating that κ-opioid receptors are not involved in the nicotine reward pathway. However, at higher doses of aversive nicotine, nor-BNI pretreatment can transform aversive responses into positional preferences (Smith et al., 2012), which further supports the role of the κ-opioid receptor system in mediating nicotine aversive effects (Jackson et al., 2010). In summary, the κ-opioid receptor antagonist nor-BNI blocks the recovery of stress-induced nicotine conditioned positional preference (CPP), but not the recovery of nicotine-initiated nicotine CPP. Combined with previous studies, the κ-opioid system could serve as a potential therapeutic target for inhibiting signaling pathways associated with multiple aspects of drug abuse maintenance and relapse. [3]

---

Although the aversive effect of THC appears to be mediated by κ-opioid receptor activity in adults (Cheng et al., 2004; Ghozland et al., 2002; Zimmer et al., 2001), the extent to which κ-receptor activity is involved in such effects in adolescents remains unclear. Given the relatively insensitive aversion to the κ agonist U62-066 in adolescent rats (Anderson et al., 2014), the aversion effect of THC may be related to this. Its mechanism of action may differ within this age group. As previously mentioned, the effect of norBNI on gustatory avoidance in adolescents is inconsistent, as norBNI has no effect on avoidance behavior induced by the lowest (0.56 mg/kg) and highest (3.2 mg/kg) doses of THC, but produces the opposite effect at intermediate doses (enhancing avoidance behavior at 1.0 mg/kg and weakening it at 1.8 mg/kg). In all cases where norBNI significantly affected THC-induced avoidance behavior, the effect was small and trial-dependent. In the final single-bottle avoidance test, norBNI pretreatment significantly weakened gustatory avoidance behavior only in the group receiving 1.8 mg/kg THC conditioning. In the two-bottle assessment, no effect of norBNI pretreatment was found, as subjects in both the carrier and norBNI-treated groups exhibited similar dose-dependent avoidance behavior towards THC-related saccharin. These findings are consistent with the initial prediction that adolescents…are relatively insensitive to κ receptor activity, and that THC-induced taste avoidance may be mediated by non-κ opioid receptor (KOR)-related mechanisms. Similar assessments were performed in adults, primarily to replicate previous studies and confirm that the aversion effect of THC in this population is mediated by κ receptors when assessed using the conditioned taste aversion (CTA) procedure. Interestingly, norBNI had no effect on adult subjects at all analytical phases (i.e., the learning phase, the final single-bottle avoidance test, or the two-bottle test). An imminent question is whether norBNI possesses behavioral activity at this dose and specific test parameters. As previously stated, although norBNI did not have a consistent effect in adolescent subjects, the significant difference in THC-induced avoidance behavior between the saline and norBNI groups suggests that norBNI has a behaviorally active dose. Interestingly, recent studies in some laboratories have shown that the norBNI used in this study can affect drug-induced taste avoidance and other behavioral effects. Specifically, the pretreatment dose range of subcutaneous norBNI is similar to that used in this study. Administration of norBNI 24 hours before the start of the experimental procedure significantly affected ethanol-induced taste avoidance behavior in stressed mice (Anderson et al., 2013), ethanol intake in adult mice (Morales et al., 2014), cocaine self-administration behavior in rats given cocaine for 6 hours (Wee et al., 2009), and heroin self-administration behavior in rats given heroin for 6 hours (Schlosburg et al., 2013). Although norBNI has been reported to affect a variety of behavioral endpoints, it is noteworthy that some researchers have found no significant effect of norBNI administration when evaluating the effect of norBNI administration on κ opioid receptor (KOR) activity in other abuse behaviors (Hutsell et al., 2015; Negus, 2004). [2]

C40H43N3O6

661.8

661.31518

105618-26-6

113158-34-2

5480230

Typically exists as White to off-white solid at room temperature

1.63 g/cm3

280ºC

1.834

5.303

5

8

4

49

1340

8

C1CC1CN2CC[C@]34[C@@H]5C6=C(C[C@]3([C@H]2CC7=C4C(=C(C=C7)O)O5)O)C8=C(N6)[C@H]9[C@@]12CCN([C@@H]([C@@]1(C8)O)CC1=C2C(=C(C=C1)O)O9)CC1CC1

APSUXPSYBJVPPS-YAUKWVCOSA-N

InChI=1S/C40H43N3O6/c44-25-7-5-21-13-27-39(46)15-23-24-16-40(47)28-14-22-6-8-26(45)34-30(22)38(40,10-12-43(28)18-20-3-4-20)36(49-34)32(24)41-31(23)35-37(39,29(21)33(25)48-35)9-11-42(27)17-19-1-2-19/h5-8,19-20,27-28,35-36,41,44-47H,1-4,9-18H2/t27-,28-,35+,36+,37+,38+,39-,40-/m1/s1

(1S,2S,7S,8S,12R,20R,24R,32R)-11,33-bis(cyclopropylmethyl)-19,25-dioxa-11,22,33-triazaundecacyclo[24.9.1.18,14.01,24.02,32.04,23.05,21.07,12.08,20.030,36.018,37]heptatriaconta-4(23),5(21),14(37),15,17,26,28,30(36)-octaene-2,7,17,27-tetrol

Norbinaltorphimine; nor-Binaltorphimine; 105618-26-6; Nor-bni; NorBNI; UNII-36OOQ86QM1; Nor-Binaltorphamine; 36OOQ86QM1;

2934.99.9001

Powder      -20°C    3 years

                     4°C     2 years

In solvent   -80°C    6 months

                  -20°C    1 month

Room temperature (This product is stable at ambient temperature for a few days during ordinary shipping and time spent in Customs)

May dissolve in DMSO (in most cases), if not, try other solvents such as H2O, Ethanol, or DMF with a minute amount of products to avoid loss of samples

Note: Listed below are some common formulations that may be used to formulate products with low water solubility (e.g. < 1 mg/mL), you may test these formulations using a minute amount of products to avoid loss of samples.

---

Injection Formulation 1: DMSO : Tween 80： Saline = 10 : 5 : 85 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO stock solution → 50 μL Tween 80 → 850 μL Saline)
*Preparation of saline: Dissolve 0.9 g of sodium chloride in 100 mL ddH ₂ O to obtain a clear solution.
Injection Formulation 2: DMSO : PEG300 ：Tween 80 : Saline = 10 : 40 : 5 : 45 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 400 μLPEG300 → 50 μL Tween 80 → 450 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 3: DMSO : Corn oil = 10 : 90 (i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 900 μL Corn oil)
Example: Take the Injection Formulation 3 (DMSO : Corn oil = 10 : 90) as an example, if 1 mL of 2.5 mg/mL working solution is to be prepared, you can take 100 μL 25 mg/mL DMSO stock solution and add to 900 μL corn oil, mix well to obtain a clear or suspension solution (2.5 mg/mL, ready for use in animals).

View More

Injection Formulation 4: DMSO : 20% SBE-β-CD in saline = 10 : 90 [i.e. 100 μL DMSO → 900 μL (20% SBE-β-CD in saline)]
*Preparation of 20% SBE-β-CD in Saline (4°C，1 week): Dissolve 2 g SBE-β-CD in 10 mL saline to obtain a clear solution.
Injection Formulation 5: 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin : Saline = 50 : 50 (i.e. 500 μL 2-Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin → 500 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 6: DMSO : PEG300 : castor oil : Saline = 5 : 10 : 20 : 65 (i.e. 50 μL DMSO → 100 μLPEG300 → 200 μL castor oil → 650 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 7: Ethanol : Cremophor : Saline = 10： 10 : 80 (i.e. 100 μL Ethanol → 100 μL Cremophor → 800 μL Saline)
Injection Formulation 8: Dissolve in Cremophor/Ethanol (50 : 50), then diluted by Saline
Injection Formulation 9: EtOH : Corn oil = 10 : 90 (i.e. 100 μL EtOH → 900 μL Corn oil)
Injection Formulation 10: EtOH : PEG300：Tween 80 : Saline = 10 : 40 : 5 : 45 (i.e. 100 μL EtOH → 400 μLPEG300 → 50 μL Tween 80 → 450 μL Saline)

---

Oral Formulation 1: Suspend in 0.5% CMC Na (carboxymethylcellulose sodium)
Oral Formulation 2: Suspend in 0.5% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Example: Take the Oral Formulation 1 (Suspend in 0.5% CMC Na) as an example, if 100 mL of 2.5 mg/mL working solution is to be prepared, you can first prepare 0.5% CMC Na solution by measuring 0.5 g CMC Na and dissolve it in 100 mL ddH2O to obtain a clear solution; then add 250 mg of the product to 100 mL 0.5% CMC Na solution, to make the suspension solution (2.5 mg/mL, ready for use in animals).

View More

Oral Formulation 3: Dissolved in PEG400
Oral Formulation 4: Suspend in 0.2% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Oral Formulation 5: Dissolve in 0.25% Tween 80 and 0.5% Carboxymethyl cellulose
Oral Formulation 6: Mixing with food powders

---

Note: Please be aware that the above formulations are for reference only. InvivoChem strongly recommends customers to read literature methods/protocols carefully before determining which formulation you should use for in vivo studies, as different compounds have different solubility properties and have to be formulated differently.

---

 (Please use freshly prepared in vivo formulations for optimal results.)