Pharmacological and genetic manipulations at the µ-opioid receptor reveal arrestin-3 engagement limits analgesic tolerance and does not exacerbate respiratory depression in mice.

Opioid drugs are widely used analgesics that activate the G protein-coupled µ-opioid receptor, whose endogenous neuropeptide agonists, endorphins and enkephalins, are potent pain relievers. The therapeutic utility of opioid drugs is hindered by development of tolerance to the analgesic effects, requiring dose escalation for persistent pain control and leading to overdose and fatal respiratory distress. The prevailing hypothesis is that the intended analgesic effects of opioid drugs are mediated by µ-opioid receptor signaling to G protein, while the side-effects of respiratory depression and analgesic tolerance are caused by engagement of the receptor with the arrestin-3 protein. Consequently, opioid drug development has focused exclusively on identifying agonists devoid of arrestin-3 engagement. Here, we challenge the prevailing hypothesis with a panel of six clinically relevant opioid drugs and mice of three distinct genotypes with varying abilities to promote morphine-mediated arrestin-3 engagement. With this genetic and pharmacological approach, we demonstrate that arrestin-3 recruitment does not impact respiratory depression, and effective arrestin-3 engagement reduces, rather than exacerbates, the development of analgesic tolerance. These studies suggest that future development of safer opioids should focus on identifying opioid ligands that recruit both G protein and arrestin-3, thereby mimicking the signaling profile of most endogenous µ-opioid receptor agonists.

Set screw homogenization of murine ocular tissue, including the whole eye.

Purpose: To compare methods for homogenizing the mouse whole eye or retina for RNA extraction. Methods: We tested five homogenization techniques for the whole eye and the retina. Two established shearing techniques were a version of the Potter-Elvehjem homogenizer, which uses a plastic pellet pestle in a microfuge tube, and a Dounce homogenizer. Two modern bead-beating methods used commercially manufactured devices, the Next Advance Bullet Blender and the Qiagen TissueLyser LT. The last method involved vortex mixing multiple samples simultaneously in a buffer containing a stainless-steel set screw, a novel approach. RNA was extracted from the tissue after each technique was used. Degradation of RNA was measured with the RNA integrity number (RIN score) after electrophoresis on an Agilent BioAnalyzer RNA LabChip. Nucleic acid yields were measured with ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy in a BioTek Synergy H1 Hybrid plate reader. The purity of the nucleic acids was assessed with the mean absorbance ratio (A260/A280). The preparation time per sample was measured with a digital stopwatch. Costs of necessary consumables were calculated per ten samples. Results: The RIN scores for all homogenization methods and both tissue types ranged from 7.75±0.64 to 8.78±0.18; none were statistically significantly different. The total RNA yield per whole eye from the bead-based methods ranged from 7,700 to 9,800 ng and from 3,000 to 4,600 ng for the pellet pestle and Dounce shearing methods, respectively. The total RNA yield per retina from the bead-based methods ranged from 4,600 to 8,400 ng and from 2,200 to 7,400 ng for the pellet pestle and Dounce shearing methods, respectively. Homogenization was faster using the bead-based methods (about 15 min for ten samples) because multiple samples could be run simultaneously compared to the shearing methods that require samples be homogenized individually (about 45-60 min per ten samples). The costs in consumables for the methods tested ranged from $2.60 to $14.70 per ten samples. The major differences in overall costs come in the form of one-time equipment purchases, which can range from one hundred to thousands of dollars. The bead-based methods required less technician involvement and had less potential for sample contamination than the shearing methods. Conclusions: The purity and quality of RNA were similar across all methods for both tissue types. The novel set screw method and the two bead-based methods (bullet blender and TissueLyser) outperformed the two shearing methods (the pellet pestle and Dounce techniques) in total RNA yields for the whole eye. Although the bullet blender, TissueLyser, and set screw methods produced comparable levels of RNA yield, purity, and quality, the set screw method was less expensive. Researchers seeking the efficiency of sophisticated bead homogenization equipment without the high equipment costs might consider this novel method.