Skip to main content
Log in

Honokiol and Magnolol Increase the Number of [3H]Muscimol Binding Sites Three-Fold in Rat Forebrain Membranes In Vitro Using a Filtration Assay, by Allosterically Increasing the Affinities of Low-Affinity Sites

  • Published:
Neurochemical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

1. The bark of the root and stem of various Magnolia species has been used in Traditional Chinese Medicine to treat a variety of disorders including anxiety and nervous disturbances. The biphenolic compounds honokiol (H) and magnolol (M), the main components of the Chinese medicinal plant Magnolia officinalis, interact with GABAA receptors in rat brain in vitro. We compared the effects of H and M on [3H]muscimol (MUS) and [3H]flunitrazepam (FNM) binding using EDTA/water dialyzed rat brain membranes in a buffer containing 150 mM NaCl plus 5 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5 as well as [35S]t-butylbicyclophosphorothionate (TBPS) in 200 mM KBr plus 5 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5. H and M had similar enhancing effects on [3H]MUS as well as on [3H]FNM binding to rat brain membrane preparations, but H was 2.5 to 5.2 times more potent than M. 2. [ 3 H]FNM binding. GABA alone almost doubled [3H]FNM binding with EC50 = 450 nM and 200 nM using forebrain and cerebellar membranes, respectively. In the presence of 5 μM H or M the EC50 values for GABA were decreased to 79 and 89 nM, respectively, using forebrain, and 39 and 78 nM, using cerebellar membranes. H and M potently enhanced the potentiating effect of 200 nM GABA on [3H]FNM binding with EC50 values of 0.61 μM and 1.6 μM using forebrain membranes, with maximal enhancements of 33 and 47%, respectively. Using cerebellar membranes, the corresponding values were 0.25 and 1.1 μM, and 22 and 34%. 3. [ 3 H]MUS binding. H and M increased [3H]MUS binding to whole forebrain membranes about 3-fold with EC50 values of 6.0 and 15 μM. Using cerebellar membranes, H and M increased [3H]MUS binding ~68% with EC50 values of 2.3 and 12 μM, respectively. Scatchard analysis revealed that the enhancements of [3H]MUS binding were due primarily to increases in the number of binding sites (Bmax values) with no effect on the high affinity binding constants (Kd values). The enhancing effect of H and M were not additive. 4. [ 35 S]TBPS binding. H and M displaced [35S]TBPS binding from sites on whole rat forebrain membranes with IC50 values of 7.8 and 6.0 μM, respectively. Using cerebellar membranes, the corresponding IC50 values were 5.3 and 4.8 μM. These inhibitory effects were reversed by the potent GABAA receptor blocker R5135 (10 nM), suggesting that H and M allosterically increase the affinity of GABAA receptors for GABA and MUS by binding to sites in GABAA receptor complexes. 5. Two monophenols, the anesthetic propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol, P) and the anti-inflammatory diflunisal (2′,4′-difluoro-4-hydroxy-3-biphenyl carboxylic acid, D) also enhanced [3H]MUS binding, decreased the EC50 values for GABA in enhancing [3H]FNM binding and potentiated the enhancing effect of 200 nM GABA on [3H]FNM binding, although enhancements of [3H]MUS binding for these monophenols were smaller than those for H and M, using forebrain and cerebellar membranes. The enhancing effect of P and D on [3H]MUS binding were almost completely additive. 2,2′-biphenol was inactive on [3H]MUS and [3H]FNM binding. These, and other preliminary experiments, suggest that appropriate ortho (C2) and para (C4) substitution increases the GABA-potentiating activity of phenols. 6. The potentiation of GABAergic neurotransmission by H and M is probably involved in their previously reported anxiolytic and central depressant effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Chan, K. 1995. Progress in traditional Chinese medicine. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 16:182–187.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Clark, A. M. 1996. Natural products as a resource for new drugs. Pharmaceut. Res. 13:1133–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ding, Y., and He, X. 1986. Traditional Chinese herbs in treatment of neurological and neurosurgical disorders. Can. J. Neural. Sci. 13:210–213.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shen, M. L. 1983. The contribution of traditional Chinese medicine to modern pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 4:496–500.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, Z. T., Ng, T. B., and Xu, G. J. 1995. Recent advances in pharmacognosy research in China. Gen. Pharmacol. 26:1221–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Xiao, P. 1983. Recent developments on medicinal plants in China. J. Ethnopharm. 7:95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Farnsworth, N. R. 1993. Ethnopharmacology and future drug development: The North American experience. J. Ethnopharmacol. 38:145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fujita, M., Itokawa, H., and Sashida, Y. 1972. Honokiol, a new phenolic compound isolated from the bark of Magnolia Obovata Thunb. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 20:212–213.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sarker, S. D. 1997. Biological activity of magnolol: A review. Fitoterapia, LXVIII:3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Watanabe, K., Watanabe, H., Goto, Y., and Yamaguchi, M. 1983. Pharmacological properties of magnolol and honokiol extracted from magnolia officinales: central depressant effects. Planta. Med. 49:103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maruyama, Y., Kuribara, H., Morita, M., Yuzurihara, M., and Weintraub, S. 1998. Identification of magnolol and honokiol as anxiolytic agents in extracts of Saiboku-to, an oriental herbal medicine. J. Nat. Prod. 61:135–138.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai, T. H., Westly, J., Lee, T. F., Chen, C. F., and Wang, L. C. H. 1995. Effects of honokiol and magnolol on acetycholine release from rat hippocampal slices. Planta. Med. 61:477–479.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tsai, T. H., Westly, J., Lee, T. F., Chen, C. F., and Wang, L. C. H. 1995. Modulatory effects of magnolol on potassium-stimulated 5-hydroxytryptamine release from rat cortical and hippocampal slices. Neurosci. Lett. 186:49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nielsen, M., Witt, M. R., and Thøgersen, H. 1988. [3H]Diazepam specific binding to rat cortex in vitro is enhanced by oleic, arachidonic and docosahexenoic acid isolated from pig brain. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 146:349–353.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Witt, M. R., Westh-Hansen, S. E., Rasmussen, P. B., Hastrup, S., and Nielsen, M. 1996. Unsaturated free fatty acids increase benzodiazepine receptor agonist binding depending on the subunit composition of the GABAA receptor complex. J. Neurochem. 67:2141–2145.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ai, J., Dekermendjian, K., Wang, X., Nielsen, M., and Witt, M. R. 1997. 6-methylflavone, a benzodiazepine receptor ligand with antagonistic properties on rat brain and human recombinant GABAA receptors in vitro. Drug Dev. Res. 41:99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Squires, R. F., and Saederup, E. 1982. γ-Aminobutyric acid receptors modulate cation binding sites coupled to independent benzodiazepine, picrotoxin, and anion binding sites. Mol. Pharmacol. 22:327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Squires, R. F., Casida, J. E., Richardson, M., and Saederup, E. 1983. [35S]-t-Butylbicyclophosphorothionate binds with high affinity to brain-specific sites coupled to γ-aminobutyric acid-A and ion recognition sites. Mol. Pharmacol. 23:326–336.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Squires, R. F., and Saederup, E. 1999. Clozapine's antipsychotic effects do not depend on blockade of 5-HT3 receptors. Neurochem. Res. 24:659–667.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Login, I. S., Pal, S. H., Adams, D. T., and Gold, P. E. 1998. Muscimol increases acetylcholine release by directly stimulating adult striatal cholinergic interneurons. Brain Res. 779:33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kuribara, H., Stavinoha, W. B., and Maruyama, Y. 1999. Honokiol, a putative anxiolytic agent extracted from magnolia bark, has no diazepam-like side-effects in mice. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 51:97–103.

    Google Scholar 

  22. McKernan, R., and Whiting, P. J. 1996. Which GABAA-receptor subtypes really occur in the brain? Trends Neurosci. 19:139–143.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sieghart, W. 1995. Structure and pharmacology of γ-aminobutyric acidA receptor subtypes. Pharmacol. Rev. 47:181–234.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnston, G. A. R. 1996. GABAA receptor pharmacology. Pharmacol. Ther. 69:173–198.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rabow, L. E., Russek, S., and Farb, K. H. 1995. From ion currents to genomic analysis: Recent advances in GABAA receptor research. Synapse 21:189–274.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kerr, D. I. B., and Ong, J. 1992. GABA agonists and antagonists. Med. Res. Rev. 12:593–636.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ai, J., Dekermendjian, K., Nielsen, M., and Witt, M. R. 1997. The heteroyohimbine mayumbine binds with high affinity to rat brain benzodiazepine receptors in vitro. Nat. Prod. Lett. 11:73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ai, J., Dekermendjian, K., Sterner, O., Nielsen, M., and Witt, M. R. 1997. Compounds isolated from medicinal plants as ligands for benzodiazepine receptors. Recent Adv. Phytochem. 1:365–385.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dekermendjian, K., Ai, J., Nielsen, M., Sterner, O., Shan, R., and Witt, M. R. 1996. Characterisation of furanocoumarin phellopterin as a rat brain benzodiazepine receptor partial agonist in vitro. Neurosci. Lett. 219:151–154.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Medina, J. H., Viola, H., Wolfman, C., Marder, M., Wasowske, C., Calvo, D., and Paladini, A. C. 1997. Overview-Flavonoids: A new family of benzodiazepine receptor ligands. Neurochem. Res. 22:419–425.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ebert, B., Frølund, B., Diemer, N. H., and Krogsgaard-Larsen, P. 1999. Equilibrium binding characteristics of [3H]thiomuscimol. Neurochem. Int. 34:427–434.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Asano, T., and Ogasawara, N. 1981. Chloride-dependent stimulation of GABA and benzodiazepine receptor binding by pentobarbital. Brain Res. 225:212–216.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Olsen, R. W., and Snowman, A. M. 1982. Chloride-dependent enhancement by barbiturates of γ-aminobutyric acid receptor binding. J. Neurosci. 2:1812–1823.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Peters, J. A., Kirkness, E. F., Callachan, H., Lambert, J. J., and Turner, A. J. 1988. Modulation of the GABAA receptor by depressant barbiturates and pregnane steroids. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 94:1257–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jussofie, A., Schmiz, A., and Hiemke, C. 1994. Kavapyrone enriched extract from Piper methysticum as modulator of the GABA binding site in different regions of rat brain. Psychopharmacology 116:469–474.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Woodward, R. M., Polenzani, L., and Miledi, R. 1994. Effects of fenamates and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on rat brain GABAA receptors expressed in xenopus oocytes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 268:806–817.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hasan, Z. A., and Woolley, D. E. 1999. The short-acting anesthetic propofol produces biphasic effects — depression and withdrawal rebound overshoot — on some (but not all) limbic evoked potentials in the behaving rat. Brain Res. 818:51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Trapani, G., Latrofa, A., Franco, M., Altomare, C., Sanna, E., Usala, M., Biggio, G., and Liso, G. 1998. Propofol analogues. Synthesis, relationships between structure and affinity at GABAA receptor in rat brain, and differential electrophysiological profile at recombinant human GABAA receptors. J. Med. Chem. 41:1846–1854.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nielsen, N., Frøkjaer, S., and Braestrup, C. 1988. High affinity of the naturally-occurring biflavonoid, amentoflavon, to brain benzodiazepine receptors in vitro. Biochem. Pharmacol. 37:3285–3287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Squires, R.F., Ai, J., Witt, MR. et al. Honokiol and Magnolol Increase the Number of [3H]Muscimol Binding Sites Three-Fold in Rat Forebrain Membranes In Vitro Using a Filtration Assay, by Allosterically Increasing the Affinities of Low-Affinity Sites. Neurochem Res 24, 1593–1602 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021116502548

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021116502548

Navigation