Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPARγ) has been reported to be involved in the etiology of pathological features of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Cannabidiol (CBD), a Cannabis derivative devoid of psychomimetic effects, has attracted much attention because of its promising neuroprotective properties in rat AD models, even though the mechanism responsible for such actions remains unknown. This study was aimed at exploring whether CBD effects could be subordinate to its activity at PPARγ, which has been recently indicated as its putative binding site. CBD actions on β-amyloid-induced neurotoxicity in rat AD models, either in presence or absence of PPAR antagonists were investigated. Results showed that the blockade of PPARγ was able to significantly blunt CBD effects on reactive gliosis and subsequently on neuronal damage. Moreover, due to its interaction at PPARγ, CBD was observed to stimulate hippocampal neurogenesis. All these findings report the inescapable role of this receptor in mediating CBD actions, here reported.

The new coronavirus, classified as SARS‐CoV‐2 that emerged in Hubei province in China, causes a new coronavirus disease, which was termed COVID‐19 by WHO on February 11, 2020. COVID‐19 claimed almost 19000 lives around the world by March 25, 2020

Objective Enteric glia activation has been reported to amplify intestinal inflammation via the enteroglial-specific S100B protein. This neurotrophin promotes macrophage recruitment in the mucosa, amplify colonic inflammation and interacts with toll-like receptors (TLR). Molecules inhibiting S100B-driven enteric activation might mitigate the course of ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aims to investigate the effects of palmitoylethanolammide (PEA), a drug able to counteract astroglial activation in the central nervous system, on intestinal inflammation, in humans and mice. Design Mouse models of dextran sodium sulphate (DSS)-induced colitis, colonic biopsies deriving from UC patients and primary cultures of mouse and human enteric glial cells (EGC), have been used to assess the effects of PEA, alone or in the presence of specific PPARα or PPARγ antagonists, on: macroscopic signs of UC (DAI score, colon length, spleen weight, macrophages/neutrophils infiltration); the expression and release of proinflammatory markers typical of UC; TLR pathway in EGCs. Results PEA treatment improves all macroscopic signs of UC and decreases the expression and release of all the proinflammatory markers tested. PEA anti-inflammatory effects are mediated by the selective targeting of the S100B/TLR4 axis on ECG, causing a downstream inhibition of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB)-dependent inflammation. Antagonists at PPARα, but not PPARγ, abolished PEA effects, in mice and in humans. Conclusions Because of its lack of toxicity, its ability in reducing inflammation and its selective PPARα action, PEA might be an innovative molecule to broaden pharmacological strategies against UC.