The opioid receptors are important regulators of pain, reward, and addiction. Limited evidence suggests the mu and delta opioid receptors form a heterodimer (MDOR), which may act as a negative feedback brake on opioid-induced analgesia. However, evidence for the MDOR in vivo is indirect and limited, and there are few selective tools available. We recently published the first MDOR-selective antagonist, D24M, allowing us to test the role of the MDOR in mice. We thus cotreated CD-1 mice with D24M and opioids in tail flick, paw incision, and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy pain models. D24M treatment enhanced oxymorphone antinociception in all models by 54.7% to 628%. This enhancement could not be replicated with the mu and delta selective antagonists CTAP, naltrindole, and naloxonazine, and D24M had a mild transient effect in the rotarod test, suggesting this increase is selective to the MDOR. However, D24M had no effect on morphine or buprenorphine, suggesting that only specific opioids interact with the MDOR. To find a mechanism, we performed phosphoproteomic analysis on brainstems of mice. We found that the kinases Src and CaMKII were repressed by oxymorphone, which was restored by D24M. We were able to confirm the role of Src and CaMKII in D24M-enhanced antinociception using small molecule inhibitors (KN93 and Src-I1). Together, these results provide direct in vivo evidence that the MDOR acts as an opioid negative feedback brake, which occurs through the repression of Src and CaMKII signal transduction. These results further suggest that MDOR antagonism could be a means to improve clinical opioid therapy.

Beneficial effects of pressure therapy for hypertrophic scars have been reported, but the mechanisms of action are not fully understood. This study evaluated elastin and its contribution to scar pliability. The relationship between changes in Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores of pressure-treated scars and differential regulation of elastin was assessed. Hypertrophic scars were created and assessed weekly using VSS and biopsy procurement. Pressure treatment began on day 70 postinjury. Treated scars were compared with untreated shams. Treatment lasted 2 weeks, through day 84, and scars were assessed weekly through day 126. Transcript and protein levels of elastin were quantified. Pressure treatment resulted in lower VSS scores compared with sham-treated scars. Pliability (VSSP) was a key contributor to this difference. At day 70 pretreatment, VSSP = 2. Without treatment, sham-treated scars became less pliable, while pressure-treated scars became more pliable. The percentage of elastin in scars at day 70 was higher than in uninjured skin. Following treatment, the percentage of elastin increased and continued to increase through day 126. Untreated sham scars did not show a similar increase. Quantification of Verhoeff–Van Gieson staining corroborated the findings and immunofluorescence revealed the alignment of elastin fibers. Pressure treatment results in increased protein level expression of elastin compared with sham-untreated scars. These findings further characterize the extracellular matrix’s response to the application of pressure as a scar treatment, which will contribute to the refinement of rehabilitation practices and ultimately improvements in functional and psychosocial outcomes for patients.

The MC4R, a GPCR, has long been a major target for obesity treatment. As the most well‐studied melanocortin receptor subtype, the evolutionary knowledge pushes the drug development and structure–activity relationship (SAR) moving forward. The past decades have witnessed the evolution of scientists' view on GPCRs gradually from the control of a single canonical signalling pathway via a bilateral ‘active‐inactive’ model to a multi‐state alternative model where the ligands' binding affects the selection of the downstream signalling. This evolution brings the concept of biased signalling and the beginning of the next generation of peptide drug development, with the aim of turning from receptor subtype specificity to signalling pathway selectivity. The determination of the value structures of the MC4R revealed insights into the working mechanism of MC4R activation upon binding of agonists. However, new challenge has risen as we seek to unravel the mystery of MC4R signalling selection. Thus, more biased agonists and ligands with representative biological functions are needed to solve the rest of the puzzle.