IntroductionSynthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) are a diverse class of new psychoactive substances that have been associated with multiple instances and types of toxicity. Some SCRAs appear to carry a greater toxicological burden than others, or compared to the prototypical cannabis-derived agonist Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), despite a common primary mechanism of action via cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptors. “Off-target” (i.e., non-CB1 receptor) effects could underpin this differential toxicity, although there are limited data around the activity of SCRAs at such targets.MethodsA selection of 7 SCRAs (AMB-FUBINACA, XLR11, PB-22, AKB-48, AB-CHMINICA, CUMYL-PINACA, and 4F-MDMB-BUTINACA), representing several distinct chemotypes and toxicological profiles, underwent a 30 μM single-point screen against 241 G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) targets in antagonist and agonist mode using a cellular β-arrestin recruitment assay. Strong screening “hits” at specific GPCRs were followed up in detail using concentration-response assays with AMB-FUBINACA, a SCRA with a particularly notable history of toxicological liability.ResultsThe single-point screen yielded few hits in agonist mode for any compound aside from CB1 and CB2 receptors, but many hits in antagonist mode, including a range of chemokine receptors, the oxytocin receptor, and histamine receptors. Concentration-response experiments showed that AMB-FUBINACA inhibited most off-targets only at the highest 30 μM concentration, with inhibition of only a small subset of targets, including H1 histamine and α2B adrenergic receptors, at lower concentrations (≥1 μM). AMB-FUBINACA also produced concentration-dependent CB1 receptor signaling disruption at concentrations higher than 1 μM, but did not produce overt cytotoxicity beyond CP55,940 or Δ9-THC in CB1 expressing cells.DiscussionThese results suggest that while some “off-targets” could possibly contribute to the SCRA toxidrome, particularly at high concentrations, CB1-mediated cellular dysfunction provides support for hypotheses concerning on-target, rather than off-target, toxicity. Further investigation of non-GPCR off-targets is warranted.