Talk:Cannabinoids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cannabinoids is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] note

in section "Cannabinoids",

the sentence on reversible binding and stereoselectivity should be explained in more lay terms
are all of these insoluble in water and soluble in fats, alcohols, etc?

in section "Herbal cannabinoids",

"21 carbon compounds": do you simply mean that they contain 21 carbon atoms?

Also, the chemical discussion here is written such that it might be general, abo ut all cannabinoids, not just the herbal ones. is this correct or not?

- Centrx 22:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New antidepressant drug increases 'brain's own cannabis'

http://www.eurekalert.org.nyud.net:8090/pub_releases/2005-12/mu-nad121305.php

Someone with more experience in this subject ought to add information regarding synthetic THC analogues. In particular, THC-V seems interesting because it is 500 times more potent than THC (on the order of LSD's potency). http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/thc/index.html

[edit] Deficiency?

I've heard some talk about "endo-cannabinoid deficiency" as a possible syndrome similar to chronic fatigue (or other symptoms, depending on whom you ask) ... Is this a real working medical hypothesis, or just some wishful thinking by potheads? Google doesn't turn up much on the subject, however that in itself doesn't mean it's not true... Rainman420 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a real theory put forward by (presumably not pot-head) scientists. Here is a link to the abstract for a review paper in which cannabinoid deficiency syndrome is proposed: [[1]]. That said, it is still in an infant theory stage, and needs to be tested. Just as an FYI, a good place to look for information on this kind of thing (as long as it is biomedically related) is PubMed[[2]]. Hope this helps! --MudPhud 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THC synthesis pathway: reference needed

The article currently states: " Due to molecular similarity and ease of synthetic conversion, it was originally believed that CBD was a natural precursor to THC. However, it is now known that CBD and THC are produced independently in the cannabis plant. "

Mahlberg and Kim (http://www.hempreport.com/issues/17/malbody17.html) state "Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is derived from CBD." This is supported by the following reference: Lanyon, V., J. Turner and P. G. Mahlberg. 1981. Quantitative analysis of cannabinoids in the secretory product from capitate-stalked glands of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). Bot. Gaz. 142:316-319.

Hillig and Mahlberg (2004 http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966) state that "Cannabigerol (CBG) is the direct precursor of cannabichromene (CBC), cannabidiol (CBD), and 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Taura et al., 1995 , 1996  ; Morimoto et al., 1997)." This does not explicitly state that CBD is never a precursor to THC. Perhaps the cited material does make that statement, but if that is the case, then it should be explained in the article, with appropriate citation. Chondrite 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percents and times

This article said that HU-210 is 100-800 times as powerful as THC. the HU-210 article says it's 100-800 percent more powerful! Which is it? I brought this article in line with the "main" one (i.e., HU-210), but couldn't find any confirmation one way or the other in independent sources. Then again, I'm not a biochemist. Anyone? --tgeller 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


i've read that it was sold on a pharaceutical research chemical website and it said it was 100x as potent i believe. yes, here is the link: http://www.marijuana.org/mydna10-12-05.htm

[edit] This article should be divided

This article is too large. It mainly deals with natural compounds of the cannabis plant and many of the compounds mentioned in the Table of natural cannabinoids does not bind to the cannabinoid receptors. In the scientific literature the term cannabinoid includes all chemicals that bind to the cannabinoid receptors (natural and synthetic cannabinoids, cannabinoid agonists and antagonists, like rimonabant). Synthetic cannabinoids are much more potent than natural ones. Synthetic cannabinoids are important research tools and many of them have been shown to have therapetic potential and are in drug development, which makes them more interesting and important than natural cannabinoids. I suggest that this article will be divited into sections:

  • Natural cannabinoids (of the cannabis plant)
  • Synthetic cannabinoids
  • Endocannabinoids

--Tanevala 15:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, SqueakBox 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Readable prose at Cannabinoid is approximately 20K, and so by article size guidelines it should not be split. There's plenty of room to expand the article before a split is needed. Chondrite 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabinoids and parkinson

Hello, i would like to ask is it true that cannabis help against parkinson disease? sources: [3] [4] I would like to know if it is real or false facts. Thanks for answers.

[edit] Merge

I Oppose the merge on the grounds that cannabinoids are a sufficiently large category of drug to warrant their own article separate from the endocanainoid system. --Selket Talk 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the page to discuss the merging-I oppose

if someone wants to point out the lack of valid point in legislature (what would be the only reason for merging I can think of) then there are (I assume) articles dealing with this specific issue Okyea 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I OPPOSE the cannabinoids themselves should be LINKED to the endogenous system page yes but merged, definitely not. Too large and sufficiently different in content (i assume based on knowledge of the system i have not checked the article)

Opposed- This article is about chemicals not systems. Ccroberts 04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I Oppose the merge for the reasons already stated - there's far too much non-overlapping information. St3vo 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose it also, even though they are closely linked in scope. Perhaps a for further information tag should be placed. Rhetth 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. I put a "Details" link in the lead of the "Endocannabinoid" section and summed up the Endocannabinoid System article as well as I could. Does that satisfy everyone re: the proposed merge?St3vo 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclidization

What is meant by the second column in the table of natural cannabinoids. What are they meant to illustrate? Whats up with the unpaired oxygen? Is it negativly charged or what?

130.237.94.106 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just the carbon-oxygen backbone (the connectivity) of the molecules to illustrate the cyclization pattern. Real chemical structures are give for the compounds itself. Cacycle 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBD is psychoactive

Anything that crosses the BBB is psychoactive. CBD certainly does. In the same paragraph that the article says it doesn't the article reads "Medically, it appears to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea. CBD has a greater affinity for the CB2 receptor than for the CB1 receptor. It is perceived to have more effect on the body." So how is not psychoactive? All of the other cannabinoids are too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.191.186 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everything that crosses the blood-brain barrier is NOT psychoactive. I suggest that you read the article psychoactive drug. Only anxiety effects would count as psychoactive effects, but this is nothing that you could easily notice, and definitely not the kind of psychoactivity of THC. Almost all cannabinoids are not known to be psychoactive. Cacycle 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The intro paragraph should be re-written -- too influenced by the weed

When I read the intro paragraph, I think that cannabinoids refer to the reefer, and that isn't entirely correct. Unless there's some major opposition, I'm going to re-write it to reflect the edogenous and exogenous nature of the chemical. Rhetth 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THC-C4

Is THC-C4, the analogue of THC with a four carbon chain instead of five, be agonistic, antagonistic or not active at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.0.62 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other CB sources?

Can any chemists here verify that jalapeño peppers are also a natural source of many CB compounds? --Renice (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true; to my knowledge, the only natural source of phytocannabinoids is cannabis (see Di Marzo, et al. 1998). However, many cannabinoid compounds such as anandamide and THC are also active at TRPV1, the receptor for capsaicin (the chemical responsible for the "spice" of hot peppers such as the jalapeño). Does that help? St3vo (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I may be confused about the receptors of the endo-CB system. Is TRPV1 part of that system? thanks --Renice (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
TRPV1 is not considered part of the eCB system, but rather the endovanilloid system. That said, the systems overlap quite a bit in distribution and ligands (in fact, the first endogenous TRPV1 ligand was the endocannabinoid anandamide). For a good review, see Starowicz, Nigam, and Di Marzo, 2007. St3vo (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CBD Contradiction

"Cannabidiol

Medically, it appears to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea.[citation needed] CBD has a greater affinity for the CB2 receptor than for the CB1 receptor. It is perceived to have more effect on the body.[citation needed]"

Yet in the cannabidiol article, it says that it does not bind to either receptor.

Comrinec (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a scientific term for butane extracted cannabinoids?

As there is with isocannabinoids? Or any information on what these molecules look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmologyProfessor (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter how cannabinoids are extracted, they do not change their structure. You just get less other contaminants in your complex mixture. Cacycle (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Isocannabinoid molecules look completely different than cannabinoids and I believe they have a different psychoactive effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmologyProfessor (talk • contribs) 06:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)