“The function of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor in the brain has long been a matter of debate. In this issue of Neuron, Stempel et al. (2016) describe a mechanism whereby endocannabinoid production leads to a cell-intrinsic hyperpolarization that controls self activity.”
“Cannabinoid CB1 receptor, the molecular target of endocannabinoids and cannabis active components, is one of the most abundant metabotropic receptors in the brain. Cannabis is widely used for both recreational and medicinal purposes.
Despite the ever-growing fundamental roles of microRNAs in the brain, the possible molecular connections between the CB1 receptor and microRNAs are surprisingly unknown. Here, by using reporter gene constructs that express interaction sequences for microRNAs in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells, we show that CB1 receptor activation enhances the expression of several microRNAs, including let-7d.
Taken together, these findings provide the first evidence for a bidirectional link between the CB1 receptor and a microRNA, namely let-7d, and thus unveil a new player in the complex process of cannabinoid action.”
“Starting from the chemical structure of phytocannabinoids, isolated from Cannabis sativa plant, research groups designed numerous cannabimimetic drugs.
These compounds according to their activities can be partial, full agonists and antagonists of cannabinoid receptors.
Anecdotal reports and scientific studies described beneficial properties of cannabinoids and their derivatives in several pathological conditions like neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders, and in many other diseases ranging from cancer, atherosclerosis, stroke, hypertension, inflammatory related disorders, and autoimmune diseases.
The cannabinoid CB1 receptor was considered particularly interesting for therapeutic approaches in neurological diseases, because primarily expressed by neurons of the central nervous system. In many experimental models, these drugs act via this receptor, however, CB1 receptor independent mechanisms have been also described. Furthermore, endogenous ligands of cannabinoid receptors, the endocannabinoids, are potent modulators of the synaptic function in the brain. In neurological diseases, numerous studies reported modulation of the levels of endocannabinoids according to the phase of the disease and its progression.
Finally, although the study of the mechanisms of action of these compounds is still unsolved, many reports and patents strongly suggest therapeutic potential of these compounds in neurological diseases.”
“The present study focused on inhibitory activity of freshly extracted essential oils from three legal (THC<0.2% w/v) hemp varieties (Carmagnola, Fibranova and Futura) on microbial growth.
The effect of different sowing times on oil composition and biological activity was also evaluated. Essential oils were distilled and then characterized through the gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Thereafter, the oils were compared to standard reagents on a broad range inhibition of microbial growth via minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. Microbial strains were divided into three groups: i) Gram (+) bacteria, which regard to food-borne pathogens or gastrointestinal bacteria, ii) Gram (-) bacteria and iii) yeasts, both being involved in plant interactions.
The results showed that essential oils of industrial hemp can significantly inhibit the microbial growth, to an extent depending on variety and sowing time.
It can be concluded that essential oils of industrial hemp, especially those of Futura, may have interesting applications to control spoilage and food-borne pathogens and phytopathogens microorganisms.”
“In vitro antimicrobial studies were conducted with aqueous, ethanolic and Petroleum ether extracts of the leaves of Cannabis sativa L. The acidic fraction was obtained from the ethanolic extract and 2% Sodium Hydroxide extract. Ethanolic extract, petroleum ether extract and the acidic fraction exhibited activity both against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and also against the fungi used in the study. The aqueous extract however, did not show any antimicrobial activity.”
“The endocannabinoid system consists in a family of lipids that binds to and activates cannabinoid receptors. There are two receptors so far described, the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and 2 (CB2).
In the context of pregnancy, the endocannabinoid system was shown participates in different key aspects of reproductive events. B-lymphocytes are pleiotropic cells belonging to the adaptive arm of the immune system. Besides immunoglobulin production, B-lymphocytes were recently shown to be actively involved in antigen presentation as well as cytokine production, thus playing a central role in immunity.
In this study we first aimed to characterize the expression of CB1 and CB2 receptors in B cells during pregnancy and then analyze the impact of their activation in term of cytokine production by B cells from pregnant and non-pregnant mice.
We observed that the expression of CB1 and CB2 receptors in B-lymphocytes is differentially regulated during pregnancy. While CB2 expression is down regulated CB1 is augmented in B-lymphocytes of pregnant mice.
Additionally, the treatment of activated B-lymphocytes with specific CB1 and CB2 agonists, showed a different response in term of cytokine production. Particularly, CB1 against boosted the production of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 by activated B-lymphocytes from pregnant mice.”
“BETWEEN 1840 and 1900, European and American medical journals published more than 100 articles on the therapeutic use of the drug known then as Cannabis indica (or Indian hemp) and now as marihuana.
It was recommended as an appetite stimulant, muscle relaxant, analgesic, hypnotic, and anticonvulsant. As late as 1913 Sir William Osler recommended it as the most satisfactory remedy for migraine.
Today the 5000-year medical history of cannabis has been almost forgotten.
Its use declined in the early 20th century because the potency of preparations was variable, responses to oral ingestion were erratic, and alternatives became available—injectable opiates and, later, synthetic drugs such as aspirin and barbiturates.
In the United States, the final blow was struck by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Designed to prevent nonmedical use, this law made cannabis so difficult to obtain for medical purposes that it was removed from the pharmacopeia.”
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=388943#Abstract
“A new study evaluated the expected outcomes of both synthetic and natural marijuana.
An article entitled “Comparison of Outcome Expectancies for Synthetic Cannabinoids and Botanical Marijuana,” from The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, studied the expected outcomes of both synthetic and natural marijuana.
186 adults who had previously used both synthetic and natural marijuana, as well as 181 who had previously used only botanical marijuana, were surveyed about their expected outcomes of using either type of cannabinoid.
The results showed that the expected negative effects were significantly higher for synthetic marijuana than for natural marijuana across both categories of use history.
Despite the more commonly expected negative effects of synthetic cannabinoids, the most cited reasons for using these compounds were wider availability, avoiding a positive drug test, curiosity, perceived legality, and cost.
Authors concluded, “Given growing public acceptance of recreational and medical marijuana, coupled with negative perceptions and increasing regulation of synthetic cannabinoid compounds, botanical marijuana is likely to remain more available and more popular than synthetic cannabinoids.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081800.htm
Story Source:
“Although initially developed for medical purposes, synthetic cannabinoids have also been consumed for recreational purposes.
To evaluate whether agreement with positive and negative outcome expectancies differed for synthetic cannabinoids versus botanical marijuana, and assess reported reasons for using synthetic cannabinoids.
A significant interaction revealed that participants who had used both synthetic cannabinoids and botanical marijuana indicated lower agreement with positive expectancies for synthetic cannabinoids, and higher agreement with positive expectancies for botanical marijuana, than did those participants who used only botanical marijuana.
There was no interaction between type of drug and use history on agreement with negative expectancies, and participants agreed more strongly with negative outcome expectancies for synthetic cannabinoids than for botanical marijuana whether they had used one or both types of these drugs.
The most frequently provided reasons for using synthetic cannabinoids included availability, perceived legality, cost, curiosity, and social interaction.