Tag Archives: Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol

A molecular basis of the therapeutic and psychoactive properties of cannabis (delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol).

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“All of the therapeutic properties of marihuana (analgesic, antiemetic, appetite stimulant, antiglaucoma) have been duplicated by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) molecule or its synthetic derivatives. Today, the molecular mechanisms of action of these compounds have led to a general understanding of the pharmacological effects of marihuana and of its therapeutic properties. These mechanisms involve the specific binding of THC to the 7-transmembrane (7TM) domain G protein-linked receptor, a molecular switch which regulates signal transduction in the cell membrane. The natural ligand of the 7TM receptor is an eicosanoid, arachidonylethanolamide (AEA), generated in the membrane and derived from arachidonic acid. THC acts as a substitute ligand to the 7TM receptor site of AEA. THC would deregulate the physiological function of the 7TM receptor and of its ligand AEA. As a result, the therapeutic effects of the drug may not be separated from its adverse psychoactive and cardiovascular effects. The binding of THC to the 7TM receptor site of AEA induces allosteric changes in the receptor sites of neurotransmitter and opiates resulting in variable interactions and pharmacological responses. The pharmacokinetics of THC with its prolonged storage in fat and its slow release result in variable and delayed pharmacological response, which precludes precise dosing to achieve timely therapeutic effects. The experimental use of THC and of its synthetic analogues, agonists, and antagonists has provided novel information in the nature of molecular signaling in the cell membrane. As a result, the relationships between allosteric receptor responsiveness, molecular configuration of proteins, and physiological regulation of cellular and organ function may be further investigated.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188105

Cannabis and endocannabinoid modulators: Therapeutic promises and challenges.

Posted on by
Reply

   “The discovery that botanical cannabinoids such as delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol exert some of their effect through binding specific cannabinoid receptor sites has led to the discovery of an endocannabinoid signaling system, which in turn has spurred research into the mechanisms of action and addiction potential of cannabis on the one hand, while opening the possibility of developing novel therapeutic agents on the other. This paper reviews current understanding of CB1, CB2, and other possible cannabinoid receptors, their arachidonic acid derived ligands (e.g. anandamide; 2 arachidonoyl glycerol), and their possible physiological roles. CB1 is heavily represented in the central nervous system, but is found in other tissues as well; CB2 tends to be localized to immune cells. Activation of the endocannabinoid system can result in enhanced or dampened activity in various neural circuits depending on their own state of activation. This suggests that one function of the endocannabinoid system may be to maintain steady state. The therapeutic action of botanical cannabis or of synthetic molecules that are agonists, antagonists, or which may otherwise modify endocannabinoid metabolism and activity indicates they may have promise as neuroprotectants, and may be of value in the treatment of certain types of pain, epilepsy, spasticity, eating disorders, inflammation, and possibly blood pressure control.”

“Marijuana and cannabinoids as medicine”

“Although references to potential medicinal properties of cannabis date to ancient times, and despite cannabis being included as a medication in Western pharmacopeias from the nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries, there is still no body of reliable information on possible indications or efficacy. In part, slow progress can be attributed to difficulties in identifying the active ingredients in cannabis; THC was not actually characterized and identified as the main psychoactive substance until 1965. The chemical properties of the cannabinoids, for example their virtual insolubility in water, and the fact that they consist of oily liquids at room temperature has posed further challenges in formulation and administration. Increased governmental concerns about the abuse potential of marijuana and hashish also created a regulatory climate in many Western countries that emphasized the negative properties of these substances and absence of any documented medicinal properties, thus discouraging research into therapeutics.”

“Cultural and attitude changes in the latter half of the twentieth century in many Western countries resulted in large groups of ‘mainstream’ adults and adolescents experimenting with marijuana. The scarcity of obvious acute serious toxic effects, and lack of consistent information on longer-term adverse effects has lead to more recent attitudinal changes in many Western societies that have re-opened the possibility of use of cannabis as a medication.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2544377/

Cannabis and the brain.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The active compound in herbal cannabis, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, exerts all of its known central effects through the CB(1) cannabinoid receptor. Research on cannabinoid mechanisms has been facilitated by the availability of selective antagonists acting at CB(1) receptors and the generation of CB(1) receptor knockout mice. Particularly important classes of neurons that express high levels of CB(1) receptors are GABAergic interneurons in hippocampus, amygdala and cerebral cortex, which also contain the neuropeptides cholecystokinin. Activation of CB(1) receptors leads to inhibition of the release of amino acid and monoamine neurotransmitters. The lipid derivatives anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol act as endogenous ligands for CB(1) receptors (endocannabinoids). They may act as retrograde synaptic mediators of the phenomena of depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition or excitation in hippocampus and cerebellum. Central effects of cannabinoids include disruption of psychomotor behaviour, short-term memory impairment, intoxication, stimulation of appetite, antinociceptive actions (particularly against pain of neuropathic origin) and anti-emetic effects. Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drug-induced neuropathology. A proportion of regular users of cannabis develop tolerance and dependence on the drug. Some studies have linked chronic use of cannabis with an increased risk of psychiatric illness, but there is little evidence for any causal link. The potential medical applications of cannabis in the treatment of painful muscle spasms and other symptoms of multiple sclerosis are currently being tested in clinical trials. Medicines based on drugs that enhance the function of endocannabinoids may offer novel therapeutic approaches in the future.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764049

The endocannabinoid-CB(1) receptor system in pre- and postnatal life.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Recent research suggests that the endogenous cannabinoids (“endocannabinoids”) and their cannabinoid receptors have a major influence during pre- and postnatal development. First, high levels of the endocannaboid anandamide and cannabinoid receptors are present in the preimplantation embryo and in the uterus, while a temporary reduction of anandamide levels is essential for embryonal implantation. In women accordingly, an inverse association has been reported between fatty acid amide hydrolase (the anandamide degrading enzyme) in human lymphocytes and miscarriage. Second, CB(1) receptors display a transient presence in white matter areas of the pre- and postnatal nervous system, suggesting a role for CB(1) receptors in brain development. Third, endocannabinoids have been detected in maternal milk and activation of CB(1) receptors appears to be critical for milk sucking by newborn mice, apparently activating oral-motor musculature. Fourth, anandamide has neuroprotectant properties in the developing postnatal brain. Finally, prenatal exposure to the active constituent of marihuana (Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol) or to anandamide affects prefrontal cortical functions, memory and motor and addictive behaviors, suggesting a role for the endocannabinoid CB(1) receptor system in the brain structures which control these functions. Further observations suggest that children may be less prone to psychoactive side effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol or endocannabinoids than adults. The medical implications of these novel developments are far reaching and suggest a promising future for cannabinoids in pediatric medicine for conditions including “non-organic failure-to-thrive” and cystic fibrosis.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15464041

The neurobiology and evolution of cannabinoid signalling.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The plant Cannabis sativa has been used by humans for thousands of years because of its psychoactivity. The major psychoactive ingredient of cannabis is Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, which exerts effects in the brain by binding to a G-protein-coupled receptor known as the CB1 cannabinoid receptor. The discovery of this receptor indicated that endogenous cannabinoids may occur in the brain, which act as physiological ligands for CB1. Two putative endocannabinoid ligands, arachidonylethanolamide (‘anandamide’) and 2-arachidonylglycerol, have been identified, giving rise to the concept of a cannabinoid signalling system. Little is known about how or where these compounds are synthesized in the brain and how this relates to CB1 expression. However, detailed neuroanatomical and electrophysiological analysis of mammalian nervous systems has revealed that the CB1 receptor is targeted to the presynaptic terminals of neurons where it acts to inhibit release of ‘classical’ neurotransmitters. Moreover, an enzyme that inactivates endocannabinoids, fatty acid amide hydrolase, appears to be preferentially targeted to the somatodendritic compartment of neurons that are postsynaptic to CB1-expressing axon terminals. Based on these findings, we present here a model of cannabinoid signalling in which anandamide is synthesized by postsynaptic cells and acts as a retrograde messenger molecule to modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic terminals. Using this model as a framework, we discuss the role of cannabinoid signalling in different regions of the nervous system in relation to the characteristic physiological actions of cannabinoids in mammals, which include effects on movement, memory, pain and smooth muscle contractility. The discovery of the cannabinoid signalling system in mammals has prompted investigation of the occurrence of this pathway in non-mammalian animals. Here we review the evidence for the existence of cannabinoid receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates and invertebrates and discuss the evolution of the cannabinoid signalling system. Genes encoding orthologues of the mammalian CB1 receptor have been identified in a fish, an amphibian and a bird, indicating that CB1 receptors may occur throughout the vertebrates. Pharmacological actions of cannabinoids and specific binding sites for cannabinoids have been reported in several invertebrate species, but the molecular basis for these effects is not known. Importantly, however, the genomes of the protostomian invertebrates Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans do not contain CB1 orthologues, indicating that CB1-like cannabinoid receptors may have evolved after the divergence of deuterostomes (e.g. vertebrates and echinoderms) and protostomes. Phylogenetic analysis of the relationship of vertebrate CB1 receptors with other G-protein-coupled receptors reveals that the paralogues that appear to share the most recent common evolutionary origin with CB1 are lysophospholipid receptors, melanocortin receptors and adenosine receptors. Interestingly, as with CB1, each of these receptor types does not appear to have Drosophila orthologues, indicating that this group of receptors may not occur in protostomian invertebrates. We conclude that the cannabinoid signalling system may be quite restricted in its phylogenetic distribution, probably occurring only in the deuterostomian clade of the animal kingdom and possibly only in vertebrates.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11316486

Dronabinol for the Treatment of Cannabis Dependence: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Posted on by
Reply

   “The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dronabinol, a synthetic form of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, a naturally occurring pharmacologically active component of marijuana, in treating cannabis dependence… This is the first trial using an agonist substitution strategy for treatment of cannabis dependence. Dronabinol showed promise, it was well-tolerated, and improved treatment retention and withdrawal symptoms. Future trials might test higher doses, combinations of dronabinol with other medications with complementary mechanisms, or with more potent behavioral interventions.

The agonist substitution strategy has been effective for other substance use disorders, mainly nicotine (nicotine patch, other nicotine replacement products, varenicline) and opioid dependence (methadone, buprenorphine). Therefore, dronabinol, an orally bioavailable synthetic form of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component of marijuana acting at the cannabinoid 1 (CB1) receptor, seems a logical candidate medication for cannabis dependence. An ideal agonist medication has low abuse potential, reduces withdrawal symptoms and craving, and decreases the reinforcing effects of the target drug, thereby facilitating abstinence. Dronabinol has been shown to reduce cannabis withdrawal symptoms in laboratory settings among non-treatment seeking cannabis users. Although dronabinol produced modest positive subjective effects among cannabis users in the laboratory, there is little evidence of abuse or diversion of dronabinol in community settings. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dronabinol for patients seeking treatment for cannabis dependence. This is, to our knowledge, the largest clinical trial to date to evaluate a pharmacologic intervention for cannabis dependence, and the first to attempt agonist substitution.

.In conclusion, agonist substitution pharmacotherapy with dronabinol, a synthetic form of THC, showed promise for treatment of cannabis dependence, reducing withdrawal symptoms and improving retention in treatment, although it failed to improve abstinence. The trial showed that among adult cannabis-dependent patients, dronabinol was well accepted, with good adherence and few adverse events. Future studies should consider testing higher doses of dronabinol, with longer trial lengths, combining dronabinol with other medications acting through complementary mechanisms or more potent behavioral interventions. Moreover, the field should particularly seek to develop high affinity CB1 partial agonists.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154755/

Marijuana Withdrawal in Humans: Effects of Oral THC or Divalproex

Posted on by
2

   “Abstinence following daily marijuana use can produce a withdrawal syndrome characterized by negative mood (eg irritability, anxiety, misery), muscle pain, chills, and decreased food intake. Two placebo-controlled, within-subject studies investigated the effects of a cannabinoid agonist, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC: Study 1), and a mood stabilizer, divalproex (Study 2), on symptoms of marijuana withdrawal. Participants (n=7/study), who were not seeking treatment for their marijuana use, reported smoking 6–10 marijuana cigarettes/day, 6–7 days/week. Study 1 was a 15-day in-patient, 5-day outpatient, 15-day in-patient design. During the in-patient phases, participants took oral THC capsules (0, 10 mg) five times/day, 1 h prior to smoking marijuana (0.00, 3.04% THC). Active and placebo marijuana were smoked on in-patient days 1–8, while only placebo marijuana was smoked on days 9–14, that is, marijuana abstinence. Placebo THC was administered each day, except during one of the abstinence phases (days 9–14), when active THC was given. Mood, psychomotor task performance, food intake, and sleep were measured. Oral THC administered during marijuana abstinence decreased ratings of ‘anxious’, ‘miserable’, ‘trouble sleeping’, ‘chills’, and marijuana craving, and reversed large decreases in food intake as compared to placebo, while producing no intoxication. Study 2 was a 58-day, outpatient/in-patient design. Participants were maintained on each divalproex dose (0, 1500 mg/day) for 29 days each. Each maintenance condition began with a 14-day outpatient phase for medication induction or clearance and continued with a 15-day in-patient phase. Divalproex decreased marijuana craving during abstinence, yet increased ratings of ‘anxious’, ‘irritable’, ‘bad effect’, and ‘tired.’ Divalproex worsened performance on psychomotor tasks, and increased food intake regardless of marijuana condition. Thus, oral THC decreased marijuana craving and withdrawal symptoms at a dose that was subjectively indistinguishable from placebo. Divalproex worsened mood and cognitive performance during marijuana abstinence. These data suggest that oral THC, but not divalproex, may be useful in the treatment of marijuana dependence.

To conclude, there are currently no effective pharmacotherapies for cannabinoid dependence, yet the large number of nonresponders in marijuana treatment studies emphasizes the importance of increasing treatment options for marijuana dependence. We have developed a laboratory model to predict medications that may show promise clinically for the treatment of marijuana dependence. The present findings, in combination with earlier studies, suggest that nefazodone and oral THC show promise as potential treatment medications, while bupropion and divalproex do not…”

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v29/n1/full/1300310a.html

Adverse effects of cannabis. (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Cannabis, Cannabis sativa L., is used to produce a resin that contains high levels of cannabinoids, particularly delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which are psychoactive substances. Although cannabis use is illegal in France and in many other countries, it is widely used for its relaxing or euphoric effects, especially by adolescents and young adults. What are the adverse effects of cannabis on health? During consumption? And in the long term? Does cannabis predispose users to the development of psychotic disorders? To answer these questions, we reviewed the available evidence using the standard Prescrire methodology. The long-term adverse effects of cannabis are difficult to evaluate. Since and associated substances, with or without the user’s knowledge. Tobacco and alcohol consumption, and particular lifestyles and behaviours are often associated with cannabis use. Some traits predispose individuals to the use of psychoactive substances in general. The effects of cannabis are dosedependent.The most frequently report-ed adverse effects are mental slowness, impaired reaction times, and sometimes accentuation of anxiety. Serious psychological disorders have been reported with high levels of intoxication. The relationship between poor school performance and early, regular, and frequent cannabis use seems to be a vicious circle, in which each sustains the other. Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations. In Australia, the marked increase in cannabis use has not been accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia. On the basis of the available data, we cannot reach firm conclusions on whether or not cannabis use causes psychosis. It seems prudent to inform apparently vulnerable individuals that cannabis may cause acute psychotic decompensation, especially at high doses. Users can feel dependent on cannabis, but this dependence is usually psychological. Withdrawal symptoms tend to occur within 48 hours following cessation of regular cannabis use, and include increased irritability, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, sleep difficulties and aggression. Symptoms subside within 2 to 12 weeks. Driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of causing a fatal road accident. Alcohol consumption plays an even greater role. A few studies and a number of isolated reports suggest that cannabis has a role in the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse effects, especially in patients with coronary heart disease. Numerous case-control studies have investigated the role of cannabis in the incidence of some types of cancer. Its role has not been ruled out, but it is not possible to determine whether the risk is distinct from that of the tobacco with which it is often smoked. Studies that have examined the influence of cannabis use on the clinical course of hepatitis C are inconclusive. Alcohol remains the main toxic agent that hepatitis C patients should avoid. In practice, the adverse effects of low-level, recreational cannabis use are generally minor, although they can apparently be serious in vulnerable individuals. The adverse effects of cannabis appear overall to be less serious than those of alcohol, in terms of neuropsychological and somatic effects, accidents and violence.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21462790

Reinforcing properties of oral delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, smoked marijuana, and nabilone: influence of previous marijuana use.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The reinforcing properties of delta 9THC (17.5 mg), a 1 g marijuana cigarette containing 1.83% delta 9-THC, a synthetic cannabis compound (Nabilone 2 mg orally), and their respective placebos were assessed with self-report and operant work-contingent choice procedures. Three groups of eight subjects were selected on the basis of a history of regular, intermittent, or occasional marijuana-smoking behavior. All subjects served as their own controls for each drug condition and studies were carried out under double-blind and “double-dummy” conditions in a controlled, residential research ward. Placebo responding did not vary as a function of history of marijuana use, but the past history of drug use had a significant influence on the reinforcing properties of cannabis compounds as well as the behavioral and physiological effects of these drugs. Regular marijuana users reported a significant increase in elation following marijuana smoking, but this was not associated with a significant increment in pulse rate. Intermittent and occasional marijuana smokers had significant increases in pulse rate, but no significant marijuana-induced elation. Nabilone and delta 9-THC produced a significant increase in pulse rate for all subject groups, but there was no significant increase in elation following ingestion of these compounds. Given a choice between the three drugs and three placebos, 18 of 23 subjects worked to obtain a marijuana cigarette in an operant work choice paradigm. These data indicate that smoked marijuana was significantly more reinforcing than all other cannabis compounds studied, regardless of past drug-use history.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6149589

Reinforcing and subjective effects of oral delta 9-THC and smoked marijuana in humans.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The reinforcing and subjective effects of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and smoked marijuana were studied in two groups of regular marijuana users. One group (N = 10) was tested with smoked marijuana and the other (N = 11) with oral THC. Reinforcing effects were measured with a discrete-trial choice procedure which allowed subjects to choose between the self-administration of active drug or placebo on two independent occasions. Subjective effects and heart rate were measured before and after drug administration. Smoked active marijuana was chosen over placebo on both choice occasions by all subjects. Similarly, oral THC was chosen over placebo on both occasions by all but one subject. Both active drug treatments produced qualitatively and quantitatively similar subjective effects, and both significantly increased heart rate, although the time course of effects differed substantially between the two treatments. The results demonstrate that both smoked marijuana and oral THC can serve as positive reinforcers in human subjects under laboratory conditions. The experimental paradigm used here should prove useful for identifying factors that influence the self-administration of marijuana and other cannabinoids by humans.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1319601