Category Archives: Uncategorized

Tetrahydrocannabinol Modulates in Vitro Maturation of Oocytes and Improves the Blastocyst Rates after in Vitro Fertilization.

Posted on by

 

Image result for Cellular Physiology & Biochemistry“Among the assisted reproductive techniques, the in vitro maturation of oocytes (IVM) is less developed than other techniques, but its implementation would entail a qualitative advance.

This technique consists in the extraction of immature oocytes from antral ovarian follicles with the patient under low hormone stimulation or without hormone to mature exogenously in culture media supplemented with different molecules to promote maturation.

In this sense, we are interested in the role that cannabinoids could have as IVM promoters because cannabinoid’s molecular pathway is similar to the one by which oocyte’s meiosis resumption is activated.

With the intention of advancing in the possible use of cannabinoids as supplements for the media for in vitro maturation of oocytes, we intend to deepen the study of the function of the phytocannabinoid Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the IVM process.

RESULTS:

This study confirms that the incubation of oocytes with THC during IVM accelerated some events of that process like the phosphorylation pattern of ERK and AKT and was able to increase the blastocyst rate in response to IVF. Moreover, it seems that both CB1 and CB2 are necessary to maintain a healthy oocyte maturation.

CONCLUSION:

Our data suggest that THC may be useful IVM supplements in clinic as is more feasible and reliable than any synthetic cannabinoid.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31436397

https://www.cellphysiolbiochem.com/Articles/000149/

Cannabidiol differentially regulates basal and LPS-induced inflammatory responses in macrophages, lung epithelial cells, and fibroblasts.

Posted on by

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology“Cannabidiol (CBD) containing products are available in a plethora of flavors including oral, sublingual, and inhalable forms. Immunotoxicological effects of CBD containing liquids were assessed by hypothesizing that CBD regulates oxidative stress and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induced inflammatory responses in macrophages, epithelial cells, and fibroblasts.

RESULTS:

CBD showed differential effects on IL-8 and MCP-1, and acellular and cellular ROS levels. CBD significantly attenuated LPS-induced NF-κB activity and IL-8 and MCP-1 release from macrophages. Cytokine array data depicted a differential cytokine response due to CBD. Inflammatory mediators, IL-8, serpin E1, CXCL1, IL-6, MIF, IFN-γ, MCP-1, RANTES, and TNF-α were induced, whereas MCP-1/CCL2, CCL5, eotaxin, IL-1ra, and IL-2 were reduced. CBD and dexamethasone treatments reduced the IL-8 level induced by LPS when the cells were treated individually, but showed antagonistic effects when used in combination via MCPIP (monocytic chemotactic protein-induced protein).

CONCLUSION:

CBD differentially regulated basal pro-inflammatory response and attenuated both LPS-induced cytokine release and NF-κB activity in monocytes, similar to dexamethasone. Thus, CBD has a differential inflammatory response and acts as an anti-inflammatory agent in pro-inflammatory conditions but acts as an antagonist with steroids, overriding the anti-inflammatory potential of steroids when used in combination.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31437494

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X19303217?via%3Dihub

Novel cannabis flavonoid, cannflavin A displays both a hormetic and neuroprotective profile against amyloid β-mediated neurotoxicity in PC12 cells: comparison with geranylated flavonoids, mimulone and diplacone.

Posted on by

Biochemical Pharmacology

“Flavonoids form a diverse class of naturally occurring polyphenols ascribed various biological activities, including inhibition of amyloid β (Aβ) fibrillisation and neurotoxicity of relevance to Alzheimer’s disease.

Cannabis contains a unique subset of prenylated flavonoids, the cannflavins.

While selected conventional flavonoids have demonstrated anti-amyloid and neuroprotective potential, any neuroprotective bioactivity of prenylated flavonoids has not been determined.

We evaluated the in vitro neuroprotective and anti-aggregative properties of the novel geranylated cannabis-derived flavonoid, cannflavin A against Aβ1-42 and compared it to two similarly geranylated flavonoids, mimulone and diplacone, to compare the bioactive properties of these unique flavonoids more broadly.

RESULTS:

Cannflavin A demonstrated intrinsic hormetic effects on cell viability, increasing viability by 40% from 1-10µM but displaying neurotoxicity at higher (>10-100µM) concentrations. Neither mimulone nor diplacone exhibited such a biphasic effect, instead showing only concentration-dependent neurotoxicity, with diplacone the more potent (from >1 µM). However at the lower concentrations (<10µM), cannflavin A increased cell viability by up to 40%, while 10µM cannflavin A inhibited the neurotoxicity elicited by Aβ1-42 (0-2µM), reducing Aβ aggregate adherence to PC-12 cells and associated neurite loss. The neuroprotective effects of cannflavin A were associated with a direct inhibition of Aβ1-42 fibril and aggregate density, evidenced by attenuated ThT fluorescence kinetics and microscopic evidence of both altered and diminished density of Aβ aggregate and fibril morphology via electron microscopy.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings highlight a concentration-dependent hormetic and neuroprotective role of cannflavin A against Aβ-mediated neurotoxicity, associated with an inhibition of Aβ fibrillisation. The efficacy of the cannabis flavone may itself direct further lead development targeting neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. However, the geranylated flavonoids generally displayed a comparatively potent neurotoxicity not observed with many conventional flavonoids in vitro.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31437460

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006295219302990?via%3Dihub

Cannabidiol and the Remainder of the Plant Extract Modulate the Effects of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Fear Memory Reconsolidation.

Posted on by

Image result for frontiers in behavioral neuroscience “Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, a CB1 receptor agonist) and Cannabidiol (CBD, a non-competitive antagonist of endogenous CB1 and CB2 ligands) are two primary components of Cannabis species, and may modulate fear learning in mammals.

The CB1 receptor is widely distributed throughout the cortex and some limbic regions typically associated with fear learning. Humans with posttraumatic disorder (PTSD) have widespread upregulation of CB1 receptor density and reduced availability of endogenous cannabinoid anandamide, suggesting a role for the endocannabinoid system in PTSD.

Pharmacological blockade of memory reconsolidation following recall of a conditioned response modulates the expression of learned fear and may represent a viable target for the development of new treatments for PTSD.

In this study, we focused on assessing the impact of the key compounds of the marijuana plant both singly and, more importantly, in concert on attenuation of learned fear. Specifically, we assessed the impact of THC, CBD, and/or the remaining plant materials (post-extraction; background material), on reconsolidation of learned fear.

Results: CBD alone, but not THC alone, significantly attenuated fear memory reconsolidation when administered immediately after recall. The effect persisted for at least 7 days. A combination of CBD and THC also attenuated the fear response. Plant BM also significantly attenuated reconsolidation of learned fear both on its own and in combination with THC and CBD. Finally, THC attenuated reconsolidation of learned fear only when co-administered with CBD or plant BM.

Conclusion: CBD may provide a novel treatment strategy for targeting fear-memories. Furthermore, plant BM also significantly attenuated the fear response. However, whereas THC alone had no significant effects, its effects were modulated by the addition of other compounds. Future research should investigate some of the other components present in the plant BM (such as terpenes) for their effects alone, or in combination with isolated pure cannabinoids, on fear learning.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31417379

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00174/full

Terpenes in Cannabis sativa – From plant genome to humans.

Posted on by

Plant Science“Cannabis sativa (cannabis) produces a resin that is valued for its psychoactive and medicinal properties.

Despite being the foundation of a multi-billion dollar global industry, scientific knowledge and research on cannabis is lagging behind compared to other high-value crops. This is largely due to legal restrictions that have prevented many researchers from studying cannabis, its products, and their effects in humans.

Cannabis resin contains hundreds of different terpene and cannabinoid metabolites.

Our understanding of the genomic and biosynthetic systems of these metabolites in cannabis, and the factors that affect their variability, is rudimentary. As a consequence, there is concern about lack of consistency with regard to the terpene and cannabinoid composition of different cannabis ‘strains’.

Likewise, claims of some of the medicinal properties attributed to cannabis metabolites would benefit from thorough scientific validation.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31084880

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168945219301190?via%3Dihub

Analysis of Terpenes in Cannabis sativa L. Using GC/MS: Method Development, Validation, and Application.

Posted on by

“Terpenes are the major components of the essential oils present in various Cannabis sativa L. varieties.

These compounds are responsible for the distinctive aromas and flavors. Besides the quantification of the cannabinoids, determination of the terpenes in C. sativa strains could be of importance for the plant selection process.

At the University of Mississippi, a GC-MS method has been developed and validated for the quantification of terpenes in cannabis plant material, viz., α-pinene, β-pinene, β-myrcene, limonene, terpinolene, linalool, α-terpineol, β-caryophyllene, α-humulene, and caryophyllene oxide.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30646402

https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-0828-8387

The Acute Activation of the CB1 Receptor in the Hippocampus Decreases Neurotoxicity and Prevents Spatial Memory Impairment in Rats Lesioned with β-Amyloid 25-35.

Posted on by

Neuroscience“Given their anti-inflammatory properties, cannabinoids have been shown to be neuroprotective agents and to reduce excitotoxicity, through the activation of the Cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1r).

These properties have led to CB1r being proposed as pharmacological targets for the treatment of various neurodegenerative diseases.

This study aimed to evaluate the neuroprotective effect of an acute activation of CB1r on spatial memory and its impact on iNOS protein expression, NO● levels, gliosis and the neurodegenerative process induced by the injection of Aβ(25-35) into the CA1 subfield of the hippocampus.

The data obtained in the present research suggest that the acute early activation of CB1r is crucial for neuroprotection.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31400487

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452219305433?via%3Dihub

Bones and Joints: The Effects of Cannabinoids on the Skeleton.

Posted on by

Image result for j clin endocrinol metab“This paper reviews the endocannabinoid system and focuses on the role of endocannabinoids in bone metabolism and their potential use in the management of conditions associated with bone loss.

CONTEXT:

The endocannabinoid system uses tissue-specific lipid ligands and G protein-coupled transmembrane receptors to regulate neurological, metabolic, and immune responses. Recent studies demonstrate that the endocannabinoid system influences bone metabolism. With the increasing use of endocannabinoid mimetics, e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), endocannabinoids’ involvement in bone growth and remodeling has become clinically relevant.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:

This literature review is based upon a search of Pubmed and Google Scholar databases, as of June 2019, for all English-language publications relating to cannabinoids and bone. We evaluated retrieved articles for relevance, experimental design, data acquisition, statistical analysis, and conclusions.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:

Preclinical studies establish a role for endocannabinoids in bone metabolism. These studies yield complex and often contradictory results attributed to differences in the specific experimental model examined. Studies using human cells or subjects are limited.

CONCLUSIONS:

In vitro and animal models document that endocannabinoids participate in bone biology. The relevance of these observations to humans is not clear. The increasing chronic use of medical and recreational cannabis underscores the need to better understand the role of endocannabinoids in human bone metabolism. Moreover, it is important to evaluate the role of endocannabinoids as a therapeutic target to prevent and treat disorders associated with bone loss.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31393556

“[The endocannabinoid system and bone].”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27734700

“Joint problems arising from lack of repair mechanisms: can cannabinoids help?”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29574720

“Cannabinoids and bone regeneration.”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30702341

“Cannabinoids and the skeleton: from marijuana to reversal of bone loss.”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19634029

Application device for THC:CBD oromucosal spray in the management of resistant spasticity: pre-production testing.

Posted on by

 Publication Cover“Patients with multiple sclerosis spasticity (MSS) and upper limb/hand impairment who are taking 9-delta-tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) oromucosal spray (Sativex®) may have difficulty self-administering their medication, possibly limiting adherence and treatment effectiveness.

A Class I EU device is available to support administration of THC:CBD spray. Pre-production testing was undertaken in a patient sample.

Results: Fifteen patients participated. Mean treatment time with THC:CBD spray was 4 (range: 0.1-6.1) years. 87% of participants ‘always’, ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ had hand impairment, and 53% reported difficulty administering THC:CBD spray. Participants reported better application using the device (73%), with less strength required (54%). Most participants (93%) considered the instruction leaflet to be clear and many (66%) expressed interest in using the device. Most HCPs (93%) did not foresee any difficulties in use of the device.

Conclusion: The proposed adherence device was useful to address self-application difficulties with THC:CBD spray in our sample. Providing the device to MSS patients with upper limb/hand spasticity impairment may restore autonomy and support adherence to THC:CBD spray.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31393179

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17434440.2019.1653182?journalCode=ierd20

Attitudes and Beliefs About Medical Usefulness and Legalization of Marijuana among Cancer Patients in a Legalized and a Nonlegalized State.

Posted on by

View details for Journal of Palliative Medicine cover image “There is a growing preference for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, despite limited evidence regarding its benefits and potential safety risks. Legalization status may play a role in the attitudes and preferences toward medical marijuana(MM).

Objectives: The attitudes and beliefs of cancer patients in a legalized (Arizona) versus nonlegalized state (Texas) regarding medical and recreational legalization and medical usefulness of marijuana were compared.

 

Results: The majority of individuals support legalization of marijuana for medical use (Arizona 92% [85-97%] vs. Texas 90% [82-95%]; p = 0.81) and belief in its medical usefulness (Arizona 97% [92-99%] vs. Texas 93% [86-97%]; p = 0.33) in both states. Overall, 181 (91%) patients supported legalization for medical purposes whereas 80 (40%) supported it for recreational purposes (p < 0.0001). Patients preferred marijuana over current standard treatments for anxiety (60% [51-68%]; p = 0.003). Patients found to favor legalizing MM were younger (p = 0.027), had worse fatigue (p = 0.015), appetite (p = 0.004), anxiety (p = 0.017), and were Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) positive for alcohol/drugs (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Cancer patients from both legalized and nonlegalized states supported legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and believed in its medical use. The support for legalization for medical use was significantly higher than for recreational use in both states.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31386595

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jpm.2019.0218