Structure-Activity Relationship of Cannabis Derived Compounds for the Treatment of Neuronal Activity-Related Diseases.

“Cannabis sativa active compounds are extensively studied for their therapeutic effects, beyond the well-known psychotropic activity. C. Sativa is used to treat different medical indications, such as multiple sclerosis, spasticity, epilepsy, ulcerative colitis and pain. Simultaneously, basic research is discovering new constituents of cannabis-derived compounds and their receptors capable of neuroprotection and neuronal activity modulation. The function of the various phytochemicals in different therapeutic processes is not fully understood, but their significant role is starting to emerge and be appreciated. In this review, we will consider the structure-activity relationship (SAR) of cannabinoid compounds able to bind to cannabinoid receptors and act as therapeutic agents in neuronal diseases, e.g., Parkinson’s disease.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29941830 http://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/23/7/1526]]>

Cannabigerol Action at Cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 Receptors and at CB1–CB2 Heteroreceptor Complexes

“Cannabigerol (CBG) is one of the major phytocannabinoids present in Cannabis sativa L. that is attracting pharmacological interest because it is non-psychotropic and is abundant in some industrial hemp varieties. The aim of this work was to investigate in parallel the binding properties of CBG to cannabinoid CB1 (CB1R) and CB2 (CB2R) receptors and the effects of the compound on agonist activation of those receptors and of CB1–CB2 heteroreceptor complexes. The results indicate that CBG is indeed effective as regulator of endocannabinoid signaling. In conclusion, the results presented in this study reveal that the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid, CBG, may exert beneficial actions with therapeutic potential via cannabinoid receptors.” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00632/full

“International Multi-Centre Collaboration Reveals that Cannabigerol Acts Directly on Cannabinoid Receptors CB1 and CB2” https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/international-multi-centre-collaboration-reveals-that-cannabigerol-acts-directly-on-cannabinoid-receptors-cb1-and-cb2-300671024.html

]]>

“Illogical” cannabis regulation blocks research into therapeutic uses, say doctors

“Doctors should be able to prescribe cannabis legally and research its therapeutic use more easily, 20 prominent UK clinicians and academics have said.

In a letter to The Times on 20 June, they “strongly urge the government” to recategorise cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2 under the UK Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

Schedule 1 is for illicit substances deemed to have no clinical application and which doctors cannot prescribe; schedule 2 drugs, including, for example, diamorphine (heroin), are subject to requirements relating to prescriptions.

Last week, Savid Javid, the home secretary, said that a panel would be set up to review the evidence for medical cannabis that could see the drug rescheduled.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2780.full]]>

Appraising the "entourage effect": antitumor action of a pure cannabinoid versus a botanical drug preparation in preclinical models of breast cancer.

Image result for Biochem Pharmacol. “Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women. Although early diagnosis and development of new treatments have improved their prognosis, many patients present innate or acquired resistance to current therapies. New therapeutic approaches are therefore warranted for the management of this disease. Extensive preclinical research has demonstrated that cannabinoids, the active ingredients of Cannabis sativa, trigger antitumor responses in different models of cancer. Most of these studies have been conducted with pure compounds, mainly Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The cannabis plant, however, produces hundreds of other compounds with their own therapeutic potential and the capability to induce synergic responses when combined, the so-called “entourage effect”. Here, we compared the antitumor efficacy of pure THC with that of a botanical drug preparation (BDP). The BDP was more potent than pure THC in producing antitumor responses in cell culture and animal models of ER+/PR+, HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer. This increased potency was not due to the presence of the 5 most abundant terpenes in the preparation. While pure THC acted by activating cannabinoid CB2 receptors and generating reactive oxygen species, the BDP modulated different targets and mechanisms of action. The combination of cannabinoids with estrogen receptor- or HER2-targeted therapies (tamoxifen and lapatinib, respectively) or with cisplatin, produced additive antiproliferative responses in cell cultures. Combinations of these treatments in vivo showed no interactions, either positive or negative. Together, our results suggest that standardized cannabis drug preparations, rather than pure cannabinoids, could be considered as part of the therapeutic armamentarium to manage breast cancer.”
]]>