What Is The Makeup Of Cannabis

Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2012 Dec; 2(6): 241–254.

Cannabis, a complex plant: different compounds and unlike effects on individuals

Abstract

Cannabis is a circuitous institute, with major compounds such equally delta-ix-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, which have opposing effects. The discovery of its compounds has led to the farther discovery of an important neurotransmitter system called the endocannabinoid system. This arrangement is widely distributed in the brain and in the body, and is considered to be responsible for numerous meaning functions. There has been a recent and consistent worldwide increase in cannabis authorization, with increasing associated health concerns. A number of epidemiological research projects take shown links between dose-related cannabis use and an increased take chances of evolution of an enduring psychotic affliction. However, it is also known that non everyone who uses cannabis is affected adversely in the same fashion. What makes someone more susceptible to its negative furnishings is non yet known, yet in that location are some emerging vulnerability factors, ranging from certain genes to personality characteristics. In this article we kickoff provide an overview of the biochemical basis of cannabis research by examining the dissimilar effects of the ii main compounds of the plant and the endocannabinoid organization, then go along to review available information on the possible factors explaining variation of its furnishings upon different individuals.

Keywords: Cannabis, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, endocannabinoids, individual sensitivity to cannabis

Introduction

Cannabis is a complex plant with over 400 chemical entities of which more sixty of them are cannabinoid compounds, some of them with opposing effects. Cannabis is besides the most widely used illicit drug in the earth and its use has been associated with various mental health problems, particularly in the immature [Hall and Degenhardt, 2007; Degenhardt et al. 2010]. Despite the links made between its use and the development of mental wellness problems, it is also known that not anybody who uses it is affected adversely in the same way. In this commodity we will provide an overview of the different effects of the 2 primary compounds of the plant, also as its effects upon different sections of the population. Before presenting the available show in the literature on the reasons for the varying effects of cannabis in different individuals, we volition start review the nowadays knowledge on the biochemistry of the cannabis institute and the endocannabinoid arrangement.

Brief history of the biochemistry of the cannabis plant

Even though cannabis has been used and cultivated by mankind for at least 6000 years [Li, 1973] our electric current knowledge on its pharmacological properties is based on studies which accept taken place but since the end of the nineteenth century. The very get-go compound isolated in pure form from the plant was cannabinol [Woods, 1899]. It was initially wrongly assumed to exist the main active compound of the plant responsible for its psychoactive effects [Mechoulam and Hanus, 2000]. The second compound found was cannabidiol (CBD) past Mechoulam and Shvo [Mechoulam and Shvo, 1963]. The following year in 1964, Gaoni and Mechoulam isolated the main active compound, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (d-9-THC) (Figure 1) [Gaoni and Mechoulam, 1964].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 10.1177_2045125312457586-fig1.jpg

Chemical structures of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol.

Cannabinoid receptor system

Some other cornerstone in cannabinoid research was the identification of the specific binding sites of d-nine-THC in the brain [Devane et al. 1988], which was followed past the cloning of cannabinoid 1 receptor (CB1R) [Matsuda et al. 1990]. This arrangement was named the 'cannabinoid receptor system' due to the bounden affinity of d-nine-THC to these receptors every bit a partial agonist. Presently after, a 2d receptor, CB2R, was discovered [Munro et al. 1993]. Around the same time, the being of the endocannabinoid system was confirmed by Devane and colleagues following the extraction of a molecule, an ethanolamine of arachidonic acid (AEA), which spring to these receptors [Devane et al. 1992]. This endocannabinoid agonist was given the name 'anandamide', based on a Sanskrit word meaning 'elation'. Mechoulam and colleagues isolated the second endocannabinoid neurotransmitter, 2-arachidonylglycerol (2-AG), 3 years later [Mechoulam et al. 1995]. Research in more recent years has shown that d-9-THC, as a partial agonist, resembles anandamide in its CB1 analogousness, admitting with less efficacy than anandamide, whilst displaying fifty-fifty lower efficacy at CB2Rs than at CB1Rs in vitro [Pertwee, 2008].

Cannabinoid 1 and 2 receptors

CB1Rs are mainly in the encephalon, specially in the substantia nigra, the basal ganglia, limbic organization, hippocampus and cerebellum, but are besides expressed in the peripheral nervous organisation, liver, thyroid, uterus, bones and testicular tissue [Russo and Guy, 2006; Pagotto et al. 2006; Pertwee, 2006]. CB2Rs are generally expressed in immune cells, spleen and the gastrointestinal system, and to some extent in the brain and peripheral nervous system [Izzo, 2004; Pertwee, 2006]. Interestingly, both CB1 and CB2Rs are also found in human placenta and accept been shown to play a role in regulating serotonin transporter activity [Kenney et al. 1999]. Indeed farther enquiry has revealed that the endocannabinoid system likewise plays a significant role in diverse aspects of human reproduction [Taylor et al. 2010].

In the brain, CB1Rs are found at the terminals of central and peripheral neurons, where they mostly mediate inhibitory action on ongoing release of a number of excitatory and inhibitory dopaminergic, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamatergic, serotoninergic, noradrenalin and acetylcholine neurotransmitter systems (Figure ane). Considering of the interest of these systems they affect functions such as noesis, memory, motor movements and pain perception [Howlett et al. 2002]. The release of endocannabinoids, such as AEA and ii-AG, from the postsynaptic sites to the synaptic cleft occur in response to summit of intracellular calcium and they then act as retrograde neurotransmitters on presynaptically located CB1Rs to maintain homeostasis and prevent the excessive neuronal action [Howlett et al. 2002; Terry et al. 2009]. They are then rapidly removed from the extracellular infinite past cannabinoid transporters, often referred to as anandamide membrane transporters, which facilitate their breakdown by internalizing the molecule and allowing access to fat acid amide hydrolase [Pertwee, 2010]. Despite its significance in the endocannabinoid arrangement, little is known virtually the cannabinoid transporters.

When cannabis is used, d-9-THC equally a partial agonist binds to CB1R and acts in a less selective manner in inhibiting the release of neurotransmitters normally modulated by endocannabinoids such as AEA and 2-AG. It has been putatively suggested that information technology may as well increment the release of dopamine, glutamate and acetylcholine in sure brain regions, possibly by inhibiting the release of an inhibitory neurotransmitter like GABA onto dopamine, glutamate or acetylcholine-releasing neurons [Bhattacharyya et al. 2009a] (Effigy 2).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 10.1177_2045125312457586-fig2.jpg

CB1 receptors - furnishings of endocannabinoids and d-9-THC Release of Anandamide (AEA) and 2- arachidonoylglycerol (two-AG) to inhibit glutamate (Glu), Gamma-aminobutyric acrid (GABA), acetylcholine (Ach), dopamine, noradrenaline (NA) and serotonin (v-HT). Endocannabinoids are removed from the extracellular infinite past cannabinoid transporters.

However, the functionalities of the CB1Rs are not always straightforward due to complex interactions with the other neurotransmitter systems. These are related to CB1Rs and CB2Rs being members of the super family of G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) [Pertwee et al. 2010]. GPCRs sense an external molecule outside the nervus cell and by contact with the molecule can point transduction pathways, which ultimately lead to cellular responses. External ligands such as d-ix-THC, various synthetic compounds and endocannabinoids such equally anandamide tin can activate these receptors [Pertwee et al. 2010]. Interestingly some alkylamides from the Echinacea plant tin also demark to the CB2Rs even more than strongly than the endogenous cannabinoids [Raduner et al. 2006]. The mechanism of activeness for CBD is non yet clear, as this compound does non bind to CB1Rs or CB2Rs [Tsou et al. 1998; Hayakawa et al. 2008].

Ordinarily GPCRs are linked together to form a receptor complex. Nonetheless, the signalling effects tin can exist complex due to CB1Rs forming heteromers, which tin can be defined every bit having different parts such as subunits, with ii or more than other GPCRs, specially if they are densely expressed in the same neuron. For case, a CB1R can form a heteromer with dopamine D2 receptor, or in another example it tin can also form a heteromer with 2 other receptors such equally dopamine D2 and adenosine A2A [Navarro et al. 2008]. Interestingly, as a result, ligand bindings can produce unexpected pharmacological furnishings. For instance, in a heteromer complex, not only the antagonist of CB1R simply also the other receptor adversary can block the inhibitory effect of CB1R agonist. This has been demonstrated past Marcellino and colleagues when the CB1R antagonist rimonabant and the specific A2AR adversary MSX-3 blocked the inhibitory effect of CB1 agonist on D2-like receptor agonist induced hyperlocomotion in rats [Marcellino et al. 2008]. Receptor heteromers provide ameliorate understanding of how these different neurotransmitter systems interact with each other. Compelling evidence for the existence of CB1R heteromers in striatal dendritic spines of striatal GABAergic efferent neurons, particularly at a postsynaptic location, has too been reported [Ferré et al. 2009]. The authors propose that it is likely that functional CB1–A2A–D2 receptor heteromers can be plant in the dendritic spines of GABAergic enkephalinergic neurons, where they are highly coexpressed, and their analysis provides new information on the function of endocannabinoids in striatal function, which tin can be considered as retrograde signals that inhibit neurotransmitter release. Further testify for the being of D2 and CB1Rs in ventral striatum is provided by electron microscopy analysis, which confirms the relevance to the rewarding and euphoric, as well every bit motor effects produced by cannabis, by enhancing dopamine levels particularly in the nucleus accumbens [Pickel et al. 2006]. CB1R expression in the striatum and their office in differential signalling between different developmental stages and sensorimotor and associative/limbic circuits accept also been demonstrated in a contempo study [van Waes et al. 2012].

Near recently it has been shown that CB2Rs form heteromers with CB1Rs in the brain and the agonist coactivation of CB1Rs and CB2Rs results in negative crosstalk in AKT1 phosphorylation and neurite outgrowth [Callén et al. 2012]. The authors point out that there is a bidirectional cantankerous animosity which involves the antagonists of either receptor to cake the other. It is suggested that these data illuminate the mechanism by which CB2Rs can negatively modulate CB1R office.

In more than recent years, three other novel receptor candidates, GPR18, GPR19 and GPR55, accept been discovered, as well as non-CB1Rs and not-CB2Rs, merely knowledge on these systems is incomplete and the word on whether or not they meet the criteria to qualify every bit receptors or channels is ongoing [Mackie and Stella, 2006; Pertwee et al. 2010; Pamplona and Takahashi, 2012]. It is generally established that some endocannabinoids, d-9-THC and several synthetic CB1R/CB2R agonists and antagonists can also collaborate with a number of not-CB1, non-CB2 GPCRs, ligand-gated ion channels and nuclear receptors (see the recent review by Pertwee and colleagues [Pertwee et al. 2010]). In conclusion, the biochemical mechanisms of this arrangement are far more than complex and the give-and-take on whether any known mammalian channel or non-CB1R/CB2R should be classified as a novel cannabinoid 'CB3' receptor or channel is ongoing.

The involvement of the detail neural regions and the neurotransmitter systems here is significant due to the fact that the very aforementioned brain areas and neurotransmitter systems are besides implicated in psychoses, especially in schizophrenia [van Bone and Kapur, 2009; Smieskova et al. 2010; Stone, 2011].

Functions of the endocannabinoid receptor system

Available evidence indicates that we do not yet take a consummate understanding of the varied functions of the endocannabinoid system, which is widely distributed both in the brain and in the peripheral system and most glands and organs in the body. However, there has been a dramatic increment in research exploring this system during the last decade and it is considered to exist one of the fastest growing fields in psychopharmacology, whilst the number of 'archetype' neurotransmitter' studies accept either declined or remained the same [Pamplona and Takahashi, 2012]. Fifty-fifty though our noesis on the role of the endocannabinoid system is still evolving, the available show indicates that this organisation has multiple regulatory roles in neuronal, vascular, metabolic, allowed and reproductory systems. Every bit mentioned previously, the on-need regulatory role on other neurotransmitter systems conspicuously affect functions such as noesis, retentivity, motor movements and pain perception [Howlett et al. 2002].

Cannabis plant

The cannabis plant has two main subspecies, Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa, and they tin be differentiated by their unlike physical characteristics. Indica-dominant strains are short plants with broad, nighttime light-green leaves and have higher cannabidiol content than the sativa plants in which THC content is higher. Sativa-dominant strains are usually taller and have thin leaves with a stake green colour. Due to its college THC content, C. sativa is the preferred pick past users. It is a complex plant with about 426 chemical entities, of which more than 60 are cannabinoid compounds [Dewey, 1986]. The iv major compounds are d-9-THC, CBD, d-8-THC and cannabinol, which have been most researched [Pertwee, 1997, 2008; Pamplona and Takahashi, 2012].

In the plant, cannabinoids are synthesized and accumulated as cannabinoid acids, but when the herbal production is dried, stored and heated, the acids decarboxylize gradually into their proper forms, such as CBD or d-9-THC [De Meijer et al. 2003]. Originally information technology was thought that CBD was the metabolic parent to d-9-THC, but it was later found that its biosynthesis occurs according to a genetically determined ratio [Russo and Guy, 2006]. Fifty-fifty though the chemical structures of all four compounds are like, their pharmacological effects tin be very different. The most researched compounds of the plant are d-9-THC and CBD and therefore we will mainly focus on these two compounds and their differences.

Delta-ix-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol

Natural compounds of the cannabis found are likewise referred to every bit phytocannabinoids of which d-ix-THC is the chief psychoactive ingredient and has been widely researched both in animals and humans. It characteristically produces, in a dose-dependent manner, hypoactivity, hypothermia, spatial and verbal brusque-term memory harm [Hayakawa et al. 2007]. Even so, the second major compound, CBD, does not bear upon locomotor activeness, body temperature or retentiveness on its own. However, college doses of CBD can potentiate the lower doses of d-9-THC by enhancing the level of CB1R expression in the hippocampus and hypothalamus. The authors propose that CBD potentiates the pharmacological effects of d-nine-THC via a CB1R-dependent mechanism [Hayakawa et al. 2007].

The available research indicates that the primary two compounds, d-9-THC and CBD, whilst having like effects in sure domains, too have most opposite effects to one another in other aspects [Carlini et al. 1974; Borgwardt et al. 2008; Fusar-Poli et al. 2009; Morrison et al. 2009; Bhattacharyya et al. 2009b; Winton-Dark-brown et al. 2011]. Table 1 summarizes the varying effects of these ii compounds.

Table 1.

Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, adapted and updated from Russo and Guy [2006].

Result	THC	CBD	References
Receptor/nonreceptor furnishings
CB1	++	±	Rhee et al. [1997]; Iwamura et al. [2001]; Hayakawa et al. [2008]
CB2	+	±	Rhee et al. [1997]; Showalter et al. [1996]
Anti inflammatory	+	+	Juknat et al. [2011]
Immunomodulatory	+	+	Costa et al. [2007]
CNS effects
Anticonvulsant	+	++	Wallace et al. [2001]
Musculus relaxant	++	+	Lakhan and Rowland [2009]
Anxiolytic	±	++	Zuardi and Guimaraes [1997]; Crippa et al. [2009]
Psychotropic	++	−	Russo [2001]; D'Souza et al. [2004]; Borgwardt et al. [2008]
Antipsychotic	−	++	Zuardi et al. [1995]; Moreira and Guimaraes [2005]
Short-term memory problems	+	−	Hayakawa et al. [2008]; Morgan et al. [2010]
Baloney of perception of time	++	−	Karniol and Carlini [1973]; Anderson et al. [2010]
Neuroprotective antioxidant	+	++	Juknat et al. [2011]
Antiemetic	++	++	Parker et al. [2011]
Sedation	+	−	Nicholson et al. [2004]; Russo et al. [2007]
Cardiovascular effects
Bradycardia	−	+	Benowitz and Jones [1981]
Tachycardia	+	−	Gorelick and Heishman [2006]
Hypertension	+	−	Batkai et al. [2004]
Hypotension	−	+	Gorelick and Heishman [2006]
Ambition/GI/metabolic
Appetite	+	−	Pertwee [2009]
GI movement (slowed)	++	+	Di Marzo and Piscitelli [2011]
Metabolic/diabetes	+	−	Di Marzo et al. [2011]
Anticarcinogenesis
Glioma (apoptosis)	+	+	Torres et al. [2011]
Lung cancer	+	++	Athanasiou et al. [2007]; Ramer et al. [2012]
Ophthalmological
Intraocular pressure (reduced)	++	+	Green [1998]

In fact the different and opposing effects of the chief two compounds of the plant were noticed in some early on studies. In a double-bullheaded report with forty healthy volunteers, Karniol and colleagues orally administered d-9-THC and CBD and the mixtures of the 2 together, whilst pulse rate, time production tasks and psychological reactions were measured [Karniol et al. 1974]. Whilst d-9-THC alone increased pulse rate, disturbed time tasks and induced strong psychological reactions in the subjects, CBD alone provoked no such effects. However, CBD was efficient in blocking nigh of the effects of d-ix-THC when both drugs were given together. CBD too decreased the anxiety component of d-9-THC effects in such a style that the subjects reported more pleasurable furnishings.

Almost recently there have been a number of drug challenge studies with sound methodologies examining the furnishings of both of these compounds. Our group carried out a number of double-blind, pseudo-randomized studies on healthy volunteers who had previous minimal exposure to cannabis. All participants were administered x mg of d-nine-THC, 600 mg of CBD and placebo (flour) in iii different functional magnetic resonance imaging sessions while performing a response inhibition task, a verbal retentiveness job, an emotional task (viewing fearful faces) and an auditory and visual sensory processing chore. The overall final results showed that d-9-THC and CBD had different behavioural effects and as well, at times, opposing encephalon activation in various regions [Borgwardt et al. 2008; Fusar-Poli et al. 2009; Bhattacharyya et al. 2009b; Winton-Brown et al. 2011]. D-ix-THC caused transient psychotic symptoms and increased the levels of anxiety, intoxication and sedation, whilst CBD had no meaning event on behaviour or these parameters.

In relation to the imaging data, during the response inhibition task, relative to placebo, d-9-THC attenuated the appointment of brain regions that normally mediate response inhibition, whilst CBD modulated action in regions not implicated with this task [Borgwardt et al. 2008]. During the verbal learning and retrieval of discussion pair tasks, d-nine-THC modulated action in mediotemporal and ventrostriatal regions, whilst CBD had no such effect [Bhattacharyya et al. 2009b]. During an emotional processing task d-9-THC and CBD had clearly distinct effects on the neural, electrodermal and symptomatic response to fearful faces [Fusar-Poli et al. 2009]. Our results suggest that the effects of CBD on activation in limbic and paralimbic regions may contribute to its ability to reduce autonomic arousal and subjective anxiety, whereas the anxiogenic effects of d-9-THC may be related to effects in other brain regions. During the auditory task, over again these 2 compounds had opposite effects in the superior temporal cortex when subjects listened to speech communication and in the occipital cortex during visual processing [Winton-Chocolate-brown et al. 2011].

Our group also assessed whether pretreatment with CBD could forbid the acute psychotic symptoms induced by d-9-THC when half dozen healthy volunteers were administered d-9-THC intravenously on two occasions, after placebo or CBD pretreatment [Bhattacharyya et al. 2010]. We found that pretreatment with CBD prevented the transient psychotic symptoms induced by d-nine-THC.

Both animal and human studies signal that CBD has anxiolytic properties. In fact in a recent double-bullheaded study carried out on patients with generalized social feet disorder, it was establish that relative to placebo, CBD significantly reduced subjective anxiety and its effect was related to its activity on limbic and paralimbic areas every bit shown by single photon emission computed tomography [Crippa et al. 2011].

CBD has also been proposed to have antipsychotic effects and is considered a potential antipsychotic medicine, specially due its relatively low side-effect profile [Zuardi et al. 1995]. Furthermore, information technology is also beingness developed equally a possible 'medicine' for various other conditions, such equally inflammation, diabetes, cancer and neurodegenerative diseases [Izzo et al. 2009].

CBD is not the just chemical compound which shows different effects to its master ingredient d-nine-THC, a partial CB1R agonist. Some other interesting compound of the plant, d-nine-tetrahydrocannabivarin (d-ix-THCV), a novel CB1R antagonist, besides exerts potentially useful deportment in the treatment of epilepsy and obesity [Pertwee, 2008; Izzo et al. 2009]. A review of this compound, along with d-9-THC and CBD by Pertwee suggests that constitute extractions of d-ix-THCV produces its antiobesity effects more by increasing energy expenditure than by reducing food intake [Pertwee, 2008]. The author also points out that a medicine such as d-9-THCV, past simultaneously blocking CB1Rs and activating CB2Rs, may have potential for the direction of disorders such as chronic liver disease and obesity, particularly when these are associated with inflammation.

Different strengths of street cannabis

Equally d-9-THC is the main ingredient which causes the desired 'stoned' effect, users prefer the strains of the plant with higher THC content. Especially over the by 15 years, such variants of the plant have been more widely bachelor on the street 'market', which are usually referred to every bit 'skunk' or 'sinsemilla'. In a study carried out by Potter and colleagues, when the say-so of cannabis seized past police in England between the years of 1996/8 and 2004/5 were compared, the median content of d-9-THC was found to be thirteen.9% in more recent years, significantly higher than recorded 10 years previously [Potter et al. 2008]. All the same, the CBD content was found to exist extremely low in more recent times. The authors besides establish that in herbal or resin forms of the drug, the average CBD content exceeded that of THC. More than recently, a meta-analysis to assess the potency of cannabis from 1970 to 2009 was carried out. From 21 example series roofing a number of countries, a recent and consistent worldwide increase in cannabis authorisation was reported [Cascini et al. 2011].

These findings propose that current trends for preferring higher THC content variants comport meaning health risks, particularly to those who are susceptible to its harmful furnishings. Indeed, Morgan and colleagues carried out a study on 120 current users, which included 66 daily and 54 recreational users, whose pilus analyses revealed their THC and CBD amounts. The written report found that college THC levels in hair in daily users were associated with increased depression and anxiety, besides as poorer prose think and source retentiveness [Morgan et al. 2011]. However, higher CBD in hair was associated with lower psychosis-like symptoms and better recognition retention. In relation to people with psychosis, wellness risks are even higher with stronger variants of the constitute. In a recent study of people with a first episode of psychosis, it was establish that patients used higher-potency cannabis for longer durations and greater frequency compared with a healthy control group [Di Forti et al. 2009].

As the stronger variants accept been taking over the street market, there has been a surge of interest in studying the links between cannabis utilise and mental wellness problems. The first to depict attending to such a link was a number of epidemiological studies and reviews, which pointed towards an association betwixt the apply of cannabis and the increased risk of developing a psychotic illness, in a dose-dependent manner [Zammit et al. 2002; Arseneault et al. 2002; Moore et al 2007]. A psychotic upshot is non the just diagnostic category which has been associated with cannabis utilise. Symptoms of low and feet commonly coexist with cannabis use and lead to diagnostic dilemmas [Nunes et al. 2006; Dakwar et al. 2011]. Cannabis utilise tin can induce such symptoms, equally well equally be used secondary to a primary depressive illness [Dakwar et al. 2011; Fairman and Anthony, 2012]. As the majority of the studies accept had psychotic illness as an outcome, in this section nosotros will mainly be focusing on this diagnostic category.

Intersubject variation in response to the psychotogenic effects of cannabis

About 18.5% of people in the United kingdom use cannabis regularly [Atha, 2005]. This is important as the strong THC variants of cannabis use have been increasing steeply, as have concerns on cannabis-related wellness risks, particularly for immature people [Hall and Degenhardt, 2007; Potter et al. 2008; EMCDDA, 2011]. Contempo epidemiological studies point towards a link betwixt the use of cannabis and the development of a psychotic illness [Zammit et al. 2002; van Bone et al. 2002; Arseneault et al. 2002; Henquet et al. 2005]. Further bear witness comes from a systematic review of longitudinal and population-based studies which evidence that cannabis employ significantly increases the risk of evolution of a psychotic disease in a dose-dependent mode [Moore et al. 2007].

Withal, only a pocket-sized minority develop a total-blown psychotic disease in the form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, whilst a larger group, ranging from xv% to 50%, experience transient psychotic symptoms of brief duration, from a couple of hours to up to a calendar week, and usually recover without requiring any intervention [Thomas, 1996; Dark-green et al. 2003; D'Souza et al. 2004, 2009; Morrison et al. 2009]. Indeed drug claiming studies with d-9-THC on healthy volunteers have shown a broad range of transient symptoms, behaviours and cerebral deficits ranging from anxiety to psychosis to transient retention disturbance [D'Souza et al. 2004; Curran et al. 2002; Morrison et al. 2009]. The clinical picture of transient psychosis can be indistinguishable from a frank acute psychosis with delusions and hallucinations, except for its brusque duration.

Evidently there is considerable variation in the effects of cannabis on individuals. The biological basis of this variable sensitivity is all the same unclear. In that location have been a number of studies exploring which groups are more vulnerable to developing a psychotic outcome as a result of cannabis use [van Os et al. 2002; Henquet et al. 2004]. Findings so far point that the effect of cannabis use is much stronger in those with any predisposition for psychosis at baseline than in those without [Henquet et al. 2005]. Indeed, individuals with a predisposition to psychosis indicated by a positive family unit history of psychosis have been plant to be particularly sensitive to the effects of cannabis [McGuire et al. 1995]. Another indicator for a higher psychosis gamble is the presence of subclinical psychotic features and once again such individuals have been affected by a college adventure of developing a psychotic disease [Henquet et al. 2004]. Furthermore those who are at ultra high take a chance for psychosis have been reported to be more sensitive to the psychotogenic effects of cannabis compared with users in the full general population [Peters et al. 2009].

Because of the reported links between the schizotypal personality and schizophrenia, this blazon of personality disorder has come under scrutiny in examining the part of cannabis in producing psychotic symptoms. Indeed, it has been shown that people scoring loftier in schizotypy who utilise cannabis are more likely to accept psychosis-similar experiences at the time of employ, together with unpleasant side effects [Barkus et al. 2006]. This study has been replicated and information technology has been confirmed that those with schizotypal personality disorder carry a college risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms with cannabis use [Stirling et al. 2008]. Virtually recently, some other report has provided farther back up for a stiff association between early on cannabis use and the evolution of schizophrenia spectrum disorder symptoms [Anglin et al. 2012].

The reported vulnerability factors mentioned here imply a strong genetic predisposition and there have been a number of studies looking particularly to specific genes which have been implicated in psychoses. The first such study was carried out by Caspi and colleagues [Caspi et al. 2005]. In this longitudinal written report, a specific susceptibility gene which has been linked to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), was examined in a representative nascency cohort followed to adulthood. The study establish that carriers of the COMT valine158 allele were about likely to exhibit psychotic symptoms and to develop schizophreniform disorder if they used cannabis before the age of 15. However, the number of people carrying this allele was modest in this written report. Using a case-only pattern of 493 people with schizophrenia, Zammit and colleagues re-examined this clan but their findings did not support the dissimilar effects of cannabis use on schizophrenia according to variation in COMT [Zammit et al. 2007]. Zammit's group also looked for evidence of an interaction between cannabis use and COMT genotype past restricting the analysis to participants who claimed to have first used cannabis past the same cutoff period as the Caspi grouping, merely failed to notice evidence supporting the link.

More than recently, van Winkel and colleagues looked at the effects of recent cannabis employ whilst examining 152 single nucleotide polymorphisms in 42 candidate genes in 801 patients with psychosis and their 740 unaffected siblings [van Winkel et al. 2011]. The authors establish that genetic variation in serine-threonine poly peptide kinase (AKT1) may mediate both short- and long-term furnishings on psychosis expression associated with cannabis use. The authors advise that the likely mechanism could be cannabinoid-regulated AKT1/glycogen synthase kinase 3 signalling downstream of the dopamine D2 receptor. Indeed, CB1R agonists have been shown to induce AKT1 phosphorylation, whilst the antagonists of this receptor have inhibited AKT1 signalling pathways [Molina-Holgado et al. 2002]. Further back up for the possible interest of the AKT1 gene comes from our written report with salubrious volunteers. This study establish that, during the encoding and remember conditions of the exact retentiveness task, the consecration of psychotic symptoms by d-9-THC was correlated with the adulterate striatal and midbrain activation merely in those who were G homozygotes of AKT1 and carriers of the 9-repeat allele dopamine transporter (DAT1) [Bhattacharyya et al. 2012] (Table 2).

Tabular array 2.

Proposed factors determining sensitivity to psychosis in cannabis users.^*

Sensitivity to psychosis equally adamant past:	Possible sensitivity factors	Written report grouping
Predisposition to psychosis	Family history of psychotic affliction	McGuire et al. [1995]
	Presence of subclinical psychotic symptoms	Henquet et al. [2004]
	Ultra high risk groups	Peters et al. [2009]
Personality	Schizotypal personality disorder	Barkus et al. [2006]; Stirling et al. [2008]; Anglin et al. [2012]
Psychosis susceptibility genes	COMT	Caspi et al. [2005]
	AKT1	van Winkel et al. [2011]
	AKT1 and DAT1	Bhattacharyya et al. [2012]

Apart from schizotypal personality, the vulnerability factors to the psychotogenic effects of cannabis crave replication. Information technology is clear that further work needs to be carried out to explore the biological mechanisms which determine the vulnerability towards a psychotic result.

Decision

During the final decade, endocannabinoid research has been one of the fastest growing fields in psychopharmacology, opening means to discover new medicines for a broad variety of health issues, ranging from metabolic disorders, to glaucoma and schizophrenia.

The distribution of the endocannabinoid arrangement in the brain is interesting every bit the very same brain areas are also implicated in psychoses, particularly in schizophrenia. Furthermore, circuitous and intricate interest of this system with other neurotransmitters such equally dopamine, GABA and glutamatergic systems may have implications for the development of a psychotic illness.

Naturally, due to the contempo and constant increase in the availability of higher THC content variants of cannabis around the world, there have been increasing concerns about the health risks, particularly for young people. However, cannabis affects people differently and therefore it is important to understand what makes someone more than at risk and how they differ compared with those who exercise non develop psychotic affliction. Here we have provided an overview of the available information on the gamble factors which may make an private more than at risk, such as predisposition to psychosis, schizotypal personality and sure susceptibility genes.

Finding groups who are vulnerable is particularly important so that they can exist targeted for early preventative and therapeutic interventions. Such a search would also lead to the discovery of the biochemical mechanisms involved in cannabis and endocannabinoid research and ultimately to a meliorate understanding of how the brain and the torso functions.

Acknowledgments

Cheers to Ethan Russo and Geoffrey W. Guy for providing the inspiration for Table i. Besides thanks to Dr Sanem Atakan for her aid with the editing of the first draft.

Footnotes

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disharmonize of interest statement: The writer declare no conflicts of interest in preparing this article.

References

Anderson B., Rizzo M., Block R., Pearlson K., O'Leary D. (2010) Sex activity, drugs and noesis: effects of marijuana. J Psychoactive Drugs 42: 413–424 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Anglin D., Corcoran C., Brownish A., Chen H., Lighty Q., Brook J., et al. (2012) Early cannabis utilize and schizotypal personality disorder symptoms from adolescence to middle adulthood. Schizophr Res 137: 45–49 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Arseneault L., Cannon Thou., Murray R., Poulton R., Caspi A., Moffitt T. (2002) Cannabis use in boyhood and risk for developed psychosis: longitudinal prospective study. BMJ 325: 1212–1213 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Atha M. (2005) Independent Drug Monitoring Unit (IDMU) Cannabis use in Uk. Available at: http://www.idmu.co.uk/
Athanasiou A., Clarke A., Turner A., Kumaran North., Vakilpour S., Smith P., et al. (2007) Cannabinoid receptor agonists are mitochondrial inhibitors: a unified hypothesis of how cannabinoids modulate mitochondrial function and induce cell decease. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 364: 131–137 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Barkus E., Stirling J., Hopkins R., Lewis Southward. (2006) Cannabis-induced psychosis-like experiences are associated with loftier schizotypy. Psychopathology 39: 175–178 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Batkai Southward., Pacher P., Osei-Hyiaman D., Radaeva S., Liu J., Harvey-White J., et al. (2004) Endocannabinoids acting at cannabinoid-1 receptors regulate cardiovascular function in hypertension. Apportionment 110: 1996–2002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Benowitz Northward., Jones R. (1981) Cardiovascular and metabolic considerations in prolonged cannabinoid administration in human being. J Clin Pharmacol 21: 214S–223S [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhattacharyya S., Atakan Z., Martin-Santos R., Crippa J., Kambeitz J., Prata D., et al. (2012) Preliminary report of biological basis of sensitivity to the effects of cannabis on psychosis: AKT1 and DAT1 genotype modulates the effects of delta-ix-tetrahydrocannabinol on midbrain and striatal function. Mol Psychiatry 31 January (epub alee of print). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhattacharyya Due south., Crippa J., Martin-Santos R., Winton-Dark-brown T., Fusar-Poli P. (2009a) Imaging the neural effects of cannabinoids: current status and future opportunities for psychopharmacology. Curr Pharm Des fifteen: 2603–2614 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhattacharyya S., Fusar-Poli P., Borgwardt S., Martin-Santos R., Nosarti C., O'Carroll C., et al. (2009b) Modulation of mediotemporal and ventrostriatal function in humans by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: a neural basis for the effects of Cannabis sativa on learning and psychosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 66: 442–451 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhattacharyya Due south., Morrison P., Fusar-Poli P., Martin-Santos R., Borgwardt S., Winton-Dark-brown T., et al. (2010) Opposite effects of delta-ix-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human encephalon function and psychopathology. Neuropsychopharmacology 35: 764–774 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Borgwardt Southward., Allen P., Bhattacharyya Due south., Fusar-Poli P., Crippa J., Seal M., et al. (2008) Neural basis of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol: effects during response inhibition. Biol Psychiatry 64: 966–973 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Callén L., Moreno East., Barraso-Chinea P., Moreno-Delgado D., Cortes A., Mallol J., et al. (2012) Cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 form functional heteromers in the brain. J Biol Chem 287: 20851-20865 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Carlini E., Karniol I., Renault P., Schuster C. (1974) Effects of marihuana in laboratory animals and in human. Br J Pharmacol l: 299–309 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cascini F., Aiello C., Di Tanna Yard. (2011) Increasing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-9-THC) content in herbal cannabis over fourth dimension: systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Drug Corruption Rev 5: 32-40 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Caspi A., Moffitt T., Cannon M., McClay J., Murray R., Harrington H., et al. (2005) Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis utilise on adult psychosis past a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene: longitudinal bear witness of a factor X environment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 57: 1117–1127 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Costa B., Trovato A., Comellii F., Giagnoni G., Colleoni 1000. (2007) The non-psychoactive cannabis constituent cannabidiol is an orally constructive therapeutic agent in rat chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Eur J Pharmacol 556: 75–83 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Crippa J., Derenusson 1000., Ferrari T., Wichert-Ana 50., Duran F., Martin-Santos R., et al. (2011) Neural footing of anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized social anxiety disorder: apreliminary study. J Psychopharmacol 25: 121–130 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Crippa J., Zuardi A., Martin-Santos R., Bhattacharyya S., Atakan Z., McGuire P., et al. (2009) Cannabis and anxiety: a critical review of the bear witness. Hum Psychopharmacol 7: 515–523 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Curran H., Brignell C., Fletcher S., Middleton P., Henry J. (2002) Cognitive subjective dose–response effects of astute oral delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in infrequent cannabis users. Psychopharmacology 164: 61–lxx [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dakwar Due east., Nunes E., Bisaga A., Carpenter K., Mariani J., Sullivan M., et al. (2011) A comparison of contained depression and substance-induced depression in cannabis-, cocaine-, and opioid-dependent treatment seekers. Am J Addict 20: 441–446 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Degenhardt Fifty., Coffey C., Carlin J., Swift W., Moore Due east., Patton G. (2010) Outcomes of occasional cannabis use in adolescence: ten-twelvemonth follow-up study in Victoria, Australia. Br J Psychiatry 196: 290–295 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
De Meijer Due east., Bagatta G., Carboni A., Crucitti P., Moliterni V., Ranalli P., et al. (2003) The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. Genetics 63: 335–346 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Devane W., Dysarz F., Johnson M., Melvin L., Howlett A. (1988) Determination and characterization of a cannabinoid receptor in rat brain. Mol Pharmacol 34: 605–613 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Devane W., Hanus L., Breuer A., Pertwee R., Stevenson 50., Griffin G., et al. (1992) Isolation and structure of a brain elective that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Science 258: 1946–1949 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dewey West. (1986) Cannabinoid pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev 38: 151–178 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Di Forti M., Morgan C., Dazzan P., Pariente C., Mondelli V., Marques T., et al. (2009) High-dominance cannabis and the run a risk of psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 195: 488–491 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Di Marzo V., Piscitelli F. (2011) Gut feelings about the endocannabinoid arrangement. Neurogastroenterol Motil 23: 391–398 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Di Marzo Five., Piscitelli F., Mechoulam R. (2011) Cannabinoids and endocannabinoids in metabolic disorders with focus on diabetes. Handb Exp Pharmacol 203: 75–104 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
D'Souza D., Perry East., MacDougall L., Ammerman Y., Cooper T., Wu Y., et al. (2004) The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology 29: 1558–1572 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
D'Souza D., Sewell R., Ranganathan M. (2009) Cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia: human studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 259: 413–431 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) (2011) Annual Report 2011: The State of the Drug Bug in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA [Google Scholar]
Fairman B., Anthony J. (2012) Are early-onset cannabis smokers at an increased gamble of low spells? J Touch on Disord 138: 54–62 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ferré Due south., Goldberg S., Lluis C., Franco R. (2009) Looking for the function of cannabinoid receptor heteromers in striatal part. Neuropharmacology 56(Suppl. i): 226–234 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Fusar-Poli P., Crippa J., Bhattacharyya Southward., Borgwardt S., Allen P., Martin-Santos R., et al. (2009) Singled-out effects of delta-nine-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neural activation during emotional processing. Arch Gen Psychiatry 66: 95–105 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gaoni Y., Mechoulam R. (1964) Isolation, structure and partial synthesis of an active constituent of hashish. J Am Chem Soc 86: 1646–1647 [Google Scholar]
Gorelick D., Heishman Due south. (2006) Methods for clinical research involving cannabis assistants. Methods Mol Med 123: 235–253 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dark-green B., Kavanagh D., Young R. (2003) Being stoned: a review of self-reported cannabis effects. Drug Alcohol Rev 22: 453–460 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dark-green Thou. (1998) Marijuana smoking vs cannabinoids for glaucoma therapy. Arch Ophthalmol 116: 1433–1437 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hall W., Degenhardt 50. (2007) Prevalence and correlates of cannabis use in adult and developing countries. Curr Opin Psychiatry 20: 393–397 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hayakawa K., Mishima One thousand., Hazekawa G., Sano K., Orito K., et al. (2008) Cannabidiol potentiates pharmacological furnishings of delta(ix)-tetrahydrocannabinol via CB(1) receptor-dependent mechanism. Brain Res 1888: 157–164 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Henquet C., Krabbendam 50., Spauwen J., Kaplan C., Lieb R., Wittchen H., et al. (2004) Prospective cohort study of cannabis employ, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. BMJ 330: eleven–14 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Henquet C., Krabbendam L., Spauwen J., Kaplan C., Lieb R., Wittchen H., et al. (2005) Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis and psychotic symptoms in young people. BMJ 330: 11. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Howlett A., Barth F., Bonner T., Cabral 1000., Casellas P., Devane Westward., et al. (2002) International Spousal relationship of Pharmacology. XXVII. Classification of cannabinoid receptors. Pharmacol Rev 54: 161–202 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Iwamura H., Suzuki H., Ueda Y., Kaya T., Inaba T. (2001) In vitro and in vivo pharmacological characterization of JTE-907, a novel selective ligand for cannabinoid CB2 receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 296: 420–425 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Izzo A. (2004) Cannabinoids and intestinal motility: welcome to CB2 receptors. Br J Pharmacol 142: 1201–1202 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Juknat A., Rimmerman Due north., Levy R., Vogel Z., Kozela E. (2011) Cannabidiol affects the expression of genes involved in zinc homeostasis in BV-2 microglial cells. Neurochem Int 9 December (epub ahead of print). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Karniol I., Carlini East. (1973) Comparative studies in man and in laboratory animals on eight- and 9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol. Pharmacology 9: 115–126 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Karniol I., Shirikawa I., Kasinski N., Pfefermen A., Carlini E. (1974) Cannabidiol interferes with the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in homo. Eur J Pharmacol 28: 172–77 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kenney Southward., Kekuda R., Prasad P., Leibach F., Devoe L., Ganapathy Five. (1999) Cannabinoid receptors and their function in the regulation of the serotonin transporter in human placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181: 491–497 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lakhan Due south., Rowland Grand. (2009) Whole plant cannabis extracts in the handling of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. BMC Neurol 9: 59. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Li H. (1973) An archaeological and historical account of cannabis in People's republic of china. Economic Phytology 28: 437–448 [Google Scholar]
Mackie K., Stella Northward. (2006) Cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids: evidence for new players. AAPS J 8: E298–E306 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Marcellino D., Carriba P., Filip Yard., Borgkvist A., Frankowska Chiliad., Bellido I., et al. (2008) Antagonistic cannabinoid CB1/dopamine D2 receptor interactions in striatal CB1/D2 heteromers. A combined neurochemical and behavioral analysis. Neuropharmacology 54: 815–823 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Matsuda Fifty., Lolait S., Brownstein Thousand., Young A., Bonner T. (1990) Structure of a cannabinoid receptor and functional expression of the cloned cDNA. Nature 346: 561–564 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
McGuire P., Jones P., Harvey I., Williams M., McGuffin P., Murray R. (1995) Morbid risk of schizophrenia for relatives of patients with cannabis-associated psychosis. Schizophr Res 15: 277–281 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mechoulam R., Ben-Shabat Due south., Hanuš Fifty., Ligumsky K., Kaminski N., Schatz A., et al. (1995) Identification of an endogenous two-monoglyceride, present in canine gut, that binds to cannabinoid receptors. Biochem Pharmacol 50: 83–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mechoulam R., Hanus L. (2000) A historical overview of chemical research on cannabinoids. Chems Phys Lipids 108: 1–13 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mechoulam R., Shvo Y. (1963) Hashish. I. The structure of cannabidiol. Tetrahedron 19: 2073–2078 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Molina-Holgado E., Vela J., Arévalo-Martin A., Almazán Yard., Molina-Holgado F., Borrell J., et al. (2002) Cannabinoids promote oligodendrocyte progenitor survival: involvement of cannabinoid receptors and phosphatidylinositol-iii kinase/Akt signalling. J Neurosci 22: 9742–9753 [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Moore T., Zammit S., Lingford-Hughes A., Barnes T., Jones P., Burke M., et al. (2007) Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 370: 319–328 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Moreira F., Guimaraes F. (2005) Cannabidiol inhibits the hyperlocomotion induced by psychotomimetic drugs in mice. Eur J Pharmacol 512: 199–205 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Morgan C., Gardener C., Schafer 1000., Swan S., Demarchi C., Freeman T., et al. (2011) Sub-chronic impact of cannabinoids in street cannabis on knowledge, psychotic-like symptoms and psychological well-existence. Psychol Med 29: i–10 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Morgan C., Schafer G., Freeman T., Curran H. (2010) Impact of cannabidiol on the acute memory and psychotomimetic effects of smoked cannabis: naturalistic study. Br J Psychiatry 197: 285–290 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Morrison P., Zois V., McKeown D., Lee T., Holt D., Powell J., et al. (2009) The acute effects of constructed intravenous delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol on psychosis, mood and cognitive performance. Psychol Med 39: 1607–1616 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Munro S., Thomas Yard., Abu-Shaar M. (1993) Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids. Nature 365: 61–65 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Navarro G., Carriba P., Gandia J., Ciruela F., Casadó V., Cortés A., et al. (2008) Detection of heteromers formed past cannabinoid CB2, dopamine D2, and adenosine A2A G-protein-coupled receptors by combining bimolecular fluorescence complementation and bioluminescence energy transfer. ScientificWorldJournal 8: 1088–1097 [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nicholson A., Turner C., Stone B., Robson P. (2004) Effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on nocturnal sleep and early-forenoon behavior in immature adults. J Clin Psychopharmacol 24:305–313 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nunes Due east., Liu X., Samet S., Matseoane G., Hasin D. (2006) Independent versus substance-induced major depressive disorder in substance-dependent patients: observational study of course during follow-up. J Clin Psychiatry 67: 1561–1567 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pagotto U., Marsicano Chiliad., Cota D., Lutz B., Pasquali R. (2006) The emerging part of the endocannabinoid system in endocrine regulation and energy balance. Endocr Rev 27: 73–100 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pamplona F., Takahashi R. (2012) Psychopharmacology of the endocannabinoids: far beyond anandamide. J Psychopharmacol 26: vii–22 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Parker L., Rock E., Limebeer C. (2011) Regulation of nausea and airsickness by cannabinoids. Br J Pharmacol 163: 1411–1422 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R. (1997) Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Pharmacol Ther 74: 129– 180 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R. (2006) The pharmacology of cannabinoid receptors and their ligands: an overview. Int J Obes (Lond) 30: S13–S18 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R. (2008) The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three constitute cannabinoids: delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin. Br J Pharmacol 153: 199–215 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R. (2009) Emerging strategies for exploiting cannabinoid receptor agonists equally medicines. Br J Pharmacol 156: 397–411 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R. (2010) Receptors and channels targeted past constructed cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists. Curr Med Chem 17: 1360–1381 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pertwee R., Howlett A., Abood M., Alexander S., Di Marzo V., Elphick Thousand. (2010) International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXIX. Cannabinoid receptors and their ligands: beyond CB1 and CB2. Pharmacol Rev 62: 588–631 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Peters B., de Koning P., Dingemans P., Becker H., Linszen D., de Haan L. (2009) Subjective effects of cannabis before the first psychotic episode. Aust Due north Z J Psychiatry 43: 1155–1162 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pickel 5., Chan J., Kearn C., Mackie Thou. (2006) Targeting dopamine D2 and cannabinoid-one (CB1) receptors in rat nucleus accumbens. J Comp Neurol 495: 299–313 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Potter D., Clark P., Brown M. (2008) Authorisation of delta nine-THC and other cannabinoids in cannabis in England in 2005: implications for psychoactivity and pharmacology. J Forensic Sci 53: ninety–94 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Raduner S., Majewska A., Chen J., Xie X., Hamon J., Faller B., et al. (2006) Alkylamides from Echinacea are a new form of cannabinomimetics. Cannabinoid type 2 receptor-dependent and -contained immunomodulatory effects. J Biol Chem 281: 14192–14206 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ramer R., Bublitz K., Freimuth N., Merkord J., Rohde H., Haustein M., et al. (2012) Cannabidiol inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. FASEB J 26: 1535-1548 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rhee Thousand., Vogel Z., Barg J., Bayewitch M., Levy R., Hanus L., et al. (1997) Cannabinol derivatives: binding to cannabinoid receptors and inhibition of adenylylcyclase. J Med Chem 40: 3228–3233 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Russo Eastward. B. (2001) Handbook of psychotropic herbs: a scientific analysis of herbal remedies for psychiatric conditions. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Printing [Google Scholar]
Russo E., Guy Grand. (2006) A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol andcannabidiol. Med Hypotheses 66: 234–246 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Russo Eastward., Guy G., Robson P. (2007) Cannabis, hurting, and sleep: lessons from therapeutic clinical trials of Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine. Chem Biodivers 4: 1729–1743 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Showalter V., Compton D., Martin B., Abood Chiliad. (1996) Evaluation of binding in a transfected jail cell line expressing a peripheral cannabinoid receptor (CB2): identification of cannabinoid receptor subtype selective ligands. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 278: 989–999 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smieskova R., Fusar-Poli P., Allen P., Bendfeldt Grand., Stieglitz R., Drewe J., et al. (2010) Neuroimaging predictors of transition to psychosis – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34: 1207–1222 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stirling J., Barkus E., Nabosi Fifty., Irshad Due south., Roemer Yard., Schreudergoidheijt B., et al. (2008) Cannabis-induced psychotic-similar experiences are predicted by high schizotypy. Confirmation of preliminary results in a large accomplice. Psychopathology 41: 371–378 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stone J. (2011) Glutamatergic antipsychotic drugs: a new dawn in the treatment of schizophrenia? Ther Adv Psychopharmacol one: five–18 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Taylor A., Amoako A., Bambang Grand., Karasu T., Gebeh A., Lam P., et al. (2010) Endocannabinoids and pregnancy. Clin Chim Acta 411: 921–930 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Terry G., Liow J., Zoghbi S., Hirvonen J., Farris A., Lerner A. (2009) Quantitation of cannabinoid CB1 receptors in healthy human brain using positron emission tomography and an inverse agonist radioligand. Neuroimage 48: 362–370 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Thomas H. (1996) A community survey of adverse effects of cannabis utilise, Drug Alcohol Depend 42: 201–207 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Torres S., Lorente G., Rodriguez-Fornés F., Hernandez-Tiedra S., Salazar Yard., Garcia-Taboada E., et al. (2011) A combined preclinical therapy of cannabinoids and temozolomide against glioma. Mol Cancer Ther 10: 90–103 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tsou K., Brown S., Sanudo-Pena Grand., Mackie K., Walker J. (1998) Immunohistochemical distribution of cannabinoid CB1 receptors in the rat central nervous arrangement. Neuroscience 83: 393–411 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Os J., Bak M., Bijl R., De Graaf R., Verdoux H. (2002) Cannabis use and psychosis: a longitudinal population-based written report. Am J Epidemiol 156: 319–327 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Os J., Kapur S. (2009) Schizophrenia. Lancet 374: 635–645 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Waes V., Beverley J., Siman H., Tseng One thousand., Steiner H. (2012) CB1 cannabinoid receptor expression in the striatum: association with corticostriatal circuits and developmental regulation. Front Pharmacol three: 21. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Winkel R., Genetic Gamble and Upshot of Psychosis (Grouping) Investigators (2011) Family unit-based analysis of genetic variation underlying psychosis-inducing effects of cannabis: sibling analysis and proband follow-upwards. Arch Gen Psychiatry 68: 148–157 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wallace M., Wiley J., Martin B., DeLorenzo R. (2001) Cess of the role of CB1 receptors in cannabinoid anticonvulsant furnishings. Eur J Pharmacol 428: 51–57 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Winton-Brown T., Allen P., Bhattacharrya Due south., Borgwardt Southward., Fusar-Poli P., Crippa J., et al. (2011) Modulation of auditory and visual processing by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol: an fMRI study. Neuropsychopharmacology 36: 1340–1348 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Forest T. (1899) Cannabinol, part I. J Chem Soc 75: 20–36 [Google Scholar]
Zammit Southward., Allebeck P., Andreasson S., Lundberg I., Lewis Thou. (2002) Self reported cannabis employ as a gamble cistron for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort report. BMJ 325: 1199–1201 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zammit South., Spurlock Yard., Williams H., Norton N., Williams N., O'Donovan M., et al. (2007) Genotype furnishings of CHRNA7, CNR1 and COMT in schizophrenia: interactions with tobacco and cannabis utilise Br J Psychiatry 191: 402–407 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zuardi A., Guimaraes F. (1997) Cannabidiol equally an anxiolytic and antipsychotic. In: Mathre 1000. (ed), Cannabis in Medical Practise: A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, p. 133–141 [Google Scholar]
Zuardi A., Morais S., Guimaraes F., Mechoulam R. (1995) Antipsychotic outcome of cannabidiol [letter of the alphabet]. J Clin Psychiatry 56: 485–486 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications