Chemometric Analysis of Cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and Domestication Syndrome

[amannamedtruth]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31120-2

Article | OPEN | Published: 30 August 2018

Chemometric Analysis of Cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and Domestication Syndrome
E. M. Mudge, S. J. Murch & P. N. Brown
Scientific Reportsvolume 8, Article number: 13090 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract
Cannabis is an interesting domesticated crop with a long history of cultivation and use. Strains have been selected through informal breeding programs with undisclosed parentage and criteria. The term “strain” refers to minor morphological differences and grower branding rather than distinct cultivated varieties. We hypothesized that strains sold by different licensed producers are chemotaxonomically indistinguishable and that the commercial practice of identifying strains by the ratio of total THC and CBD is insufficient to account for the reported human health outcomes. We used targeted metabolomics to analyze 11 known cannabinoids and an untargeted metabolomics approach to identify 21 unknown cannabinoids. Five clusters of chemotaxonomically indistinguishable strains were identified from the 33 commercial products. Only 3 of the clusters produce CBDA in significant quantities while the other 2 clusters redirect metabolic resources toward the THCA production pathways. Six unknown metabolites were unique to CBD-rich strains and/or correlated to CBDA and 3 unknowns were found only in THC-rich strains. Together, these data indicate the domestication of the cannabis germplasm has resulted in a loss of the CBDA pathway in some strains and reallocation of resources between CBDA and THCA pathways in others. The impact of domestication is a lack of chemical diversity and loss of biodiversity in modern cannabis strains.

Introduction
Results
Discussion
Methods
Data Availability
Additional information
References
Acknowledgements
Author information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Comments
Scientific Reports
ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

 

[PDX Dopesmoker]

While I don't disrespect the world of formal academic publishing, the propensity of some of the people who dwell in that world to use unnecessarily obfuscated communication techniques to enforce a level of exclusivity which effectively eliminates the possibility of some competing ideas, discussion or legitimate criticism suggests to me that some of those in academics often lack confidence in their own mastery of the topics they claim to be an authority figures in and that in turn casts a lot of doubt on the peer-review process. That all having been said, I'd like to see what the results were with this one, if I read all that academic gobbledygook correctly I think whats its trying to say is that the eggheads are trying to proved that people who sell marijuana seeds aren't "real breeders", which I think is something that I've heard somewhere else before, maybe more than once.

 

[jaypopnseeds]

I used to be in the world of academics.
Yeah, reading scientific articles often feels like needing to learn a whole new language, but there’s a reason for that. When talking about scientific results, you need to be concise yet exact in your meaning. The end result is a whole new set of jargon necessary to converse clearly in the field. While academics may be one of the more noticeable cases of this, it applies to all specialized professions. Sit in a board room meeting and they’ll toss around acronyms and terms that are meaningless to anyone outside of their field. Same for software engineers and auto mechanics.

As for the paper, I’ve only read the abstract, but based on analyzing cannabinoid production they find that modern cannabis shows a lack of variation, and there’s evidence that breeding has influenced the relative levels of cannabinoids.

Both statements are pretty obvious to anyone that has been involved with pot for the last couple of decades.

I personally think a more relevant chemotaxonomic analysis would include cannabinoid and terpene production. Most of us differentiate “strains” based on smells. I would’ve also liked to have seen a high resolution whole genome phylogenetic analysis. I think that would be really interesting. Personally, I believe Phylos techniques and methods are insufficient to untangle the genetic histories of modern day strains. As a former scientist who did these exact types of analyses, I’m not a fan of Phylos’ work.

 

[zif]

Science is just like everywhere else. People do one thing, and for various rea$on$, often try to sell their work as doing much, much more.

They looked at Canadian LP cannabis and found lots of interesting cannabinoids, and hints of many more. But, jeez, it was mainly THC, CBD, and parts of the pathway to them.

At no point did they do anything that could show anything resembling ‘domestication syndrome’. But they thought that’d sell, I suppose. And here we are talking about it.

 

[PDX Dopesmoker]

I used to be in the world of academics.
Yeah, reading scientific articles often feels like needing to learn a whole new language, but there’s a reason for that. When talking about scientific results, you need to be concise yet exact in your meaning. The end result is a whole new set of jargon necessary to converse clearly in the field. While academics may be one of the more noticeable cases of this, it applies to all specialized professions. Sit in a board room meeting and they’ll toss around acronyms and terms that are meaningless to anyone outside of their field. Same for software engineers and auto mechanics.

As for the paper, I’ve only read the abstract, but based on analyzing cannabinoid production they find that modern cannabis shows a lack of variation, and there’s evidence that breeding has influenced the relative levels of cannabinoids.

Both statements are pretty obvious to anyone that has been involved with pot for the last couple of decades.

I personally think a more relevant chemotaxonomic analysis would include cannabinoid and terpene production. Most of us differentiate “strains” based on smells. I would’ve also liked to have seen a high resolution whole genome phylogenetic analysis. I think that would be really interesting. Personally, I believe Phylos techniques and methods are insufficient to untangle the genetic histories of modern day strains. As a former scientist who did these exact types of analyses, I’m not a fan of Phylos’ work.

I also used to be involved in the academic scene and remember the thrill of saying unnecessarily large words in the hopes that everyone around me would feel dumb. Its not much of a communication technique although it sometimes necessary within the field.
None of that has anything to do with this article, just something that popped into my head when I was attempting to decipher the abstract. Like I said, I'd like to read the results, with some luck and maybe a rosetta stone or a babblefish I might even be able to figure out what it says.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Read some of the research, abstract actually, but what i read about it is the lack of minor cannabinoids in most todays Cannabis varieties.
Here is a presentation of Dr.Deidre Meir at Cannatech.He is doing cancer research in which variety can be used to treat which type of cancer and he found out that one variety was active against prostate cancer, but was not usable against colon cancer etc.Also he talks about the difference in extraction of using ethanol or CO2.

[YOUTUBEIF]QCdaIbeXho0[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Mustafunk]

Thanks for an intersting article... I must say I agree 100% with it and I find refreshing to see all this scientists taking Cannabis research a bit seriously. On the other hand I've found lots of garbage too among some of all this new papers. Not all the academics and researchers end being excellent, but I definitely agree with the conclussions of this one.

The impact of domestication is a lack of chemical diversity and loss of biodiversity in modern cannabis strains.

This is a reality that many breeders and researchers have been addressing for years already. 90% of commercial genetics are hybrids of the same plants (nowadays OG Kush genes are contaminating everything like Skunk did in the 90s), this lack of genetic diversity also leads towards a similar lack of chemical diversity and chemotypes from the researcher's perspective.

We hypothesized that strains sold by different licensed producers are chemotaxonomically indistinguishable and that the commercial practice of identifying strains by the ratio of total THC and CBD is insufficient to account for the reported human health outcomes.

This was also observed by many growers and breeders, some people tested different Diesel or OGK clones only to find out most had to be renamed clones from exactly the same chemotypes, since the chemotype fingerprint was exactly the same for many of them. This remarks the fact that most of the information found on the community is based on pure bullshit, speculation and ego-based and subjetive opinions. I geuss this is what the researchers are realizing nowadays through their own experiments...

Cheers.