THC-acid, THCV and THCV-acid

[coneconington]

Hi yall,
Over the years iv learnt, what I would say, is a fair bit about cannabis chemistry and botany.
However, recently reading a post on here about cannabinoids and terpenes, I learnt that THC acid, THCV and THCV-acid are all separate cannabinoids?
Why was THC acid always referred to as THCV?
Is it due to their decomposition? Do they all break down into THC when heated or cured?
I know I could just look it up, but iv been on this site for years and iv only made 2 posts!? So I thought I'd ask this awesome community of cannabis knowledge instead.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hint 1: Plants produce cannabinoids in their acid form. For example, THCA is not psychoactive. Upon heating, they decarboxylate, lose CO2, and become what we commonly refer to, like THC and CBD. In most cases, the two forms are used interchangeably.
HINT 2.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

x

Hi yall,
Over the years iv learnt, what I would say, is a fair bit about cannabis chemistry and botany.
However, recently reading a post on here about cannabinoids and terpenes, I learnt that THC acid, THCV and THCV-acid are all separate cannabinoids?
Why was THC acid always referred to as THCV?

I've never seen that, THCA is what it is called.
The plant only produces the acid form of the 80 odd Cannabinoids, the neutral form THC is decarboxylated either by smoking or by long term storage and/or exposure to heat, light, oxygen.
THCV and THC are different Cannabinoids. THCV and THCVA are basiclly the same except the THCV has been decarboxylated.
I would suggest you very know little about cannabis chemistry.
-SamS


Is it due to their decomposition? Do they all break down into THC when heated or cured?
I know I could just look it up, but iv been on this site for years and iv only made 2 posts!? So I thought I'd ask this awesome community of cannabis knowledge instead.

 

[coneconington]

I actually know a fair bit of chemistry, it's kinda big headed of you to assume I don't, im studying it at university at present. I could have looked it up , but I thought I'd ask. In future I'll just look it up.

 

[coneconington]

I hate this about most forums these days, ask a question and get belittled by someone who clearly knows more than everyone lol. Thanks

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

x

Wasn't very nice Sam. I know you value our community as much as I do if not more. Were all here to learn in a positive environment where we treat each other with respect.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Wow I answer your question and you spit it back at me? Do you wonder why, newbies are made fun of when they say they know a fair amount about cannabis chemistry and botany, and show they do not, and then call me big headed and try and insult me?

Might I suggest you trying being more honest with your questions and just admit the truth that you know little and want to learn more?
I can respect that, it is hard to take serious anyone that asks a question like you did with the qualification that they know a fair amount about Cannabis chemistry and botany, you obviously do not, even if you know chemistry in general. Or at least your question implies that....

-SamS

I hate this about most forums these days, ask a question and get belittled by someone who clearly knows more than everyone lol. Thanks


I actually know a fair bit of chemistry, it's kinda big headed of you to assume I don't, im studying it at university at present. I could have looked it up , but I thought I'd ask. In future I'll just look it up.


THC-acid, THCV and THCV-acid
Hi yall,
Over the years iv learnt, what I would say, is a fair bit about cannabis chemistry and botany.
However, recently reading a post on here about cannabinoids and terpenes, I learnt that THC acid, THCV and THCV-acid are all separate cannabinoids?

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Sure I was a bit rude, as he was not telling the truth at all, lets be honest. I try and help, but I don't like surly dogs biting the hand that feeds them knowledge, as well as him implying that he knows a fair bit of Cannabis chemistry, that was basic info, he did not know.
-SamS

Wasn't very nice Sam. I know you value our community as much as I do if not more. Were all here to learn in a positive environment where we treat each other with respect.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

 

[coneconington]

Iv been working pretty hard on improving my knowledge of chemistry for 4 years now (2nd year pharmaceutical chem.), I think my grades show I'm progressing well. The only thing I shouldn't have written was 'cannabis chemistry', since the original post iv done a bit of reading and turns out I know very little on the specifics of cannabinoids. So il rephrase, "I have a fair bit of knowledge in chemistry and some botany. Someone please help improve my knowledge of cannabis in a polite and understanding manner."
Iv got pdfs on my old desktop referring to thca as thcv, hence the question.
As I said, iv been a member for however many years and only made 2 posts, even if on reflection it was an obvious (some would say stupid) question I thought I'd socialise on the site I'm on so often. Thank you for the answer, but you really didn't need to be rude. Have you never asked a stupid question while you were still learning? how would we learn without stupid questions.

 

[coneconington]

Thankyou for the info ornamental, HINT 2 is some interesting stuff!

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Iv been working pretty hard on improving my knowledge of chemistry for 4 years now (2nd year pharmaceutical chem.), I think my grades show I'm progressing well. The only thing I shouldn't have written was 'cannabis chemistry', since the original post iv done a bit of reading and turns out I know very little on the specifics of cannabinoids. So il rephrase, "I have a fair bit of knowledge in chemistry and some botany. Someone please help improve my knowledge of cannabis in a polite and understanding manner."

No problem I think you are pretty clear now. I am a bit rude, that is well known, but I do not suffer fools silently, it was your statement that "Over the years iv learnt, what I would say, is a fair bit about cannabis chemistry and botany. " That made me do it.
It was just not true at all.
Sure I asked stupid questions I still do, but I try to avoid saying I know what I am talking about if I don't. That is actually a stupid statement if not true, not a stupid question.

Iv got pdfs on my old desktop referring to thca as thcv, hence the question.
As I said, iv been a member for however many years and only made 2 posts, even if on reflection it was an obvious (some would say stupid) question I thought I'd socialise on the site I'm on so often. Thank you for the answer, but you really didn't need to be rude. Have you never asked a stupid question while you were still learning? how would we learn without stupid questions.

Yes the Hint 2 is good stuff, the work for this was begun in my lab and I started the project. I think that we, our team, showed the world how the Cannabinoids were inherited, and I am proud of the work. THC was only discovered 50 years ago and we now know how it is inherited in the plant. Pretty cool.
-SamS.

 

[Donn]

As long as it's OK to be critical, may I point out that this site's terminology popup for "THCV" says "tetrahydrocannabiverol"?

People who want to follow up with a search will get a lot more interesting information if they look "tetrahydrocannabivarin". I guess either is valid, and of course there isn't much point in having the popup in the first place as you'd do just as well to search for THCV, but someone must like these popups (that you get if you hover over an italicized term.)

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I just ignore the popups but I think that tetrahydrocannabivarin is correct.
-SamS

 

[Chimera]

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).

DA is 'knocked -out' in most populations, probably an inadvertent - propyl knockout selection recognized for it's lack of psychoactivity and an was teased out of the progenitor by an unintentional selection pressure by humans that were selecting for increased psycho-activity, since THCV/THCVA appears to be an inverse agonist @ CB1. You read it here first - time stamped for clarity.

I've never seen THCV/THVCA represented as THCA- if anyone did publish that it's wrong - propyl cannabs have 3 carbon side-chains while the more common OA derived pentyl's have 5 carbon tails, different chemical structures, different molecular weights, different routes of synthesis, different chemical affinities and receptor binding potentials.

You can peak on Sam for being rude, or you can recognize that this entire field is filled with wannabes that all have an opinion and most are wrong or have an incomplete understanding, and we see them telling you all how it is and espousing their ill-informed opionions on the daily. I don't know what it is about cannabis, but some how it repeatedly attracts those that couldn't make it elsewhere, yet know enough to fool the quasi-informed into idolatry. Trust me I spent the last few listening to folks discussing techniques and analytical methods for which most of have never run a single sample, trying to correct folks who have run thousands of samples and actually have experience. Bring your own data or shut up, and learn from those actually doing the work. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback because you read a bunch of papers, it's another thing entirely to have done the work and see the results and interpret how your own results may conflict with current models.

Too much talk in this business, not enough do. I say talk less, do more.

-Chimera

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

x

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).

Cool, I am happy if the model can be corrected, and if you can do it great, I will be happy to read your corrections and I believe you may have a better model, you understand Cannabis well enough to say this, I look forward to the more to come.... Is it your work or others?
-SamS

DA is 'knocked -out' in most populations, probably an inadvertent - propyl knockout selection recognized for it's lack of psychoactivity and an was teased out of the progenitor by an unintentional selection pressure by humans that were selecting for increased psycho-activity, since THCV/THCVA appears to be an inverse agonist @ CB1. You read it here first - time stamped for clarity.

I've never seen THCV/THVCA represented as THCA- if anyone did publish that it's wrong - propyl cannabs have 3 carbon side-chains while the more common OA derived pentyl's have 5 carbon tails, different chemical structures, different molecular weights, different routes of synthesis, different chemical affinities and receptor binding potentials.

You can peak on Sam for being rude, or you can recognize that this entire field is filled with wannabes that all have an opinion and most are wrong or have an incomplete understanding, and we see them telling you all how it is and espousing their ill-informed opionions on the daily. I don't know what it is about cannabis, but some how it repeatedly attracts those that couldn't make it elsewhere, yet know enough to fool the quasi-informed into idolatry.

Ain't that the truth?

Trust me I spent the last few listening to folks discussing techniques and analytical methods for which most of have never run a single sample, trying to correct folks who have run thousands of samples and actually have experience. Bring your own data or shut up, and learn from those actually doing the work. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback because you read a bunch of papers, it's another thing entirely to have done the work and see the results and interpret how your own results may conflict with current models.

I agree.

Too much talk in this business, not enough do. I say talk less, do more.

-Chimera

 

[Only Ornamental]

The GW/Etienne propyl cannabinoid Apr/Ape single locus model is incorrect, I'm quite sure of that. (More to come).
...
-Chimera

Aren't there a few older publications which proposed a 2 loci model?
I remember that the lastest publication/-s on the subject aren't a 100% identical with the GW model but what exactly it was, I can't tell because the weather is too hot right now and I have difficulties doing anything else than sweating...
I don't think that THCV (or rather the allele/-s for the respective enzyme) was 'bred away' (intentionally or not) because THCV is also rare in hemp and multipurpose varieties. But this is just an extrapolation from CBD.

Regarding THCV: Tetrahydrocannabivarin and tetrahydrocannabivarol are two of the many synonymes for THCV, though tetrahydrocannabiverol isn't one.

Good question: Who makes those popups and how do we tell him if we find an error?

 

[Donn]

Good question: Who makes those popups and how do we tell him if we find an error?

There's a lot of junk in there. For example, any occurrence of "wild" is italicized so that in case you wanted to know, you can find it out that it means "weedy, escaped, naturalized or indigenous." (?) Anywhere else, italics carry emphasis, so automatic italicization of wild is unintentionally comical. If this feature just went away, I bet no one would miss it.

 

[Mikell]

If this feature just went away, I bet no one would miss it.

 

[Daub Marley]

All information in forums is suspect. It's a great way to generally discuss a subject and get other viewpoints even if those other views are purely based on an empirical and/or non-scientific foundation. I have noticed the disparity of knowledge between the everyday poster here and someone in the general population with a scientifically focused education. It's obvious and prevalent enough that I find myself acting like an expert even though I am not. It's easy to overstep your expertise when a question is openly asked to all. You are going to get a range of expertise and credibility with your answers. It's up to you to mine them for something useful, but if your intention is to acquire verified peer-reviewed data then you've come to the wrong place. A forum is more of a tool for discussion than a trove of solid data. It really hinders the progression of knowledge and exploration when anyone regardless of their expertise belittles another member for their perceived lack of knowledge. Get off your high-horse before the impending rush of real experts that have been self selectively barred from this industry knock you off.