Why does cannabis produce resin?

[Sam_Skunkman]

Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid Synthase, the Enzyme Controlling Marijuana
Psychoactivity, is Secreted into the Storage Cavity of the Glandular
Trichomes

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/9/1578.full.pdf+html

Purification and characterization of cannabidiolic-acid synthase from Cannabis sativa L.. Biochemical analysis of a novel enzyme that catalyzes the oxidocyclization of cannabigerolic acid to cannabidiolic acid.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8663284



PKS Activities and Biosynthesis of Cannabinoids and Flavonoids
in Cannabis sativa L. Plants

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/conte...html?sid=be26efac-d930-4a4b-8408-d1ecfbe2a538

Characterization of olivetol synthase, a polyketide synthase putatively involved in cannabinoid biosynthetic pathway.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19454282

Phytocannabinoids in Cannabis sativa: recent studies on biosynthetic enzymes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17712812



PMID- 17669365
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 20070816
DCOM- 20071127
IS - 0006-291X (Print)
IS - 0006-291X (Linking)
VI - 361
IP - 3
DP - 2007 Sep 28
TI - Production of Delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid by the biosynthetic enzyme
secreted from transgenic Pichia pastoris.
PG - 675-80
AB - Delta(1)-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase is the enzyme that catalyzes
the oxidative cyclization of cannabigerolic acid into THCA, the acidic precursor
of Delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinol. We developed a novel expression system for THCA
synthase using a methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris as a host. Under optimized
conditions, the transgenic P. pastoris secreted approximately 1.32nkat/l of THCA
synthase activity, and the culture medium, from which the cells were removed,
effectively synthesized THCA from cannabigerolic acid with a approximately 98%
conversion rate. The secreted THCA synthase was readily purified to homogeneity.
Interestingly, endoglycosidase treatment afforded a deglycosylated THCA synthase
with more catalytic activity than that of the glycosylated form. The
non-glycosylated THCA synthase should be suitable for structure-function studies
because it displayed much more activity than the previously reported native
enzyme from Cannabis sativa as well as the recombinant enzyme from insect cell
cultures.
AD - Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582,
Japan. [email protected]
FAU - Taura, Futoshi
AU - Taura F
FAU - Dono, Emi
AU - Dono E
FAU - Sirikantaramas, Supaart
AU - Sirikantaramas S
FAU - Yoshimura, Kohji
AU - Yoshimura K
FAU - Shoyama, Yukihiro
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Morimoto, Satoshi
AU - Morimoto S
LA - eng
PT - Journal Article
DEP - 20070724
PL - United States
TA - Biochem Biophys Res Commun
JT - Biochemical and biophysical research communications
JID - 0372516
RN - 0 (Benzoates)
RN - 0 (Recombinant Proteins)
RN - 0 (delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid)
RN - 1972-08-3 (Tetrahydrocannabinol)
RN - 25555-57-1 (cannabigerolic acid)
RN - EC 5.3.- (Intramolecular Oxidoreductases)
RN - EC 5.3.- (delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase)
SB - IM
MH - Benzoates/metabolism
MH - Intramolecular Oxidoreductases/genetics/isolation & purification/*metabolism
MH - Pichia/classification/*genetics/metabolism
MH - Recombinant Proteins/genetics/isolation & purification/metabolism
MH - Tetrahydrocannabinol/*analogs & derivatives/biosynthesis/metabolism
MH - Time Factors
MH - Transgenes
EDAT- 2007/08/03 09:00
MHDA- 2007/12/06 09:00
CRDT- 2007/08/03 09:00
PHST- 2007/06/23 [received]
PHST- 2007/07/12 [accepted]
PHST- 2007/07/24 [aheadofprint]
AID - S0006-291X(07)01566-5 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.07.079 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO - Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Sep 28;361(3):675-80. Epub 2007 Jul 24.

PMID- 16511162
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 20060302
DCOM- 20060818
LR - 20091118
IS - 1744-3091 (Electronic)
IS - 1744-3091 (Linking)
VI - 61
IP - Pt 8
DP - 2005 Aug 1
TI - Crystallization of Delta1-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase from
Cannabis sativa.
PG - 799-801
AB - Delta1-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase is a novel oxidoreductase that
catalyzes the biosynthesis of the psychoactive compound THCA in Cannabis sativa
(Mexican strain). In order to investigate the structure-function relationship of
THCA synthase, this enzyme was overproduced in insect cells, purified and finally
crystallized in 0.1 M HEPES buffer pH 7.5 containing 1.4 M sodium citrate. A
single crystal suitable for X-ray diffraction measurement was obtained in 0.09 M
HEPES buffer pH 7.5 containing 1.26 M sodium citrate. The crystal diffracted to
2.7 A resolution at beamline BL41XU, SPring-8. The crystal belonged to the
primitive cubic space group P432, with unit-cell parameters a = b = c = 178.2 A.
The calculated Matthews coefficient was approximately 4.1 or 2.0 A3 Da(-1)
assuming the presence of one or two molecules of THCA synthase in the asymmetric
unit, respectively.
AD - Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Fukuoka
812-8582, Japan.
FAU - Shoyama, Yoshinari
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Takeuchi, Ayako
AU - Takeuchi A
FAU - Taura, Futoshi
AU - Taura F
FAU - Tamada, Taro
AU - Tamada T
FAU - Adachi, Motoyasu
AU - Adachi M
FAU - Kuroki, Ryota
AU - Kuroki R
FAU - Shoyama, Yukihiro
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Morimoto, Satoshi
AU - Morimoto S
LA - eng
PT - Journal Article
DEP - 20050730
PL - England
TA - Acta Crystallogr Sect F Struct Biol Cryst Commun
JT - Acta crystallographica. Section F, Structural biology and crystallization
communications
JID - 101226117
RN - 1972-08-3 (Tetrahydrocannabinol)
RN - EC 5.3.- (Intramolecular Oxidoreductases)
RN - EC 5.3.- (delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase)
SB - IM
MH - Cannabis/*enzymology
MH - Crystallization
MH - Intramolecular Oxidoreductases/*chemistry
MH - Tetrahydrocannabinol/biosynthesis/chemistry
PMC - PMC1952348
OID - NLM: PMC1952348
EDAT- 2006/03/03 09:00
MHDA- 2006/08/19 09:00
CRDT- 2006/03/03 09:00
PHST- 2005/06/07 [received]
PHST- 2005/07/22 [accepted]
PHST- 2005/07/30 [epublish]
AID - S1744309105023365 [pii]
AID - 10.1107/S1744309105023365 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO - Acta Crystallogr Sect F Struct Biol Cryst Commun. 2005 Aug 1;61(Pt 8):799-801.
Epub 2005 Jul 30.

PMID- 15190053
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 20040913
DCOM- 20041025
LR - 20061115
IS - 0021-9258 (Print)
IS - 0021-9258 (Linking)
VI - 279
IP - 38
DP - 2004 Sep 17
TI - The gene controlling marijuana psychoactivity: molecular cloning and heterologous
expression of Delta1-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase from Cannabis sativa L.
PG - 39767-74
AB - Delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase is the enzyme that catalyzes
oxidative cyclization of cannabigerolic acid into THCA, the precursor of
Delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinol. We cloned a novel cDNA (GenBank trade mark
accession number AB057805) encoding THCA synthase by reverse transcription and
polymerase chain reactions from rapidly expanding leaves of Cannabis sativa. This
gene consists of a 1635-nucleotide open reading frame, encoding a 545-amino acid
polypeptide of which the first 28 amino acid residues constitute the signal
peptide. The predicted molecular weight of the 517-amino acid mature polypeptide
is 58,597 Da. Interestingly, the deduced amino acid sequence exhibited high
homology to berberine bridge enzyme from Eschscholtzia californica, which is
involved in alkaloid biosynthesis. The liquid culture of transgenic tobacco hairy
roots harboring the cDNA produced THCA upon feeding of cannabigerolic acid,
demonstrating unequivocally that this gene encodes an active THCA synthase.
Overexpression of the recombinant THCA synthase was achieved using a
baculovirus-insect expression system. The purified recombinant enzyme contained
covalently attached FAD cofactor at a molar ratio of FAD to protein of 1:1. The
mutant enzyme constructed by changing His-114 of the wild-type enzyme to Ala-114
exhibited neither absorption characteristics of flavoproteins nor THCA synthase
activity. Thus, we concluded that the FAD binding residue is His-114 and that the
THCA synthase reaction is FAD-dependent. This is the first report on molecular
characterization of an enzyme specific to cannabinoid biosynthesis.
AD - Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 812-8582,
Japan.
FAU - Sirikantaramas, Supaart
AU - Sirikantaramas S
FAU - Morimoto, Satoshi
AU - Morimoto S
FAU - Shoyama, Yoshinari
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Ishikawa, Yu
AU - Ishikawa Y
>FAU - Wada, Yoshiko
AU - Wada Y
FAU - Shoyama, Yukihiro
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Taura, Futoshi
AU - Taura F
LA - eng
SI - GENBANK/AB057805
PT - Journal Article
PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20040609
PL - United States
TA - J Biol Chem
JT - The Journal of biological chemistry
JID - 2985121R
RN - 0 (DNA, Complementary)
RN - 1972-08-3 (Tetrahydrocannabinol)
RN - EC 5.3.- (Intramolecular Oxidoreductases)
RN - EC 5.3.- (delta(1)-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase)
SB - IM
MH - Amino Acid Sequence
MH - Animals
MH - Base Sequence
MH - Cannabis/chemistry/enzymology/*genetics/metabolism
MH - Cells, Cultured
MH - Cloning, Molecular
MH - DNA, Complementary
MH - Insects
MH - Intramolecular Oxidoreductases/*genetics/*metabolism
MH - Molecular Sequence Data
MH - Oxidation-Reduction
MH - Plant Roots/physiology
MH - Tetrahydrocannabinol/*biosynthesis/chemistry
MH - Tobacco
MH - Transfection
EDAT- 2004/06/11 05:00
MHDA- 2004/10/27 09:00
CRDT- 2004/06/11 05:00
PHST- 2004/06/09 [aheadofprint]
AID - 10.1074/jbc.M403693200 [doi]
AID - M403693200 [pii]
PST - ppublish
SO - J Biol Chem. 2004 Sep 17;279(38):39767-74. Epub 2004 Jun 9.

PMID- 9862135
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 19990128
DCOM- 19990128
LR - 20061115
IS - 0031-9422 (Print)
IS - 0031-9422 (Linking)
VI - 49
IP - 6
DP - 1998 Nov
TI - Purification and characterization of cannabichromenic acid synthase from Cannabis
sativa.
PG - 1525-9
AB - Cannabichromenic acid synthase was purified to apparent homogeneity by sequential
column chromatography including DEAE-cellulose, phenyl-Sepharose CL-4B, and
hydroxylapatite. The enzyme catalysed the oxidocyclization of cannabigerolic acid
and cannabinerolic acid to cannabichromenic acid. The K(m) values for both
substrates were in the same order of magnitude although the Vmax value for the
former was higher than that for the latter. These results suggested that
cannabichromenic acid is predominantly formed from cannabigerolic acid rather
than cannabinerolic acid. The enzyme required neither molecular oxygen nor
hydrogen peroxide, indicating that the cannabichromenic acid synthase reaction
proceeds through direct dehydrogenation without hydroxylation.
AD - Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
FAU - Morimoto, S
AU - Morimoto S
FAU - Komatsu, K
AU - Komatsu K
FAU - Taura, F
AU - Taura F
FAU - Shoyama, Y
AU - Shoyama Y
LA - eng
PT - Journal Article
PL - UNITED STATES
TA - Phytochemistry
JT - Phytochemistry
JID - 0151434
RN - EC 1.- (Oxidoreductases)
RN - EC 1.3.99.- (cannabichromenic acid synthase)
SB - IM
MH - Cannabis/*enzymology
MH - Chromatography, Gel
MH - Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel
MH - Isoelectric Point
MH - Kinetics
MH - Molecular Weight
MH - Oxidoreductases/chemistry/*isolation & purification/metabolism
MH - Substrate Specificity
EDAT- 1998/12/23
MHDA- 1998/12/23 00:01
CRDT- 1998/12/23 00:00
AID - S0031-9422(98)00278-7 [pii]
PST - ppublish
SO - Phytochemistry. 1998 Nov;49(6):1525-9.

PMID- 5583149
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 19680509
DCOM- 19680509
LR - 20001218
IS - 0009-2363 (Print)
IS - 0009-2363 (Linking)
VI - 15
IP - 7
DP - 1967 Jul
TI - Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, a genuine substance of tetrahydrocannabinol.
PG - 1075-6
FAU - Yamauchi, T
AU - Yamauchi T
FAU - Shoyama, Y
AU - Shoyama Y
FAU - Aramaki, H
AU - Aramaki H
FAU - Azuma, T
AU - Azuma T
FAU - Nishioka, I
AU - Nishioka I
LA - eng
PT - Journal Article
PL - JAPAN
TA - Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo)
JT - Chemical & pharmaceutical bulletin
JID - 0377775
SB - IM
MH - Cannabis/*analysis
MH - Chromatography
MH - Spectrum Analysis
EDAT- 1967/07/01
MHDA- 1967/07/01 00:01
CRDT- 1967/07/01 00:00
PST - ppublish
SO - Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 1967 Jul;15(7):1075-6.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I have always thought that the cannabinoids were formed after the disc cell...

 

[use]

wow, it would be so awesome if we produced trichomes on our skin to protect us from uv.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I have always thought that the cannabinoids were formed after the disc cell...

That is what I thought as well. My lab told me otherwise so I started looking into it. What did you think about that article? I need to track down the full text huh?

post edit... great feature. giant signatures... piss me off, lol let it go thomkal! here is the link.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/indust/seasonal.html

post post edit. I think operating under so many names while smoking massive amounts of hash is starting to trip me out.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

wow, it would be so awesome if we produced trichomes on our skin to protect us from uv.

this guy knows what i mean about tripping out on some hash, lol. that would be awesome.

 

[bombadil.360]

The plant does not care if it has 90 Cannabinoids or zero. It is man that has taken Cannabis and developed all of the high THC varieties, or Cannabis varieties with the highest fiber content. By understanding the how in each case it allows man to focus his work on the most productive and quickest ways to achieve the goal.
Speculation on whys are ok fun, but it is the hows that that change the world. From sinsemilla to clones, artificial lights, to all female seeds, it is the how.... and it is fun to discover the hows....
-SamS

it all depends on your premises though...

if you believe that we only knew the hows you mentioned after our modern day scientific inquiries about cannabis, you could be right.

however, fact is, we have known these hows for a while, perhaps not with the nomenclature of modern science, nor with the attention to detail we may have today; but way before modern science came into the game, shamen all over the world were and still are able, to predict tons of 'hows' by simply looking at a plant; as related by Shultes for example.

it is undeniable that knowing the hows is fun and useful, but disregarding or undermining the importance of the whys is foolish to say the least; the whys leads us into deeper layers of perception, of understanding ourselves and the world, to use schelling's terms, into mytho-poetical space if you will.

sure, it is nice to know how to select desired traits and all, but after that, what do you do with the results?

what you do is toke them up and immerse yourself in the whys.

peace.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Bombadil.360,
You do not need to answer any whys to enjoy smoking Cannabis, YOU may enjoy the whys while smoking, but it is not required.
Looking at the plant does not reveal it's Cannabinoid or Terpenoid contents, and it is not my opinion that all this HOW knowledge is recent, that is a fact. People did not even understand the inheritance of the Cannabinoids, or which Cannabinoids were even psychoactive or medically important and for what indications. This is all new.
As for what you do with the results, you need to ask that before you begin the work, not afterward, I tend to focus on goals.
We will have to agree to disagree on the relative importance of WHY's and HOW's, in my mind it is fun to speculate on the WHY's, but it is the HOW's that make things happen, and that is my focus, getting things done.
I guess I could ask you what do you do with the results of the WHY's, but instead I will toke up and immerse myself in the HOW's, it is really what I love....
Thinking is ok, but I like doing, and figuring out how to do it better...
Why? I don't know, and I don't really care I am busy figuring out more HOW's.
-SamS

 

[whodair]

sam i remember you saying white widow wasnt your "cup of tea"...up to that point i was always impressed with the WW resin content, but later came to realize her appearance didnt guarantee i would enjoy the effect !!

 

[VerdantGreen]

i agree the how is much more of a question with a much more complicated answer.

the why is more philosophical to ponder, but there is a chance that knowing why cannabis produces resin may allow us to persuade it to produce more resin, but then again knowing how would also likely allow us to produce more resin.

evolution interests me, so does cannabis, so im really pleased with the flow of this thread and all the info that has been shared - whether its about the how or the why.

thanks to all

VG

 

[bombadil.360]

Bombadil.360,
You do not need to answer any whys to enjoy smoking Cannabis, YOU may enjoy the whys while smoking, but it is not required.
Looking at the plant does not reveal it's Cannabinoid or Terpenoid contents, and it is not my opinion that all this HOW knowledge is recent, that is a fact. People did not even understand the inheritance of the Cannabinoids, or which Cannabinoids were even psychoactive or medically important and for what indications. This is all new.
As for what you do with the results, you need to ask that before you begin the work, not afterward, I tend to focus on goals.
We will have to agree to disagree on the relative importance of WHY's and HOW's, in my mind it is fun to speculate on the WHY's, but it is the HOW's that make things happen, and that is my focus, getting things done.
I guess I could ask you what do you do with the results of the WHY's, but instead I will toke up and immerse myself in the HOW's, it is really what I love....
Thinking is ok, but I like doing, and figuring out how to do it better...
Why? I don't know, and I don't really care I am busy figuring out more HOW's.
-SamS

you do not need to get defensive about the issue, i am not trying to tell you what you must do... you can ponder all the hows you want, you're free.

however, you are wrong in that knowledge about psychoactive and/or medical content (in most, if not all ancient cultures, there's no division between psycho-actice, magical, religious and medical btw) cannot be obtained by simply observing plants; it is possible, it has been done way before modern science, and moreover, there were excellent cultivars before the modern scientific nomenclature and modern observation got into the game. specific cultivars for specific purposes, all done without a modern lab; in fact, done by the fathers of modern chemistry a.k.a "medicine men".

modern science is just another way to approach the issue, it is as valid too, although very new if you put things in perspective, you take your pick.

i agree that asking 'why cannabis produces resin' is not a scientific question, however, it is a valid inquiry that may yield amazing conclusions, conclusions which you may not be able to use in a lab though, but nonetheless useful in other areas.

peace.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I am not defensive at all, don't worry. And I never thought you were trying to tell me what to do. I know I am free....

I can assure you that simply observing plants will reveal little about what Cannabinoids it may or may not have. Most "expert" smokers when blind tested, could not even tell if a variety had CBD or not, I doubt if very many people can without analysis, it is much more difficult then you imply, but that is my opinion based on working with these issues for years. Maybe I can sometimes, maybe...
I wish it was as easy as you think, and some things for sure were done well before modern analysis was available, if you look at all the high THC only varieties the work was done by indigenous ganja farmers that saved the seeds of the best year after year after year after year and ended up with THC only varieties with lots of THC. But good luck looking for varieties that have only one Cannabinoid besides THC and in large amounts like 10-20%, you can't find them, you have to make them from scratch if you know how. As for understanding the over 90 Cannabinoids and over 130 Terpenoids and how they synergistically react, no way anyone understands even a small part of the picture, not a few hundred years ago, or even today, the variables are just to great, consider 90+ Cannabinoids in every different possible combination set and then add in the 130+ Terpenoids in every possible combination as they modify the Cannabinoids effects. You end up with really big numbers of possible combinations like more then a million. So try one combination a day and you can maybe try 36,500, in 100 years...

-SamS

you do not need to get defensive about the issue, i am not trying to tell you what you must do... you can ponder all the hows you want, you're free.

however, you are wrong in that knowledge about psychoactive and/or medical content (in most, if not all ancient cultures, there's no division between psycho-actice, magical, religious and medical btw) cannot be obtained by simply observing plants; it is possible, it has been done way before modern science, and moreover, there were excellent cultivars before the modern scientific nomenclature and modern observation got into the game. specific cultivars for specific purposes, all done without a modern lab; in fact, done by the fathers of modern chemistry a.k.a "medicine men".

modern science is just another way to approach the issue, it is as valid too, although very new if you put things in perspective, you take your pick.

i agree that asking 'why cannabis produces resin' is not a scientific question, however, it is a valid inquiry that may yield amazing conclusions, conclusions which you may not be able to use in a lab though, but nonetheless useful in other areas.

peace.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I know I am free....

I say three cheers to that. Hip hip Hooray! That's why I moved across this massive country to be in California.

I can assure you that simply observing plants will reveal little about what Cannabinoids it may or may not have. Most "expert" smokers when blind tested, could not even tell if a variety had CBD or not, I doubt if very many people can without analysis, it is much more difficult then you imply, but that is my opinion based on working with these issues for years. Maybe I can sometimes, maybe...

Hey Sam, I would like to add something here. I have a culinary background, and I also work in the medical cannabis field (dispensary). I consider one's ability to judge THC:CBD ratio to be similar to one's taste palette. Some have it, some don't.

I'm no biochemist, so I'll just say we do not all have similar affects from each variety. But the majority of us do have similar affects from each variety. (Just for example the Jack around here makes almost everyone smiley/euphoric, head up/body up. And the Romulan here makes almost everyone sleepy/hungry down/down.)

And if you have a cannabinoid palette*, it needs to be developed so you can tell the difference between terpenes and CBD.
I am lucky enough to smoke and vape hundreds of varieties from thousands of gardens, and I get to look at lab analysis. The CBD varieties take longer to come on, kinda reminds me of something people used to call "creeper", lol. I don't know, maybe I'm just high all the time.


*term I just made up for the purpose of this conversation

But good luck looking for varieties that have only one Cannabinoid besides THC and in large amounts like 10-20%, you can't find them, you have to make them from scratch if you know how.

I would argue that is EASIER than ever with modern cannabinoid testing, seedbay ect. There are already several varieties here with over 5% CBD.

As for understanding the over 90 Cannabinoids and over 130 Terpenoids and how they synergistically react, no way anyone understands even a small part of the picture, not a few hundred years ago, or even today, the variables are just to great, consider 90+ Cannabinoids in every different possible combination set and then add in the 130+ Terpenoids in every possible combination as they modify the Cannabinoids effects. You end up with really big numbers of possible combinations like more then a million. So try one combination a day and you can maybe try 36,500, in 100 years...

-SamS

Agreed, but that just means we need to keep focus on understanding the over 90 cannabinoids and 130 terpenoids. Or we really will never understand this 'magical' plant... for the sick people everyone. You feel me.

 

[whodair]

where's professor matt rize ?? he had the answers !!

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I bet I can supply varieties that you will swear have CBD, but they don't or have well below .1% CBD anyway. They are creeper, take longer for onset, have reduced peak experiences, as well as lasting longer, similar to what CBD does to THC. I do understand that some maybe able to learn to tell the differences, but without access to GC analysis of every variety you vaped how can you tell for sure they are CBD varieties? No problem, all this will change and peoples shared knowledge will allow better and fuller understanding of the complex relationships involved. I suggest you start with THC and each of the 130 Terpenoids if you are interested.
-SamS

Hey Sam, I would like to add something here. I have a culinary background, and I also work in the medical cannabis field (dispensary). I consider one's ability to judge THC:CBD ratio to be similar to one's taste palette. Some have it, some don't.

I'm no biochemist, so I'll just say we do not all have similar affects from each variety. But the majority of us do have similar affects from each variety. (Just for example the Jack around here makes almost everyone smiley/euphoric, head up/body up. And the Romulan here makes almost everyone sleepy/hungry down/down.)

And if you have a cannabinoid palette*, it needs to be developed so you can tell the difference between terpenes and CBD.
I am lucky enough to smoke and vape hundreds of varieties from thousands of gardens, and I get to look at lab analysis. The CBD varieties take longer to come on, kinda reminds me of something people used to call "creeper", lol. I don't know, maybe I'm just high all the time.


*term I just made up for the purpose of this conversation

I would argue that is EASIER than ever with modern cannabinoid testing, seedbay ect. There are already several varieties here with over 5% CBD.


Agreed, but that just means we need to keep focus on understanding the over 90 cannabinoids and 130 terpenoids. Or we really will never understand this 'magical' plant... for the sick people everyone. You feel me.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I can assure you that simply observing plants will reveal little about what Cannabinoids it may or may not have. Most "expert" smokers when blind tested, could not even tell if a variety had CBD or not, I doubt if very many people can without analysis, it is much more difficult then you imply, but that is my opinion based on working with these issues for years. Maybe I can sometimes, maybe...

This part of your posts raises a few questions for me Sam. I was working under the hypothesis that it was individual's selections that moved most populations to high THC low CBD chemovars. If you don't think most people can even tell then how do you imagine that most drug biotypes became set as high THC types?

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I bet I can supply varieties that you will swear have CBD...

Not a chance I'm taking that bet. Unless I can bet you are correct. The gene pool here is limited.

but without access to GC analysis of every variety you vaped how can you tell for sure they are CBD varieties?

We were using GC analysis to teach our bodies the difference between CBD and terpenes, it was far from a real science. Just a budtender with access to data

No problem, all this will change and peoples shared knowledge will allow better and fuller understanding of the complex relationships involved. I suggest you start with THC and each of the 130 Terpenoids if you are interested.
-SamS

Thank you. So for the at home lab-rats, a simple test would be adding a few drops of 1-Dimethylethanethiol (skunk) to a joint, and smoking it... or is that dangerous?

 

[dj3hut1]

i swear i think Sam is an alien... this dude is so sick.



i know this isn't related but i found this set of videos about the ecs and found it incredibly interesting :
Cannabinoid System in Neuroprotection - Raphael Mechoulam


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmqh1Q2cnD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLSpWtx4sFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiJplIIs4m8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3i0OLb5ZIU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9r8KhOGFTM

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I also thought that "cloudiness" was due to THC gathering on the inside of the secretory vessel.

Am I totally off track here?

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I also thought that "cloudiness" was due to THC gathering on the inside of the secretory vessel.

Am I totally off track here?

That was also my understanding. But at the same time THC is found in very small amounts in all cannabis plant matter.

 

[statusquo]

Just curious, but for all those who say this or that off the top of their head, can you provide references? Evidence for or against? Has anyone read any of the studies linked to in this thread?

VerdantGreen asked a legitimate question, but only a few actually provided any kind of reference as to why. Everybody else just states their own thoughts and ideas as to why.

Opinion/conjecture/supposition is all well and good for burning a fat one around the fireplace on a cold winter's night, but does nothing to further research. Which, I believe, is the main reason for the forum this thread is found in.

Please, do not misunderstand, I'm not trying to be a dick. But if we want a reasoned logical approach free from opinion/conjecture/supposition it is necessary to maintain critical thinking, and the best way is to cite references for what you say or take it to the Toker's Den. But not in a forum labeled "Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science."

Peace

Given the lack of cannabis-specific knowledge in regards to horticulture, referencing everything is difficult and in some cases impossible. Opinion, conjecture and supposition are most certainly not pointless and they certainly DO further research. Research is based off of opinions/conjecture/supposition. If one is able to give a logical opinion and give a strong deductive/inductive argument, then it is helpful towards this sub-forum's aims. That being said, most people, when giving an opinion, fail to provide any kind of logical argument, evidence or connection to the main idea of this sub-forum. I am all for science, but in regards to pioneering questions like these that haven't been specifically addressed, I fully support suppositions as long as they are cogent/sound/legit.

Great ideas so far guys. My gut feeling says that most cannabis had much less visual resin/(non)glandular trichromes until human intervention as others have stated. However, I think it stands to reason that this resin/trichromes were present before human intervention and they served a purpose, humans just artificially increased the amount(s). I think we have to look for a common denominator and look for something the early cannabis ancestor would need in all conditions. U-V protection is out IMO since cannabis would have been growing in plenty of low-UV conditions and this would not be an omnipresent trait. I also agree with others' assessment that the resin would actually directly hinder pollination. It might help in the grand scheme of pollination if the resin was responsible for attracting insect pollinators but I don't think this is the case. If it was THC then this wouldn't make sense since THC is present all over the plant and not just in the resin. Also, I think that terpenes are a much more likely candidate for this (are terpenes omnipresent or just in the resin? What role do terpenes play in other plants?)

It seems to make the most sense that the resin would deal with temperature swings. I say this because all cannabis plants in all climates would have to deal with temperature swings. I am shying away from water retention because plants already have efficient methods for dealing with this and not all plants are in environments where they have to deal with large humidity/water level changes. I will add more to this post as I continue to get more and more stoned and ponder this question more thoroughly. Also, I will probably have to go back and edit many times as right now I am far too lazy to re-read everything. Great thread and keep the ideas coming guys