Allosteric and orthosteric pharmacology of cannabidiol and cannabidiol‐dimethylheptyl at the type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose We sought to understand why (−)‐cannabidiol (CBD) and (−)‐cannabidiol‐dimethylheptyl (CBD‐DMH) exhibit distinct pharmacology, despite near identical structures. Experimental Approach HEK293A cells expressing either human type 1 cannabinoid (CB 1 ) receptors or CB 2 receptors were treated with CBD or CBD‐DMH with or without the CB 1 and CB 2 receptor agonist CP55,940, CB 1 receptor allosteric modulator Org27569 or CB 2 receptor inverse agonist SR144528. Ligand binding, cAMP levels and βarrestin1 recruitment were measured. CBD and CBD‐DMH binding was simulated with models of human CB 1 or CB 2 receptors, based on the recently published crystal structures of agonist‐bound (5XRA) or antagonist‐bound (5TGZ) human CB 1 receptors. Key Results At CB 1 receptors, CBD was a negative allosteric modulator (NAM), and CBD‐DMH was a mixed agonist/positive allosteric modulator. CBD and Org27569 shared multiple interacting residues in the antagonist‐bound model of CB 1 receptors (5TGZ) but shared a binding site with CP55,940 in the agonist‐bound model of CB 1 receptors (5XRA). The binding site for CBD‐DMH in the CB 1 receptor models overlapped with CP55,940 and Org27569. At CB 2 receptors, CBD was a partial agonist, and CBD‐DMH was a positive allosteric modulator of cAMP modulation but a NAM of βarrestin1 recruitment. CBD, CP55,940 and SR144528 shared a binding site in the CB 2 receptor models that was separate from CBD‐DMH. Conclusion and Implications The pharmacological activity of CBD and CBD‐DMH in HEK293A cells and their modelled binding sites at CB 1 and CB 2 receptors may explain their in vivo effects and illuminates the difficulties associated with the development of allosteric modulators for CB 1 and CB 2 receptors. Linked Articles This article is part of a themed section on 8 th European Workshop on Cannabinoid Research. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v176.10/issuetoc
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it