Cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2R) mediates cannabinol (CBN) induced developmental defects in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Of the three primary cannabinoids in cannabis: 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC), Cannabidiol (CBD) and Cannabinol (CBN), very little is known about the actions of CBN, the primary oxidative metabolite of THC. Our goal was to determine if CBN exposure during gastrulation alters embryonic development, and if so, via which cannabinoid receptors. Experimental Approach: Zebrafish embryos during the gastrulation stage (5-10.75 hpf) were exposed to CBN in the presence or absence of cannabinoid receptor blockers. We examined neuronal morphology, hair cell development and locomotion. Key Results: Embryos exhibited dose-dependent malformations in morphology, increased mortality, decreased locomotion and a reduction in motor neuron branching. Larva exhibited a significant reduction in the response to sound stimuli. CBN exposure altered the development of otic vesicles and hair cells associated with the lateral line. Pharmacological block of CB2Rs with AM 630 or JTE 907 prevented many of the CBN-induced developmental defects, while block of CB1Rs with AM 251 or CP 945598 had little or no effect. Conclusion and Implications: Altogether we show that embryonic exposure to CBN results in alterations in embryonic growth, neuronal and hair cell development, and physiology and behavior via CB2R-mediated mechanisms. Our results suggest that embryos exposed to CBN may be at an increased risk of abnormal development.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Zebrafish study of cannabinol-induced developmental defects via CB2 receptors; the object is developmental toxicology.
This biomedical experiment studies cannabinoid effects on zebrafish development, not research practice.
Developmental toxicology of cannabinol in zebrafish embryos; biomedical domain.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".