Sex-Dependent Synergism of an Edible THC: CBD Formulation inReducing Anxiety and Depressive-like Symptoms Following Chronic Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis has shown therapeutic potential in mood and anxiety-related pathologies. However, the two primary constituents of cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD) and Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) produce distinct effects on molecular pathways in neural circuits associated with affective disorders. Moreover, it has been proposed that the combination of THC: and CBD may have unique synergistic properties. In the present study, the effects of a 1:100 THC: CBD ratio edible formulation were tested in behavioural, neuronal and molecular assays for anxiety and depressive-like endophenotypes. Adult male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were stressed for 14 days. Then, for three weeks, open field, elevated plus maze, light/dark box, social interaction, sucrose preference, and the forced swim test were performed 90 minutes after acute consumption of CBD (30 mg/kg), THC (0.3 mg/kg), or 1:100 combination of THC:CBD. After behavioural tests, in vivo, neuronal electrophysiological analyses were performed in the ventral tegmental area and prefrontal cortex (PFC). Furthermore, western-blot experiments examined the expression of biomarkers associated with mood and anxiety disorders, including protein kinase B (Akt), glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3), BDNF, mTOR, D1, and D2 receptor in nucleus accumbens (NAc) and PFC.Edible THC:CBD produces significant anxiolytic and antidepressant effects only in stressed male rats. In most cases, the combination of THC and CBD had stronger effects than either phytochemical alone. These synergistic effects are associated with alterations in Akt/GSK3 and D2-R expression in NAc and BDNF expression in PFC. Furthermore, THC:CBD reverses chronic stress-induced alterations in PFC neuronal activity. These findings demonstrate a novel synergistic potential for THC:CBD edible formulations in stress-related pathologies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".