How THC works: Explaining ligand affinity for, and partial agonism of, cannabinoid receptor 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interaction with cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) partially determines the bioactivity of the phytocannabinoids. Consequently, there has also been significant effort directed toward preparing synthetic cannabinoids with either enhanced agonistic or antagonistic activity against this receptor. The design process of these molecules, and the identification of off-target effects at this receptor for molecules designed to target other proteins, would be aided by a reliable computational tool that can accurately predict binding. Furthermore, although the mechanism of CB1 agonism is understood, the conformational behavior that underlies the molecular mechanism of partial agonism is unclear. In this report, we provide a correction for calculating a ligand's affinity to the orthosteric site of CB1 to account for their partition into membranes, use this to register the predicted affinity (high and low) of cannabinoids, and discuss how a mechanism for THC partial agonism arises natively from the model consistent with experimental data.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".