Cannabinoid Potency and Receptor Efficacy Had Different Rankings in a Primate Study

The dose needed to produce an effect and the ability to activate a receptor are different properties. A rhesus-monkey experiment illustrates why a more potent cannabinoid should not automatically be called a higher-efficacy agonist.

The dose comparison measured potency

McMahon compared THC, CP55,940 and WIN55,212-2 on learned responding. Before chronic THC treatment, CP55,940 was more potent than THC, while WIN55,212-2 was slightly less potent on the measured response-rate outcomes. Those comparisons concern the doses producing a specified effect.

Efficacy supplied a different mechanistic question

The paper discusses evidence of higher CB1 agonist efficacy for WIN55,212-2 and CP55,940 than for THC. Chronic THC produced greater loss of sensitivity to THC than to those higher-efficacy agonists, supporting a receptor-efficacy interpretation of the adaptation. Efficacy and the observed dose ranking were therefore not interchangeable.

The ranking belongs to the assay

The chronic response-rate comparison involved three monkeys receiving controlled injected drugs. It does not provide human intoxication multipliers or dose conversions for cannabis products. Receptor number, coupling and the response measured can affect an agonist’s apparent activity. Describing the actual property—dose potency, receptor efficacy or maximum response—avoids turning one experimental ranking into a universal statement about drug strength.

Related: Interpreting cannabinoid tolerance evidence.

Research cited

Lance R. McMahon. Chronic Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol treatment in rhesus monkeys: differential tolerance and cross-tolerance among cannabinoids (2011).

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

The Four Cannabinoid Tetrad Outcomes Were Measured at Different Times

The cannabinoid tetrad in one mouse experiment was a sequence of tests, not four simultaneous measurements. Differences between outcomes therefore retained a timing dimension as well as a behavioral one. The protocol specified a fixed order After WIN55,212-2 injection, Pava and colleagues first recorded locomotor activity. Hot-plate testing followed at…

Spread the love

Read Article: The Four Cannabinoid Tetrad Outcomes Were Measured at Different Times

The Hot-Plate Response Definition Excluded Grooming in a Cannabinoid Experiment

A longer hot-plate response latency is interpretable only if the experiment specifies which behaviors count. A cannabinoid study excluded forepaw responses because they could be confused with grooming. The endpoint was operationally defined Pava and colleagues counted jumping, hind-paw licking or hind-paw fanning after placing mice on a heated surface….

Spread the love

Read Article: The Hot-Plate Response Definition Excluded Grooming in a Cannabinoid Experiment

A Later Null Comparison Was Not the Same as a Significant Recovery Interaction

The statistical evidence for recovery differed across outcomes in an alcohol–cannabinoid mouse study. A later nonsignificant group comparison did not establish the same treatment-by-time interaction for every response. The study assessed two recovery intervals Pava and colleagues compared cannabinoid responses one and ten days after repeated ethanol. Earlier differences were…

Spread the love

Read Article: A Later Null Comparison Was Not the Same as a Significant Recovery Interaction

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us