What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

RECENT interesting findings

trichrider

Kiss My Ring
Veteran
CBN and D9-THC concentration ratio as an indicator of the age of stored marijuana samples*

Sections
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Experimental basis
Results and discussion
References

Author: S. A. ROSS, M. A. ELSOHLY
Creation Date: 1999/12/01

CBN and D9-THC concentration ratio as an indicator of the age of stored marijuana samples*

S. A. ROSS
National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, United States of America

M. A. ELSOHLY
National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, United States of America
ABSTRACT

The concentration of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN) in cannabis plant material (marijuana) of different varieties stored at room temperature (20-22o Celsius (C)) over a four-year period was determined. The percentage loss of THC was proportional to the storage time. On average, the concentration of THC in the plant material decreased by 16.6% ±7.4 of its original value after one year and 26.8% ±7.3, 34.5% ±7.6 and 41.4% ±6.5 after two, three and four years, respectively. A relationship between the concentration ratio of CBN to THC and the storage time was developed and could serve as a guide in determining the approximate age of a given marijuana sample stored at room temperature.
Introduction

The stability of (-)-D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (D9-THC) has been the subject of several investigations (1-13). In 1970, Liskow (1) reported that marijuana deteriorates during storage at room temperature because of the loss of D9-THC at a rate of 3 to 5 per cent a month. Shoyama and others (3) were able to isolate cannabinolic acid (CBNA) from stored hemp but not from fresh hemp, and concluded that conversion of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) to CBNA was effected by ultraviolet light and by storage and heat. The same conclusion was reached by Turner and others (4, 5), who reported that THC disappeared at a rate of 3.83, 5.38 and 6.92 per cent per year over two years when stored at -18o, 4o, and 22o C, respectively. The loss of THC was essentially complete at 37o C and 50o C. Fairbairn and others (6) reported that carefully prepared herbal or resin cannabis products are reasonably stable for one to two years if stored in the dark at room temperature.

Razdan and others (2) found thatD9-THC is much less stable than D8-THC and is converted mainly to CBN. The degradation of D9-THC to CBN in the plant material on storage was also proposed by Waller and others (7), Razdan and others (8), El-Kheir and others (9), Hanus and others (10) and Yotoriyana and others (11). Although CBN is the major observed decomposition product of THC, it could not account for the decrease in the concentration of THC over a period of time when the latter is kept under conditions suitable for decomposition (12). Turner and ElSohly (13) addressed this problem and proposed a possible pathway for the decomposition of THC to CBN which involvesformation of epoxy and hydroxylated intermediates. These include 9,10-dihydroxy-D6a(10a)-THC (racemic mixture) and 8,9-dihydroxy- D6a(10a)-THC (racemic mixture). They found that these intermediates could be detected only by gas chromatography as their trimethyl silyl (TMS) derivatives. They also indicated that these compounds were susceptible to heat and acid and that the final product was CBN.

In the present report, the change in the level of THC and CBN in stored marijuana was studied over a four-year period. THC and CBN were analysed annually in marijuana stored at room temperature and a correlation was developed between the ratio of CBN to THC and the age of the plant material. The empirical correlation could be used to estimate the age of a given marijuana sample.

.....the rest:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1997-01-01_1_page008.html

:shucks:
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00771-8


Regenerant Arabidopsis Lineages Display a Distinct Genome-Wide Spectrum of Mutations Conferring Variant Phenotypes
Caifu Jiang, Aziz Mithani, Xiangchao Gan, Eric J. Belfield, John P. Klingler, Jian-Kang Zhu, Jiannis Ragoussis, Richard Mott, Nicholas P. Harberd
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.002

Summary
Multicellular organisms can be regenerated from totipotent differentiated somatic cell or nuclear founders [ 1–3 ]. Organisms regenerated from clonally related isogenic founders might a priori have been expected to be phenotypically invariant. However, clonal regenerant animals display variant phenotypes caused by defective epigenetic reprogramming of gene expression [ 2 ], and clonal regenerant plants exhibit poorly understood heritable phenotypic (“somaclonal”) variation [ 4–7 ]. Here we show that somaclonal variation in regenerant Arabidopsis lineages is associated with genome-wide elevation in DNA sequence mutation rate. We also show that regenerant mutations comprise a distinctive molecular spectrum of base substitutions, insertions, and deletions that probably results from decreased DNA repair fidelity. Finally, we show that while regenerant base substitutions are a likely major genetic cause of the somaclonal variation of regenerant Arabidopsis lineages, transposon movement is unlikely to contribute substantially to that variation. We conclude that the phenotypic variation of regenerant plants, unlike that of regenerant animals, is substantially due to DNA sequence mutation.
 

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
"Shoots multiplied on the same medium for two sub-cultures were able to induce healthy roots within 4–6 weeks."

Doesn't seem all that impressive for some kind of super cloning technique.

That may seem like a long time for "traditional" cloning, but, when the starting material is only a leaf snippet, that may be fairly quick. The main point of the paper was to not transfer the generated shoot from one medium to another to get the shoot to root. The mT was effective in their trial at eliminating a second medium in the course of plant regeneration.

The maximized regeneration protocol using mT is thus effective and safe for large scale production of true to type C. sativa plants.

So, if one only has to put a plant snippet in one test tube to get a rooted clone then the work is cut in half. If I was doing mass production this would be the way to go for new plantlets. One mother plant and thousands of test tubes. Way smaller foot print.

That paper I am interested in.
 
Last edited:

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
As soon as I find a link for the paper I will post it. If anyone finds one please post. Meanwhile, I did ask the author for the paper, so I can read it.
Go here: http://sci-hub.io/
-SamS


When you get the paper can you let us know if the root or the shoot came first. It seems the way the paper reads the shoot came first then roots. But, its not really clear.
 

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
Well, did you get the paper Sam?

I found this in one of the articles you posted.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090536X14000525

The fourth constituent is tetrahydrocannabinol also known as Δ9THC which is considered the main or principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. It is classified as schedule 1 under the convention on psychotropic substances. It is available in a synthetic form as well, its brand name is Marinol. It is a toxic component and can cause death due to over dosing.

Are they saying Marinol is fatal in an overdose case or THC? WTF
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
The paper is from Pakistan, get it??? That is why THC is deadly...
-SamS


Well, did you get the paper Sam?

I found this in one of the articles you posted.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090536X14000525

The fourth constituent is tetrahydrocannabinol also known as Δ9THC which is considered the main or principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. It is classified as schedule 1 under the convention on psychotropic substances. It is available in a synthetic form as well, its brand name is Marinol. It is a toxic component and can cause death due to over dosing.

Are they saying Marinol is fatal in an overdose case or THC? WTF
 
Last edited:

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
License date
Apr 17, 2016

Licensed Content Publisher
Elsevier

Licensed Content Publication
Journal of Applied Research on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants

Licensed Content Title
In vitro mass propagation of Cannabis sativa L.: A protocol refinement using novel aromatic cytokinin meta-topolin and the assessment of eco-physiological, biochemical and genetic fidelity of micropropagated plants

Licensed Content Author
Hemant Lata,Suman Chandra,Natascha Techen,Ikhlas A. Khan,Mahmoud A. ElSohly

Licensed Content Date
March 2016

Licensed Content Volume Number
3

Licensed Content Issue Number
1

Type of Use
Content Purchase

Portion
Full Article



Looks like I am still alive after purchasing the paper. Didn't even have to travel to Pakistan.
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
Very good paper. One of the best recently. Chimera bred many of the plants used.
-SamS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26651562


J AOAC Int. 2015 Nov-Dec;98(6):1503-22. doi: 10.5740/jaoacint.15-116.
Development and Validation of a Reliable and Robust Method for the Analysis of Cannabinoids and Terpenes in Cannabis.
Giese MW1, Lewis MA, Giese L, Smith KM.

Abstract
The requirements for an acceptable cannabis assay have changed dramatically over the years resulting in a large number of laboratories using a diverse array of analytical methodologies that have not been properly validated. Due to the lack of sufficiently validated methods, we conducted a single- laboratory validation study for the determination of cannabinoids and terpenes in a variety of commonly occurring cultivars. The procedure involves high- throughput homogenization to prepare sample extract, which is then profiled for cannabinoids and terpenes by HPLC-diode array detector and GC-flame ionization detector, respectively. Spike recovery studies for terpenes in the range of 0.03-1.5% were carried out with analytical standards, while recovery studies for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, cannabidiolic acid, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid, and cannabigerolic acid and their neutral counterparts in the range of 0.3-35% were carried out using cannabis extracts. In general, accuracy at all levels was within 5%, and RSDs were less than 3%. The interday and intraday repeatabilities of the procedure were evaluated with five different cultivars of varying chemotype, again resulting in acceptable RSDs. As an example of the application of this assay, it was used to illustrate the variability seen in cannabis coming from very advanced indoor cultivation operations.
 
Last edited:

Skinny Leaf

Well-known member
Veteran
You can get most science papers for free at:

sci-hub.io

Tried there first. Did not see it. Of course I could have overlooked it. I used the doi number to search for it, but, it kept sending me to the place I finally bought the paper from. Probably had to pay for it since the research was done at the U.S. government's cannabis growing facility.
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
I just cut and pasted the title:
In vitro mass propagation of Cannabis sativa L.: A protocol refinement using novel aromatic cytokinin meta-topolin and the assessment of eco-physiological, biochemical and genetic fidelity of micropropagated plants
Into the sci-hub.io site.
And it popped up immediately.
You can use doi, or other search methods also.
Sometimes the site is down for a few hours.
-SamS
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
http://cms.herbalgram.org/heg/volum...42&signature=c11f68c0cb9ff1c423ca01f36c827756

HerbalEGram: Volume 13, Issue 4, April 2016

Cannabis Taxonomy: The 'Sativa' versus 'Indica' Debate

By Robert C. Clarke and Mark D. Merlin, PhD


I agree except I still use the WLD instead of BLD, Karl Hillig first used WLD. Regardless we do agree, as a BLD or WLD both refer to a Wide or Broad Leaf Drug variety.
I think Rob likes to avoid folks thinking WLD is for wild so he uses BLD. I have also seen BLDB for Broad Leaf Drug Biotype, I don't bother with Biotype.
As long as WLD and NLD varieties are considered Indica, and NLH and WLH is considered Sativa I agree. Although in China there are WLD or WLH varieties that are not really low drug, (THC) they can be used for hemp or seeds and are a bit druggy, or select ones are.

-SamS
 
Last edited:

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/cannmed2016/

You can download each of the presentations, check out at least: RYAN C. LYNCH
MEDICINAL GENOMICS, KEVIN MCKERNAN COURTAGEN LIFE SCIENCES, MARK A. LEWIS
PRESIDENT OF NAPRO RESEARCH, ETHAN RUSSO MEDICAL DIRECTOR PHYTECS, JOSH WURZER SC LABORATORIES, RAPHAEL MECHOULAM KEYNOTE SPEAKER

The future of Cannabis will be DNA marker assisted breeding, these guys are preparing the way, you do not have to use GMO to see the gains their insights will bring to classical breeders like me. The work is amazing, I love the NAPRO approach to Cannabinoid and terpene analysis, it is how to do it today.
-SamS
 

Sativied

Well-known member
Veteran
I just read the presentation by Mark A. Lewis ( http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/lewis-presentation.pptx ), very good and readable for everyone, thanks for sharing.

"Indica and sativa may be better suited as an ‘effects gauge’ instead of genealogical nomenclature"
"-Now there is “mostly sativa”, “mostly indica”, “sativa-like, indica-blah”, etc.
-Says little to the consumer about the product they are purchasing"

"Blah" puts it nicely... :)

The WLD/NLD you mentioned in the other post above is imo mostly interesting for pure varieties. I often see people label NLD as sativa-dom, suggesting the leaflet/leaf shape is linked to every other 'sativa' trait. They kind of do the same thing in the napro research, suggesting leaf shape and chemotype genes are linked. I don't think that is true in all polyhybrids... and I don't think that will hold true for future modern bred cultivars. The leaf shape of the latter will depend on the desired structure for farmers. As much as I like narrow leaflets (open structure, more branching / weaker apical dominance) if there's no plant count limit then growing single cola wide leaf plants may be desirable. It just seems wrong to group cultivars based on a single trait, the leaf shape.

Is it not known on how many chromosomes genes for leaf shape are located? Mind taking an educated guess?
 

Sam_Skunkman

"RESIN BREEDER"
Moderator
Veteran
Really have no idea and will not even try a guess. you said: "I don't think that is true in all polyhybrids... and I don't think that will hold true for future modern bred cultivars. The leaf shape of the latter will depend on the desired structure for farmers". I agree with you. Cultivars are based on drug content, WLD & NLD, Vs WLH & NLD, as well as leaf shape, but I agree that Cannabinoid, terpene profiles as well as terpene class, will all play a part. Type 1 THC, type 2 THC/CBD, type 3 CBD, type 4, type 5, type 6? for CBC and CBG as well as THCV and the other propyl homalogs, and maybe for zero Cannabinoids will also have a Chemotype. Maybe even some of the lesser known plant made Cannabinoids like CBT?
Sativa's as NLH and WLH, Indica's like WLD and NLD. I would add flowering dates at a given latitude, as well as the length of flowering outdoors or indoors.
-SamS
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top