| Literature DB >> 24129275 |
Rosivaldo S Borges1, João Batista, Rommel B Viana, Ana C Baetas, Ednilsom Orestes, Marcieni A Andrade, Káthia M Honório, Albérico B F da Silva.
Abstract
An antioxidant mechanism of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were compared with a simplified model of α-tocopherol, butylhydroxytoluene and hydroxytoluene in order to understand the antioxidant nature of THC and CBD molecules using DFT. The following electronic properties were evaluated: frontier orbitals nature, ionization potential, O-H bond dissociation energy (BDEOH), stabilization energy, and spin density distribution. An important factor that shows an influence in the antioxidant property of THC is the electron abstraction at the phenol position. Our data indicate that the decrease of the HOMO values and the highest ionization potential values are related to phenol, ether, and alkyl moieties. On the other hand, BDEOH in molecules with the cyclohexenyl group at ortho position of phenol are formed from lower energies than the molecules with an ether group at the meta position. In the light of our results, the properties calculated here predict that THC has a sightly higher antioxidant potential than CBD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24129275 PMCID: PMC6269679 DOI: 10.3390/molecules181012663
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structures of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).
Figure 2Structure of simplified model of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and classical antioxidants.
Figure 3Optimized structures of the neutral molecules.
Frontier orbital energies (HOMO and LUMO, in eV), ionization potential (IP, in kcal mol−1) and the O-H bond dissociation (BDE, in kcal mol−1) of the molecules.
| Molecules | HOMO | LUMO | IP | BDE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | −6.18 | −0.38 | 142.33 | 85.63 |
| THC | −6.03 | −0.36 | 138.88 | 84.49 |
| THC-1 | −6.04 | −0.51 | 138.86 | - |
| THC-2 | −6.11 | −0.44 | 140.23 | 85.11 |
| THC-3 | −6.03 | −0.31 | 138.92 | 84.94 |
| THC-4 | −6.19 | −0.51 | 142.13 | 84.86 |
| THC-5 | −6.16 | −0.31 | 140.63 | 85.68 |
| THC-6 | −6.24 | −0.52 | 142.06 | 84.81 |
| Phenol | −6.29 | −0.42 | 148.82 | 87.93 |
| HPMC | −5.56 | −0.39 | 125.77 | 76.01 |
| BHT | −5.97 | −0.36 | 136.71 | 78.48 |
| HT | −6.25 | −0.64 | 142.54 | 84.86 |
Figure 4HOMO and LUMO of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).
Figure 5Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) surface of cannabinoid derivatives.
Figure 6Spin densities in the cation free-radical of cannabinoid derivatives.
Figure 7Structure of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).