Ryan F Maguire1, Daniel J Wilkinson1, Timothy J England1,2, Saoirse E O'Sullivan1,3. 1. Division of Graduate Entry Medicine and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Royal Derby Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Stroke, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton, Derby, United Kingdom. 3. Artelo Biosciences, Inc., La Jolla, California, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cannabidiol (CBD) can be isolated from Cannabis sativa L. or synthetically produced. The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro effects of purified natural and synthetic CBD to establish any pharmacological differences or superiority between sources. METHODS: Six purified samples of CBD were obtained, 4 of these were natural and 2 synthetic. The anticancer effects of CBD were assessed in a human ovarian cancer cell line (SKOV-3 cells). The neuroprotective effects of CBD were assessed in human pericytes in a model of stroke (oxygen glucose deprivation [OGD]). The ability of CBD to restore inflammation-induced intestinal permeability was assessed in differentiated human Caco-2 cells (a model of enterocytes). RESULTS: (1) In proliferating and confluent SKOV-3 cells, all CBD samples similarly reduced resazurin metabolism as a marker of cell viability in a concentration-dependent manner (p < 0.001). (2) In pericytes exposed to OGD, all CBD samples similarly reduced cellular damage (measured by lactate dehydrogenase) at 24 h by 31-48% and reduced inflammation (measured by IL-6 secretion) by 30-53%. Attenuation of IL-6 was inhibited by 5HT1A receptor antagonism for all CBD sources. (3) In differentiated Caco-2 cells exposed to inflammation (TNFα and IFNγ, 10 ng/mL for 24 h), each CBD sample increased the speed of recovery of epithelial permeability compared to control (p < 0.05-0.001), which was inhibited by a CB1 receptor antagonist. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there is no pharmacological difference in vitro in the antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, or permeability effects of purified natural versus synthetic CBD. The purity and reliability of CBD samples, as well as the ultimate pharmaceutical preparation, should all be considered above the starting source of CBD in the development of new CBD medicines.
INTRODUCTION: Cannabidiol (CBD) can be isolated from Cannabis sativa L. or synthetically produced. The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro effects of purified natural and synthetic CBD to establish any pharmacological differences or superiority between sources. METHODS: Six purified samples of CBD were obtained, 4 of these were natural and 2 synthetic. The anticancer effects of CBD were assessed in a human ovarian cancer cell line (SKOV-3 cells). The neuroprotective effects of CBD were assessed in human pericytes in a model of stroke (oxygen glucose deprivation [OGD]). The ability of CBD to restore inflammation-induced intestinal permeability was assessed in differentiated human Caco-2 cells (a model of enterocytes). RESULTS: (1) In proliferating and confluent SKOV-3 cells, all CBD samples similarly reduced resazurin metabolism as a marker of cell viability in a concentration-dependent manner (p < 0.001). (2) In pericytes exposed to OGD, all CBD samples similarly reduced cellular damage (measured by lactate dehydrogenase) at 24 h by 31-48% and reduced inflammation (measured by IL-6 secretion) by 30-53%. Attenuation of IL-6 was inhibited by 5HT1A receptor antagonism for all CBD sources. (3) In differentiated Caco-2 cells exposed to inflammation (TNFα and IFNγ, 10 ng/mL for 24 h), each CBD sample increased the speed of recovery of epithelial permeability compared to control (p < 0.05-0.001), which was inhibited by a CB1 receptor antagonist. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there is no pharmacological difference in vitro in the antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, or permeability effects of purified natural versus synthetic CBD. The purity and reliability of CBD samples, as well as the ultimate pharmaceutical preparation, should all be considered above the starting source of CBD in the development of new CBD medicines.
Authors: Alexandre R de Mello Schier; Natalia P de Oliveira Ribeiro; Danielle S Coutinho; Sergio Machado; Oscar Arias-Carrión; Jose A Crippa; Antonio W Zuardi; Antonio E Nardi; Adriana C Silva Journal: CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.388
Authors: James W Wheless; Dennis Dlugos; Ian Miller; D Alexander Oh; Neha Parikh; Steven Phillips; J Ben Renfroe; Colin M Roberts; Isra Saeed; Steven P Sparagana; Jin Yu; Maria Roberta Cilio Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Kerstin A Klotz; Daniel Grob; Martin Hirsch; Birgitta Metternich; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Julia Jacobs Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Ester Pagano; Raffaele Capasso; Fabiana Piscitelli; Barbara Romano; Olga A Parisi; Stefania Finizio; Anna Lauritano; Vincenzo Di Marzo; Angelo A Izzo; Francesca Borrelli Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Jerzy P Szaflarski; Elizabeth Martina Bebin; Anne M Comi; Anup D Patel; Charuta Joshi; Daniel Checketts; Jules C Beal; Linda C Laux; Lisa M De Boer; Matthew H Wong; Merrick Lopez; Orrin Devinsky; Paul D Lyons; Pilar Pichon Zentil; Robert Wechsler Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 5.864