One-pot heterogeneous synthesis of Δ(3)-tetrahydrocannabinol analogues and xanthenes showing differential binding to CB(1) and CB(2) receptors

Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) is the major psychoactive cannabinoid in hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) and responsible for many of the pharmacological effects mediated via cannabinoid receptors. Despite being the major cannabinoid scaffold in nature, Δ(9)-THC double bond isomers remain poorly studied. The chemical scaffold of tetrahydrocannabinol can be assembled from the condensation of distinctly substituted phenols and monoterpenes. Here we explored a microwave-assisted one pot heterogeneous synthesis of Δ(3)-THC from orcinol (1a) and pulegone (2). Four Δ(3)-THC analogues and corresponding Δ(4a)-tetrahydroxanthenes (Δ(4a)-THXs) were synthesized regioselectively and showed differential binding affinities for CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. Here we report for the first time the CB1 receptor binding of Δ(3)-THC, revealing a more potent receptor binding affinity for the (S)-(-) isomer (hCB1Ki = 5 nM) compared to the (R)-(+) isomer (hCB1Ki = 29 nM). Like Δ(9)-THC, also Δ(3)-THC analogues are partial agonists at CB receptors as indicated by [(35)S]GTPγS binding assays. Interestingly, the THC structural isomers Δ(4a)-THXs showed selective binding and partial agonism at CB2 receptors, revealing a simple non-natural natural product-derived scaffold for novel CB2 ligands.

A multi-level decomposition of variance in somatic symptom reporting in families with adolescent children

OBJECTIVES: This paper examines four different levels of possible variation in symptom reporting: occasion, day, person and family. DESIGN: In order to rule out effects of retrospection, concurrent symptom reporting was assessed prospectively using a computer-assisted self-report method. METHODS: A decomposition of variance in symptom reporting was conducted using diary data from families with adolescent children. We used palmtop computers to assess concurrent somatic complaints from parents and children six times a day for seven consecutive days. In two separate studies, 314 and 254 participants from 96 and 77 families, respectively, participated. A generalized multilevel linear models approach was used to analyze the data. Symptom reports were modelled using a logistic response function, and random effects were allowed at the family, person and day level, with extra-binomial variation allowed for on the occasion level. RESULTS: Substantial variability was observed at the person, day and occasion level but not at the family level. CONCLUSIONS: To explain symptom reporting in normally healthy individuals, situational as well as person characteristics should be taken into account. Family characteristics, however, would not help to clarify symptom reporting in all family members.