Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
NPB-22 (quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxylate), Adamantyl-THPINACA (N-(1-adamantantyl)-1-[(tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-yl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide), and CUMYL-4CN-B7AICA (1-(4-cyanobutyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H- pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine-3-carboxamide), synthetic cannabinoids were evaluated in terms of CB1 (cannabinoid receptor type 1) and CB2 (cannabinoid receptor type 2) activities, and their biological effects when inhaled similar to cigarettes were examined.
Methods
The half maximal effective concentration values of the aforementioned synthetic cannabinoids at the CB1 and CB2 were investigated using [35S]guanosine-5’-O-(3-thio)-triphosphate binding assays. In addition, their biological effects were evaluated using the inhalation exposure test with mice. The smoke generated was recovered by organic solvents in the midget impingers, and the thermal degradation compounds of the smoke components were identified and quantified using a liquid chromatography–photo diode array detector.
Results
NPB-22 and Adamantyl-THPINACA had equivalent CB1 activity in in vitro assays. Meanwhile, NPB-22 had a weaker biological effect on some items on the inhalation exposure test than Adamantyl-THPINACA. When analyzing organic solvents in the midget impingers, it was revealed that NPB-22 was degraded to 8-quinolinol and pentyl indazole 3-carboxylic acid by combustion. In addition, these degradation compounds did not have CB1 activity.
Conclusion
It was estimated that the biological effects of NPB-22 on the inhalation exposure test weakened because it underwent thermal degradation by combustion, and the resultant degradation compounds did not have any CB1 activity in vitro.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference18 articles.
1. EMCDDA (2021) Synthetic cannabinoids in Europe - a review. https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/rapid-communications/synthetic-cannabinoids-europe-review_en. Accessed June 2022
2. EMCDDA (2015) EMCDDA-Europol 2014 Annual Report on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/1018/TDAN15001ENN.pdf. Accessed May 2019
3. Göl E, Çok İ (2017) Assessment of types of synthetic cannabinoids in narcotic cases assessed by the Council of Forensic Medicine between 2011–2015, Ankara, Turkey. Forensic Sci Int 280:124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.09.017
4. Hess C, Murach J, Krueger L, Scharrenbroch L, Unger M, Madea B, Sydow K (2017) Simultaneous detection of 93 synthetic cannabinoids by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and retrospective application to real forensic samples. Drug Test Anal 9:721–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2030
5. Gunderson EW, Haughey HM, Ait-Daoud N, Joshi AS, Hart CL (2014) A survey of synthetic cannabinoid consumption by current cannabis users. Subst Abus 35:184–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2013.846288