Skip to main content
Epigenetics logoLink to Epigenetics
. 2019 Jul 11;14(11):1041–1056. doi: 10.1080/15592294.2019.1633868

Impacts of cannabinoid epigenetics on human development: reflections on Murphy et. al. ‘cannabinoid exposure and altered DNA methylation in rat and human sperm’ epigenetics 2018; 13: 1208-1221.

Albert Stuart Reece a,b,, Gary Kenneth Hulse a,b
PMCID: PMC6773386  PMID: 31293213

ABSTRACT

Recent data from the Kollins lab (‘Cannabinoid exposure and altered DNA methylation in rat and human sperm’ Epigenetics 2018; 13: 1208–1221) indicated epigenetic effects of cannabis use on sperm in man parallel those in rats and showed substantial shifts in both hypo- and hyper-DNA methylation with the latter predominating. This provides one likely mechanism for the transgenerational transmission of epigenomic instability with sperm as the vector. It therefore contributes important pathophysiological insights into the probable mechanisms underlying the epidemiology of prenatal cannabis exposure potentially explaining diverse features of cannabis-related teratology including effects on the neuraxis, cardiovasculature, immune stimulation, secondary genomic instability and carcinogenesis related to both adult and pediatric cancers. The potentially inheritable and therefore multigenerational nature of these defects needs to be carefully considered in the light of recent teratological and neurobehavioural trends in diverse jurisdictions such as the USA nationally, Hawaii, Colorado, Canada, France and Australia, particularly relating to mental retardation, age-related morbidity and oncogenesis including inheritable cancerogenesis. Increasing demonstrations that the epigenome can respond directly and in real time and retain memories of environmental exposures of many kinds implies that the genome-epigenome is much more sensitive to environmental toxicants than has been generally realized. Issues of long-term multigenerational inheritance amplify these concerns. Further research particularly on the epigenomic toxicology of many cannabinoids is also required.

KEYWORDS: Cannabinoids, cannabidiol, cannabinol, histone modifications, DNA methylation, teratogensis, autism spectrum disorder, neurobehavioural teratology, congenital cardiovascular malformations

Introduction

Physiology and pathobiology of the epigenome and its complex interactions with the genome, metabolome and immunometabolome, and cannabinoid physiopharmacology represents some of the most exciting areas of modern biological research. Type 1 and 2 cannabinoid receptors (CB1R and CB2R) are involved in a host of endogenous processes with potential therapeutic applications in numerous fields as diverse as pain, nausea, temperature regulation and weight control amongst others. Several recent detailed structural descriptions of the CB1R and CB2R complexed with high affinity agonists and antagonists [1,2], and pathways for the bulk biological synthesis of cannabinoids [3] open the way to the rational design of high affinity molecules to differentially modulate these key receptors which are involved in a host of endogenous processes with diverse potential therapeutic applications. The use of exogenous cannabinoid compounds that bind to CB1R and CB2R may however also produce unwanted side effects including through modulation of DNA methylation states.

Within each nucleated cell, 2 m of DNA is normally stored coiled around four histones known as a nucleosome. A total of 147 bases of DNA are wrapped twice around two sets of H2A, H2B, H3 and H4 which together form the histone octamer. The bases of DNA itself may have a methyl group (CH3-) attached to them, usually to cytosine-phosphate-guanine (CpG), which when it occurs in the region of the gene promoter, blocks the transcription machinery and prevents the gene from becoming activated. The tails of the four histone proteins protrude from the central globular core and normally bind by electrostatic forces to the coiled DNA. Addition of an acetyl group to these histone tails, particularly on H3 and H4, disrupts the salt bridges opening up the DNA code for active transcription. Histone tails can also be methylated or indeed be modified by many groups (mono-, di- and trimethyl, acetyl, phosphoryl, crotonyl, citrulline, ubiquitin and ADP-ribosyl, etc.) which control gene transcription [4]. DNA is transcribed into RNA some of which is made into the many proteins from which our bodies are made. However, much of the RNA also has purely informatic roles, and short and long non-coding RNA’s (ncRNA) controls DNA availability and transcription, RNA processing and splicing and can form a scaffold upon which layers of DNA regulation can be built [5,6]. These various mechanisms, DNA methylation, post-translational modification of histone tails, nucleosome positioning, histone replacement, nuclear positioning and ncRNA’s form the basis of epigenetic regulation [7,8] and appear to undergo an ‘epigenetic conversation’ amongst these different layers [4]. Chromatin loops are extruded through cohesin rings giving rise to transcription factories (topologically active domains) where different regions of the DNA including proximal promoters and distal enhancers are brought into close proximity to control transcription either on the same chromosome (in cis) or sometimes on nearby chromosomes (in trans). Super-enhancers, enhancer cross-talk, and extensive 3D remodelling of euchromatin looping during development are also described [914].

Transgenerational inheritance

Moreover, a variety of studies in animals and several epidemiological studies in humans show that the epigenetic code can form a mechanism for inheritable changes across generations from both father and mother to subsequent generations which do not involve changes in the genetic code itself. Such epigenetic inheritance has been shown clinically for starvation, obesity, bariatric surgery and for tobacco and alcohol consumption [7,1517]. It has also been demonstrated in rodents for alcohol, cocaine and opioids, and in rodents’ immune system, nucleus accumbens and sperm following cannabinoid exposure in the parents [1823].

If DNA is thought of as the cells’ bioinformatic ‘hardware’ then the epigenome can be considered its programming ‘software’. The epigenome controls gene expression and is key to cell differentiation into different tissue fates [24], different states of cellular differentiation, to cellular reprogramming into induced pluripotential stem cell states [2529], cancer [3032], numerous neuropsychiatric diseases including addiction [4,3335], immune, metabolic and brain memory [4,3639], aging [40], and the response of the cell to changes in its environment by way of gene-environment interactions [7,16,19] including the development of so-called ‘epigenetic scars’ [4].

Direct epigenomic sensing of the environment

This powerful informatic system has recently been shown to have a host of unforeseen capabilities. It has been shown that histone tails sense oxygen tension rapidly within 1 h with resulting modification of gene expression cassettes [41]. Lysine (K) demethylase 5A (KDM5A) is a Jumanji-C domain containing molecular dioxygenase which is inactivated by hypoxia in a hypoxia-inducible factor-independent manner, controls H3K4me3 and H3K36me3 histone trimethylations and governs the transcriptome expression several hours after brief hypoxia. Similarly, KDM6A is also an oxygen sensitive dioxygenase and histone demethylase which controls H3K27me3. Its blockade by hypoxia interferes with cell differentiation and maintains cells in an undifferentiated state [42]. Since the ten eleven translocase enzymes and are key demethylators of DNA and are dioxygenases also sensitive to profound hypoxia, and since hypoxia exists in most stem cell niches and at the centre of many tumours, such histone- and DNA-centred mechanisms are likely to be important in stem cell, aging, cellular differentiation and cancer biology.

Epigenomic regulation of tumour immunometabolome

Similarly, one of the great paradoxes of cancer biology is the presence within tumours of numerous effector T-cells which are able to expand and eradicate large metastatic tumours effectively, but do not do so within clinical cancers. It was recently shown that this effect is due to the very elevated nucleocytosolic potassium level within tumour lymphocytes which stalls metabolism and runs down acetyl-coenzyme A levels, the main acetyl donor for histone acetylation and induces a form of calorie restriction (like starvation) including autophagy and mitophagy and impairs the normal mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin)-dependent T-cell receptor-mediated activation response [43]. This program was mediated by reduced levels of H3K9 and H3K27 acetylation. Hence, tumour lymphocyte anergy and stemness were both mediated epigenetically and were shown to be reversible when the immunometabolic defect was corrected either genetically or by substrate supplementation. This work elegantly demonstrates the close relationship between the metabolic state of cells, cell differentiation state and starvation response, the control of cell fate by the epigenetic landscape and disease outcome.

Metabolomic supply of epigenetic substrate

Several studies similarly link the supply of metabolic intermediates required as inputs by the epigenetic machinery to epigenetic state and downstream gene control. Indeed, the well-known supplementation of staple foods by folic acid is believed to act because of the central role played by this vitamin in the methyl cycle and the supply of single carbon units to the methylation machinery for DNA and histones. A moments reflection shows that expression of the DNA of the mitochondria and the DNA of the nucleus need to be tightly coordinated to supply the correct number of subunits for the complex machineries of the mitochondrion including electron transport. This mitonuclear balance acts at several levels including RNA transfer, metabolic substrate (acetyl-coenzyme A, nicotinamide mononucleotide) transfer and the control of the epigenetic regulators PARP (polyadenosineribosyl polymerase) and Sirt1 (a major histone deacetylase) [44].

Cannabinoid signalling impacts mitochondria

As noted above the identification of CB1R and CB2R on the plasma membrane has been a major milestone in cellular cannabinoid physiology. It is less well known that CB1R’s also exist on the mitochondrial outer membrane, and that the inner and outer leaflet of the mitochondria, together with the intermembrane space host the same cannabinoid transduction machinery as the plasmalemma [4547]. Neuronal mitochondrial CB1R’s have been implicated in memory and several critical neural processes [4850]. Hence, the well-substantiated findings that diverse cannabinoids generally suppress mitochondrial activity (in neurons, lung, liver and sperm), lower the mitochondrial transmembrane potential and interfere with oxidative phosphorylation [5153] carry major epigenetic implications not only for mitonuclear balance and trafficking including the mitochondrial stress response, but also for the supply of the requisite metabolic intermediates in terms of acetyl-coenzyme A which is an absolute requirement for histone acetylation and normal gene activation.

Histone serotonylation and dopaminylation

Serotonin, which has long been implicated in mood dysregulation and drug addiction was recently shown to act as a novel post-translational modification of the tail of H3 at lysine 4 via serotonylation where it increases the binding of the transcription machinery and allows correct cell differentiation [54,55]. It is likely that dopamine will soon be similarly implicated [54,55].

Epigenomics in cancer

Almost accompanying the modern bioinformatic explosion of knowledge related to the sequencing of the human genome has been a parallel increase in knowledge of the complexities and intricacies of epigenomic regulation. Nowhere is this more evident than in cancer. Indeed, it has become apparent that there are numerous forms of cross-talk, interaction and cross-regulation between the genome and the epigenome and the two are in fact highly inter-related. This is of particular relevance to chromosomal integrity and cancerogenic mechanisms. Several mechanisms have been described for such interactions including alterations of DNA methylation, altered cytosine hydroxymethylation [56], alteration of TERT function which is a key catalytic component of the telomerase enzyme which protects chromosome ends [57] and altered architecture of enhancers and their looping interactions with promoters which control gene expression [12,58,59]. Indeed, pharmacological modulation of the bromodomain ‘readers’ of epigenomic information has become a very exciting area within modern cancer therapeutic research [12,5968], and forms an area into which large pharmaceutical companies are presently investing several billion dollars [69,70].

Gamete cannabinoid epigenomics – Murphy et. al

In this powerful context, the masterful epigenetic work from the Kollins laboratory of Murphy and colleagues was situated [71]. These workers studied 12 control men who self-reported no psychoactive drug use in the last 6 months, and 12 subjects who reported more than weekly use of cannabis only, with all results confirmed by urine toxicology and ultra performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and enzyme immunoassay. In parallel two groups of 9-week-old male rats were administered solvent or 2 mg/kg THC by gastric lavage for 12 days prior to sacrifice and the epididymis was harvested. Sperm were assayed by the ‘swim out’ method where sperm swam out into normal saline bath solution. Cannabis exposed men had lower sperm counts, and it was found that there was differential sperm DNA methylation at 6,640 CpG sites including at 3,979 CpG islands in gene promoters where methylation was changed by more than 10% (which is alot). Significant changes were in both the hypomethylation and hypermethylation direction were noted with the changes in the hypomethylation group being more marked across the genome and at gene promoters. Pathways in cancer (including the BRAF, PRCACA, APC2 PIK3R2, LAMA1, LAMB1, AKT1 and FGF genes), hippo pathways (which are also important in cancer and in embryonic body pattern formation), the MAP kinase pathway (also involved in growth and cancer), AMPA, NMDA and kainate glutamate receptor subunits, and the Wnt genes 3A, 5A, 9A, 10A (involved in cancer and in body patterning and morphogensis) were found to be particularly affected. A dose–response effect was demonstrated at 183 CpG sites on 177 genes including the PTG1R gene which encodes the prostacyclin (a powerful vasodilator and antithrombotic agent) receptor which was down-regulated. Twenty-three genes involved in platelet activation and 21 genes involved in glutamate metabolism were also modulated. LAMB1, whose gene product laminin B has been implicated in progeria and is increasingly implicated in genetic ageing pathways through its role in nuclear positioning of chromatin and the maintenance of heterochromatin (including female X-chromosome inactivation) in an inactive state inside the nuclear membrane, and its role in establishing integrity of the nuclear envelope, was also identified [72]. Results in the rats closely paralleled those found in humans. Fifty-five genes were found to overlap between altered sperm methylation patterns and a previous study of brain Nuclear Accumbens DNA methylation in prenatally cannaboid exposed rats which showing increased heroin self-administration, a highly statistically significant result. These results support the hypothesis that the transgenerational transmission of defects following pre-conceptual exposure to cannabis found in the immune system and limbic system of the brain including increased tendency for drug use in later life in rodents [18,19] may be transmitted through alterations in the DNA methylation of the male germ line. More work is clearly needed in this area with exhaustive epigenetic, transcriptomic and genomic characterization of these results with larger sample sizes and in other species.

Cannabis – cancer links

Mechanistically these results have very far-reaching implications indeed and appear to account for much of the epidemiologically documented associations of cannabis use. Cannabis has been associated with cancer of the mouth and throat, lung, bladder, leukaemia, larynx, prostate and cervix [73] and in four out of four studies with testicular teratomas [7477] with a relative risk of three in meta-analysis [78]. Cannabis has also been implicated with increased rates of the childhood cancers acute lymphocytic leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, acute myelomonocytic leukaemia, neuroblastoma and rhabdomyosarcoma [73].

These are believed to be due to inheritable genetic or epigenetic problems from the parents [79,80], albeit the mechanism of such transmission was not understood in the pre-epigenomic era. Results of Murphy and colleagues [71] may potentially explain mechanistically much of the epidemiologically documented morbidity that has in the past been associated with cannabis use. As noted, cannabis contains the same tars as tobacco and also several known genotoxic compounds, and is also immunoactive. Such actions imply several mechanisms by which cannabis may be implicated in carcinogenic mechanisms.

That cannabis is associated with heritable paediatric cancers where the parents themselves do not harbour such tumours is suggestive evidence that non-genetic and likely epigenetic mechanisms are involved in the childhood cancers which are observed. Detailed delineation of such putative pathways will require further research.

Cannabis has also been shown to be associated with increased rates of gastroschisis in seven of seven studies to examine this association [8187]. This pathology, where the bowels of the neonate protrude through the abdominal wall usually to the right of the umbilicus, is believed to be due to a disruption of blood flow to the forming abdominal wall. If cannabinoid exposure powerfully activates platelets through multiple mechanisms and disrupts major vasodilator systems such as the prostacyclin receptor then such a pathway could well damage the tiny blood vessels of the developing foetus and account for the development of gastroschisis. Cannabis use in adults has been linked with both myocardial infarction and stroke possibly by similar mechanisms [48,88]. It has been shown elsewhere that cannabis use can also stimulate inflammation and be proinflammatory [89].

Epigenomics of foetal alcohol syndrome

Indeed, foetal alcohol syndrome disorder (FASD) is said to be mediated in part by the CB1R [9092], to be epigenetically mediated [9396], and to comprise amongst other features small heads, microcephaly, impaired visuospatial coordination and to be commonly associated with ventricular septal defect and atrial septal defect [97] all of which have been described in association with prenatal cannabis exposure [83,98101]. However, the facial features of FASD are not described in the congenital cannabis literature.

Cannabis and congenital anomalies

Indeed, one Hawaiian statewide epidemiological report found elevated rates of 21 congenital defects in prenatally cannabis exposed infants [83]. Whilst this paper is unique in the literature it helps explain much about the presently reported patterns of congenital anomalies across USA in relation to atrial septal defect, Downs’ syndrome, Trisomy 18, ventricular septal defect, limb reduction defects, anotia, gastroschisis [102] and autism [103], all of which crude rates are more common in states with liberal cannabis policies. Similar morbidity patterns were observed in Canada with crude rates of all congenital defects, gastroschisis, total cardiovascular defects and orofacial clefts [104] more common in areas with higher cannabis use [105]. The Colorado birth defects registry has also reported a three-fold increase in the crude (unadjusted) rate of atrial septal defects 2000–2014 spanning the period of cannabis legalization together with increases of 30% or more over the same period in crude rates of total cardiovascular defects, ventricular septal defects, Down’s syndrome and anencephaly [106]. This is highly significant as atrial septal defect has only been found to be linked with cannabis in the Hawaiian study, suggesting that our list of cannabis-related defects is as yet incomplete. As mentioned above the putative link between atrial septal defect and cannabis use has also been found in the generality of states across the USA [102]. It should also be noted that according to a major nationally representative recurrent survey the use of all other drugs in Colorado fell during this period, making cannabis the most likely pharmacological suspect for the surge in congenital anomalies [107109].

These findings are also consistent with data arising from France, wherein three separate regions which have permitted cannabis to be used as feed for the dairy industry calves are born without legs, and an increase in the rate of phocomelia (no arms) in human infants has similarly been observed. In the French northeast region of Ain which is adjacent to Switzerland, the crude rate of phocomelia is said to be elevated 58 times above background [110,111], whilst in nearby Switzerland which has not permitted cannabis to be used as a feed crop no such anomalies are observed.

Neuroteratogenesis and beyond

The above comments in relation to epigenetic modulation of the glutamate system have been shown in recent studies to be related to many neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the recent demonstration at least in insects that glutamate could also act as a key morphogen in body patterning processes and major organ formation may have much wider implications well beyond the neuraxis [112].

Cannabis and epigenetic ageing

The finding of overall DNA hypomethylation by Murphy’s group [71] carries particular significance especially in the context of disordered lamin B metabolism. Chronic inflammation is known to be a major risk factor for carcinogenesis in humans in many organs including the skin, oropharynx, bronchi, lungs, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, biliary tree, colon, bladder and prostate [113116]. Inflammatory conditions are invariably strongly pro-oxidative and damage to DNA is not unusual. Because CpGs in gene promoters are more often largely unmethylated and therefore exposed the guanine in these positions is a common target for oxidative damage. Oxo-guanine is strongly mutagenic. This form of DNA damage recruits the maintenance DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 from the gene body to the gene promoter. There DNMT1 recruits Sirt1, a histone deacetylase which tends to epigenetically silence gene expression, and also EZH2 part of the polycomb repressive complexes 2 and 4 which epigenetically silences gene expression and tends to spread the silencing of chromatin. Hence, one of the end results of this form of oxidative DNA damage is to move the DNA methylation from the gene bodies to the gene promoters, thereby hypermethylating the promoters [117], the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) and hypomethylating the gene bodies and intergenic regions [118]. By this epigenetic means chronic inflammation and tobacco smoke have been shown to induce widespread epigenomic field change right across tissues such as colon, bronchi or bone marrow [116,119,120]. Furthermore, this mechanism moves gene expression from the control of histone modification to DNA methylation which tends to be more fixed and less plastic than histone alterations. Such findings are consistent with a previous demonstration of accelerated ageing in cannabis exposed clinical populations [121].

Epigenomic control of mobile transposable genetic elements

Reducing the global level of DNA methylation also has the effect of reducing the control of mobile transposable repeat elements in the genome [122]. Forty-two per cent of the human genome has been shown to be comprised of these mobile elements of various varieties. Long Interspersed Repeat Elements (LINE-1) are believed to be retroviral repeat elements which long ago became incorporated in the genome and are able when expressed to induce their own reverse transcription back into the genome via endogenous reverse transcriptases [122]. For this reason, they are also called ‘jumping genes.’ Because they become randomly incorporated into the genome after reverse transcription their activity is very damaging to genetic integrity. Whilst retrotransposon mobility is normally controlled by three mechanisms these defences can be overcome in advanced cellular senescence. The presence of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) in the cytoplasm is strongly stimulating for the immune system and stimulates a type-1 interferon proinflammatory response, which further exacerbates the cycle and directly drives the Senescence Associated Secretory Phenotype (SASP) of advanced senescence and the ‘inflamm-aging’ which is well described in advanced age [123125]. Accelerated ageing in patients exposed clinically to cannabis has previously been described using a well validated metric of arterial stiffness [126]. Whilst neither Murphy [71] nor Watson [20] found evidence following cannabinoid exposure for altered methylation of repeat elements the presence of chronic inflammation in the context of widespread preneoplastic change and documented neoplasia suggest that this newly described ageing mechanism might well merit further investigation.

These changes are likely exacerbated by several classical descriptions that cannabinoids reduce the overall level of histone protein synthesis [127129]. Since the overall length of DNA does not change this is likely to further open up the genome to dysregulated transcription. Severe morphological abnormalities of human and rodent sperm have been reported [127,130132].

Cannabinoids and oocytes

Similarly classical descriptions exist of grossly disrupted mitoses, particularly in oocytes [133], which are said to be seriously deficient in DNA repair machinery [134136]. Morishima reported as long ago as 1984, evidence of nuclear blebs and bridges due to deranged meiotic divisions in cannabinoid-exposed rodent oocytes [133]. Similar blebs and bridges have been reported by others [128,129,137]. It has since been shown that these nuclear blebs represent areas of weakness of the nuclear membrane which are often disrupted spilling their contents into the cytoplasm [72]. They are also a sign of nuclear ageing.

Cannabinoids and micronuclei

Cannabis has long been known to test positive in the micronuclear assay due to interference with the function of the mitotic spindle [138140]. This is a major cause of chromosomal disruption and downstream severe genetic damage in surviving cells [141,142], has previously been linked with teratogenesis and carcinogenesis, and which is also potently proinflammatory by releasing dsDNA into the cytoplasm and stimulating cGAS-STING (Cyclic GMP-AMP synthase – STimulator of INterferon Gamma) signalling and downstream innate immune pathways [143146]. Cytoplasmic dsDNA has also been shown to be an important factor driving the lethal process of cancer metastasis [147].

Cannabis and wnt signalling

The findings of Murphy in relation to Wnt signalling are also of great interest [71]. It has been found by several investigators that prenatal cannabis exposure is related to encephalocoele or anencephaly [83,148,149]. Non-canonical Wnt signalling has been shown to control the closure of the anterior neuropore [150] providing a mechanistic underpinning for this fascinating finding. Wnt signalling has also been implicated in cancer development in numerous studies [151154] and in controlling limb development [155] which have been previously linked with cannabis exposure (as noted above).

Cannabis and autism

It was recently demonstrated that the rising use of cannabis parallels the rising incidence of autism in 50 of 51 US states and territories including Washington D.C., and that cannabis legalization was associated with increased rates of autism in legal states [108,109]. Several cannabinoids in addition to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) were implicated in such actions including cannabidiol, cannabinol, cannabichromene, cannabigerol and tetrahydrocannabivarin. A rich literature demonstrates the impacts of epigenomics on brain development and its involvement in autistic spectrum disorders [156161]. Whether cannabis is acting by epigenetic or other routes including those outlined above remains to be demonstrated. Further research is indicated.

Cannabidiol and other cannabinoids

These findings raise the larger issue of the extent to which the described changes reflect the involvement of THC as compared to other cannabinoids in the more general genotoxicity and epigenotoxicity of both oral (edible) and inhaled (smoked) cannabis. THC, cannabidiol, cannabidivarin, and cannabinol have previously been shown to be genotoxic to chromosomes and associated with micronucleus development [162,163]. American cannabis has been selectively bred for its THC content and the ratio of THC to cannabidiol (CBD) was noted to have increased from 14:1 to 80:1 1998–2018 [71]. However in more recent times, cannabidiol is being widely used across the USA for numerous (nonmedical) recommendations.

Cannabidiol is known to inhibit mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation including calcium metabolism [47,164171] which is known to have a negative effect on genome maintenance and is believed to secondarily restrict the supply of acetyl and other groups for epigenetic modifications. Cannabidiol is known to act via CB1R’s particularly at higher doses [166,172179]. Cannabidiol acts via PPARγ (Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor) [180187] which is a nuclear receptor which is implicated in various physiological and pathological states including adipogenesis, obesity, diabetes, atherogenesis, neurodegenerative disease, fertility and cancer [188]. In a human skin cell culture experiment, cannabidiol was shown to act via CB1R’s as a transcriptional repressor by increasing the level of global DNA methylation by enhancing the expression of the maintenance DNA methylase DNMT1 which in turn suppressed the expression of skin differentiation genes and returned the cells to a less differentiated state [179]. One notes, importantly, that this DNA hypermethylation paralleled exactly the changes reported by Murphy for THC hypermethylation [71]. The de-differentiation reported or implied in both studies is clearly a more proliferative and proto-oncogenic state. Hence, while more research is clearly required to carefully delineate the epigenetic actions of cannabidiol, its activity at CB1R’s, its mitochondrial inhibitory action, its implication of PPARγ and particularly its THC-like induction of epigenetic and cellular de-differentiation, together with its implication in chromosomal fragmentation and micronucleus induction would suggest that caution is prudent whilst the results of further research are awaited.

Other cannabinoid receptors and notch signalling

The above discussion is intended to be indicative and suggestive rather than exhaustive as the cannabinoids’ pharmacological effects are very pleiotropic, partly because CB1R’s, CB2R’s – and six other cannabinoid sensing receptors [189]– are widely distributed across most tissues. One notes that the mechanisms described above do not obviously account for very important finding that in both Colorado [106,107] and Canada [190192] increasing rates of cannabis use were associated with higher rates of total congenital cardiovascular disease. One observes that in both cases the cited rise in rates refers to an elevation of crude rates unadjusted for other covariates. This finding is important for several reasons not the least of which is that cardiovascular disease is the commonest class of congenital disorders. It may be that this action is related to the effects of cannabinoids binding high-density endovascular CB1R’s from early in foetal life [193] and interacting with the notch signalling system [194196]. Notch is a key morphogen involved in the patterning particularly of the brain, heart, vasculature and haemopoietic systems [197] and also in many cancers. Notch signalling both acts upon the epigenome and is acted upon by the epigenome both in benign (atherosclerotic and haemopoietic) [198,199] and cancerous (ovarian, biliary, colonic, leukaemic) diseases [200204]. Clearly in view of their salience, the interactions between cannabinoids and both notch and Wnt signalling pathways constitute fertile areas for ongoing research.

Conclusion

In short the timely paper by Murphy and colleagues [71] nicely fills the gap between extant studies documenting that pre-conception exposure to cannabis is related to widespread changes in epigenetic regulation of the immune and central nervous systems and confirms that male germ cells are a key vector of this inheritance and has given new gravity to epidemiological data on the downstream teratological manifestations of prenatal cannabinoid exposure. The reasonably close parallels in findings between rats and man confirm the usefulness of this experimental model. Since guinea pigs and white rabbits are known to form the most predictive preclinical models for human teratogenicity studies [205,206] it would be prudent to investigate how epigenomic results in these species compared to those identified in man and rodents. Finally the considerable and significant clinical teratogenicity of cannabis, including its very substantial neurobehavioural teratogenicity imply that such studies need to be prioritized by the research community and the research resourcing community alike, particularly if the alarming findings of recent European experience in terms of cannabinoids allowed in the food chain is not to be repeated elsewhere. Indeed, the recent passage of the nearly $USD1trillion USA Farm Act which encourages hemp to be widely grown for general use together with the advent in some US cafés of ‘hempburgers’ and ‘cannabis cookies’ would appear to have ushered in just such an era. Hemp oil has recently been marketed in Australian supermarkets completely unsupervised. Meanwhile, the rapidly accumulating and stellar discoveries relating to the pathobiology of the epigenome and its remarkable bioinformatical secrets continue to be of general medical and community importance. In some areas, particularly relating to the epigenotoxicology of the non-THC cannabinoids, further research is clearly indicated, especially in view of the widespread use and relatively innocuous reputation of cannabis derivates including particularly cannabidiol.

Such issues suggest that in the pharmacologically exciting era of the development of novel intelligently designed cannabinoids intended for human therapeutics, considerations of genomic and epigenomic toxicity including mutagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, pro-ageing and heritable multigenerational effects warrant special caution and attention prior to the widespread exposure of whole populations either to phytocannabinoids or to their synthetic derivatives. Equally, the possibility of locus-specific epigenetic medication development as modifiers of the epigenetic reading, writing and erasing machinery suggests that very exciting developments are also beginning in this area [4].

Author Note

While this paper was in review our paper examining the epidemiological pattern and trends of Colorado birth defects of 2000-2014 and entitled “Cannabis Teratology Explains Current Patterns of Coloradan Congenital Defects: The Contribution of Increased Cannabinoid Exposure to Rising Teratological Trends” was accepted by the journal Clinical Pediatrics. It provides further details and confirmation on some of the issues discussed in the present paper. It also contains a detailed ecological investigation of the role of cannabidiol at the epidemiological level which confirms and extends the mechanistic observations and the quantitative remarks relating to the epidemiology of birth defects in Colorado made in the present manuscript. The interested reader may also wish to consult this resource.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Financial Disclosure

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships to this article to disclose.

References

  • [1].Krishna Kumar K, Shalev-Benami M, Robertson MJ, et al. Structure of a signaling cannabinoid receptor 1-G protein complex. Cell. 2019. January 24;176(3):448–458 e12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Li X, Hua T, Vemuri K, et al. Crystal Structure of the Human Cannabinoid Receptor CB2. Cell. 2019. January 24;176(3):459–467 e13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Luo X, Reiter MA, d’Espaux L, et al. Complete biosynthesis of cannabinoids and their unnatural analogues in yeast. Nature. 2019. March;567(7746):123–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Nestler EJ, Luscher C.. The Molecular Basis of Drug Addiction: linking Epigenetic to Synaptic and Circuit Mechanisms. Neuron. 2019. April 3;102(1):48–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Rinn JL, Kertesz M, Wang JK, et al. Functional demarcation of active and silent chromatin domains in human HOX loci by noncoding RNAs. Cell. 2007. June 29;129(7):1311–1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Kotake Y, Nakagawa T, Kitagawa K, et al. Long non-coding RNA ANRIL is required for the PRC2 recruitment to and silencing of p15(INK4B) tumor suppressor gene. Oncogene. 2011. April 21;30(16):1956–1962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Szutorisz H, Hurd YL.. High times for cannabis: epigenetic imprint and its legacy on brain and behavior. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018. February;85:93–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ohno M, Ando T, Priest DG, et al. Sub-nucleosomal Genome Structure Reveals Distinct Nucleosome Folding Motifs. Cell. 2019. January 24;176(3):520–534 e25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Mateo LJ, Murphy SE, Hafner A, et al. Visualizing DNA folding and RNA in embryos at single-cell resolution. Nature. 2019. April;568(7750):49–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Loven J, Hoke HA, Lin CY, et al. Selective inhibition of tumor oncogenes by disruption of super-enhancers. Cell. 2013. April 11;153(2):320–334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Pefanis E, Wang J, Rothschild G, et al. RNA exosome-regulated long non-coding RNA transcription controls super-enhancer activity. Cell. 2015. May 7;161(4):774–789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].CJ O, Federation AJ, Schwartz LS, et al. Enhancer Architecture and Essential Core Regulatory Circuitry of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2018. December 10;34(6):982–995 e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Fulciniti M, Lin CY, Samur MK, et al. Non-overlapping Control of Transcriptome by Promoter- and Super-Enhancer-Associated Dependencies in Multiple Myeloma. Cell Rep. 2018. December 26;25(13):3693–3705 e6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Mack SC, Pajtler KW, Chavez L, et al. Therapeutic targeting of ependymoma as informed by oncogenic enhancer profiling. Nature. 2018. January 4;553(7686):101–105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Szutorisz H, Egervari G, Sperry J, et al. Cross-generational THC exposure alters the developmental sensitivity of ventral and dorsal striatal gene expression in male and female offspring. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2016;58:107–114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Szutorisz H, Hurd YL. Epigenetic Effects of Cannabis Exposure. Biol Psychiatry. 2016. April 1;79(7):586–594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Cecil CA, Walton E, Smith RG, et al. DNA methylation and substance-use risk: a prospective, genome-wide study spanning gestation to adolescence. Transl Psychiatry. 2016. December 6;6(12):e976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].DiNieri JA, Wang X, Szutorisz H, et al. Maternal cannabis use alters ventral striatal dopamine D2 gene regulation in the offspring. Biol Psychiatry. 2011. October 15;70(8):763–769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Szutorisz H, DiNieri JA, Sweet E, et al. Parental THC exposure leads to compulsive heroin-seeking and altered striatal synaptic plasticity in the subsequent generation. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014. May;39(6):1315–1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Watson CT, Szutorisz H, Garg P, et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. In: Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling Reveals Epigenetic Changes in the Rat Nucleus Accumbens Associated With Cross-Generational Effects of Adolescent THC Exposure Jun, 2015;40(13):2993–3005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Yang X, Hegde VL, Rao R, et al. Histone modifications are associated with Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol-mediated alterations in antigen-specific T cell responses. J Biol Chem. 2014. July 4;289(27):18707–18718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Govorko D, Bekdash RA, Zhang C, et al. Male germline transmits fetal alcohol adverse effect on hypothalamic proopiomelanocortin gene across generations. Biol Psychiatry. 2012. September 1;72(5):378–388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Fullston T, Ohlsson Teague EM, Palmer NO, et al. Paternal obesity initiates metabolic disturbances in two generations of mice with incomplete penetrance to the F2 generation and alters the transcriptional profile of testis and sperm microRNA content. Faseb J. 2013. October;27(10):4226–4243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Waddington CH. The Epigenotype. Endeavour. 2019;1942:18–20. [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Beerman I, Rossi DJ. Epigenetic Control of Stem Cell Potential during Homeostasis, Aging, and Disease. Cell Stem Cell. 2015. June 4;16(6):613–625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Brumbaugh J, Hochedlinger K. Removing reprogramming roadblocks: mbd3 depletion allows deterministic iPSC generation. Cell Stem Cell. 2013. October 3;13(4):379–381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Ding J, Huang X, Shao N, et al. Tex10 Coordinates Epigenetic Control of Super-Enhancer Activity in Pluripotency and Reprogramming. Cell Stem Cell. 2015. June 4;16(6):653–668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Mansour AA, Gafni O, Weinberger L, et al. The H3K27 demethylase Utx regulates somatic and germ cell epigenetic reprogramming. Nature. 2012. August 16;488(7411):409–413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Snoeck HW. Can Metabolic Mechanisms of Stem Cell Maintenance Explain Aging and the Immortal Germline?. Cell Stem Cell. 2015. June 4;16(6):582–584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Huang SS, Clarke DC, Gosline SJ, et al. Linking proteomic and transcriptional data through the interactome and epigenome reveals a map of oncogene-induced signaling. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(2):e1002887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Ziech D, Franco R, Pappa A, et al. Reactive oxygen species (ROS)–induced genetic and epigenetic alterations in human carcinogenesis. Mutat Res. 2011. June 3;711(1–2):167–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Lao VV, Grady WM. Epigenetics and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011. December;8(12):686–700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Dong X, Liao Z, Gritsch D, et al. Enhancers active in dopamine neurons are a primary link between genetic variation and neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Neurosci. 2018. October;21(10):1482–1492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Guennewig B, Bitar M, Obiorah I, et al. THC exposure of human iPSC neurons impacts genes associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. Transl Psychiatry. 2018. April 25;8(1):89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Kozlenkov A, Jaffe AE, Timashpolsky A, et al. DNA Methylation Profiling of Human Prefrontal Cortex Neurons in Heroin Users Shows Significant Difference between Genomic Contexts of Hyper- and Hypomethylation and a Younger Epigenetic Age In: Genes (Basel), Vol. 8 2017 May 30; p. 6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Heyward FD, Gilliam D, Coleman MA, et al. Obesity Weighs down Memory through a Mechanism Involving the Neuroepigenetic Dysregulation of Sirt1. J Neurosci. 2016. January 27;36(4):1324–1335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Villeneuve LM, Reddy MA, Lanting LL, et al. Epigenetic histone H3 lysine 9 methylation in metabolic memory and inflammatory phenotype of vascular smooth muscle cells in diabetes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008. July 1;105(26):9047–9052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Halder R, Hennion M, Vidal RO, et al. DNA methylation changes in plasticity genes accompany the formation and maintenance of memory. Nat Neurosci. 2016. January;19(1):102–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet. 2003. March;33:Suppl:245–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Batie M, Frost J, Frost M, et al. Hypoxia induces rapid changes to histone methylation and reprograms chromatin. Science. 2019. March 15;363(6432):1222–1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Chakraborty AA, Laukka T, Myllykoski M, et al. Histone demethylase KDM6A directly senses oxygen to control chromatin and cell fate. Science. 2019. March 15;363(6432):1217–1222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Vodnala SK, Eil R, Kishton RJ, et al. T cell stemness and dysfunction in tumors are triggered by a common mechanism. Science. 2019;363(6434):eaau0135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Canto C, Menzies KJ, Auwerx J. NAD(+) Metabolism and the Control of Energy Homeostasis: A Balancing Act between Mitochondria and the Nucleus. Cell Metab. 2015. July 7;22(1):31–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Benard G, Massa F, Puente N, et al. Mitochondrial CB(1) receptors regulate neuronal energy metabolism. Nat Neurosci. 2012. March 4;15(4):558–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Hebert-Chatelain E, Desprez T, Serrat R, et al. A cannabinoid link between mitochondria and memory. Nature. 2016. November 24;539(7630):555–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Hebert-Chatelain E, Reguero L, Puente N, et al. Cannabinoid control of brain bioenergetics: exploring the subcellular localization of the CB1 receptor. Mol Metab. 2014. July;3(4):495–504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Wolff V, Schlagowski AI, Rouyer O, et al. Tetrahydrocannabinol induces brain mitochondrial respiratory chain dysfunction and increases oxidative stress: a potential mechanism involved in cannabis-related stroke. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:323706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Djeungoue-Petga MA, Linking Mitochondria H-CE. Synaptic Transmission: the CB1 Receptor. Bioessays. 2017. December;39(12). doi: 10.1002/bies.201700126. Epub 2017 Oct 23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Ruggiero A, Aloni E, Korkotian E, et al. Loss of forebrain MTCH2 decreases mitochondria motility and calcium handling and impairs hippocampal-dependent cognitive functions. Sci Rep. 2017. March 9;7:44401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Sarafian TA, Kouyoumjian S, Khoshaghideh F, et al. Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol disrupts mitochondrial function and cell energetics. Am J Physiol. 2003. February;284(2):L298–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Sarafian TA, Habib N, Oldham M, et al. Inhaled marijuana smoke disrupts mitochondrial energetics in pulmonary epithelial cells in vivo. Am J Physiol. 2006. June;290(6):L1202–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Rossato M, Ion Popa F, Ferigo M, et al. Human sperm express cannabinoid receptor Cb1, the activation of which inhibits motility, acrosome reaction, and mitochondrial function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005. February;90(2):984–991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Cervantes M, Sassone-Corsi P. Modification of histone proteins by serotonin in the nucleus. Nature. 2019. March;567(7749):464–465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [55].Farrelly LA, Thompson RE, Zhao S, et al. Histone serotonylation is a permissive modification that enhances TFIID binding to H3K4me3. Nature. 2019. March;567(7749):535–539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [56].Bhattacharyya S, Pradhan K, Campbell N, et al. Altered hydroxymethylation is seen at regulatory regions in pancreatic cancer and regulates oncogenic pathways. Genome Res. 2017. November;27(11):1830–1842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [57].Stead LF, Verhaak RGW. Doomed from the TERT? A Two-Stage Model of Tumorigenesis in IDH-Wild-Type Glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2019. April 15;35(4):542–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [58].Weintraub AS, Li CH, Zamudio AV, et al. YY1 Is a Structural Regulator of Enhancer-Promoter Loops. Cell. 2017. December 14;171(7):1573–1588 e28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [59].Zeid R, Lawlor MA, Poon E, et al. Enhancer invasion shapes MYCN-dependent transcriptional amplification in neuroblastoma. Nat Genet. 2018. April;50(4):515–523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [60].Kohnken R, Wen J, Mundy-Bosse B, et al. Diminished microRNA-29b level is associated with BRD4-mediated activation of oncogenes in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2018. February 15;131(7):771–781. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [61].Liu Y, Li Y, Liu S, et al. NK Cells Mediate Synergistic Antitumor Effects of Combined Inhibition of HDAC6 and BET in a SCLC Preclinical Model. Cancer Res. 2018. July 1;78(13):3709–3717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [62].Michel BC, D’Avino AR, Cassel SH, et al. A non-canonical SWI/SNF complex is a synthetic lethal target in cancers driven by BAF complex perturbation. Nat Cell Biol. 2018. December;20(12):1410–1420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [63].Su R, Dong L, Li C, et al. R-2HG Exhibits Anti-tumor Activity by Targeting FTO/m(6)A/MYC/CEBPA Signaling. Cell. 2018. January 11;172(1–2):90–105 e23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [64].Xu L, Chen Y, Mayakonda A, et al. Targetable BET proteins- and E2F1-dependent transcriptional program maintains the malignancy of glioblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018. May 29;115(22):E5086–E5095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [65].Bandopadhayay P, Piccioni F, O’Rourke R, et al. Neuronal differentiation and cell-cycle programs mediate response to BET-bromodomain inhibition in MYC-driven medulloblastoma. Nat Commun. 2019. June 3;10(1):2400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [66].Hemming ML, Lawlor MA, Andersen JL, et al. Enhancer Domains in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Regulate KIT Expression and Are Targetable by BET Bromodomain Inhibition. Cancer Res. 2019. March 1;79(5):994–1009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [67].Miller AL, Fehling SC, Garcia PL, et al. EBioMedicine. In: The BET inhibitor JQ1 attenuates double-strand break repair and sensitizes models ofpancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to PARP inhibitors May,2019;44:419–430.Epub 2019 May22doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.05.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [68].Sdelci S, Rendeiro AF, Rathert P, et al. MTHFD1 interaction with BRD4 links folate metabolism to transcriptional regulation. Nat Genet. 2019. June;51(6):990–998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [69].FierceBiotech Jay Bradner - Novartis: FiercePharma; 2018. [cited 2019 June6]. Available from: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/jay-bradner-novartis
  • [70].Novartis James (Jay) Bradner, President of Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR) Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Novartis; 2019. [cited 2019 June9]. Available from: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/jay-bradner-novartis
  • [71].Murphy SK, Itchon-Ramos N, Visco Z, et al. Epigenetics. In: Cannabinoid exposure and altered DNA methylation in rat and human sperm. Epigenetics. 2018;13(12):1208–1221.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [72].Liu S, Kwon M, Mannino M, et al. Nuclear envelope assembly defects link mitotic errors to chromothripsis. Nature. 2018. September;561(7724):551–555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [73].Reece AS. Chronic toxicology of cannabis. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009. July;47(6):517–524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [74].Callaghan RC, Allebeck P, Akre O, et al. Cannabis Use and Incidence of Testicular Cancer: A 42-Year Follow-up of Swedish Men between 1970 and 2011. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017. November;26(11):1644–1652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [75].Daling JR, Doody DR, Sun X, et al. Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer. 2009. March 15;115(6):1215–1223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [76].Lacson JC, Carroll JD, Tuazon E, et al. Population-based case-control study of recreational drug use and testis cancer risk confirms an association between marijuana use and nonseminoma risk. Cancer. 2012. November 1;118(21):5374–5383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [77].Trabert B, Sigurdson AJ, Sweeney AM, et al. Marijuana use and testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer. 2011. February 15;117(4):848–853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [78].Gurney J, Shaw C, Stanley J, et al. Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015. 11;Nov(15):897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [79].Sweet-Cordero EA, Biegel JA. The genomic landscape of pediatric cancers: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Science. 2019. March 15;363(6432):1170–1175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [80].Lam CG, Howard SC, Bouffet E, et al. Science and health for all children with cancer. Science. 2019. March 15;363(6432):1182–1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [81].David AL, Holloway A, Thomasson L, et al. A case-control study of maternal periconceptual and pregnancy recreational drug use and fetal malformation using hair analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [82].Draper ES, Rankin J, Tonks AM, et al. Recreational drug use: a major risk factor for gastroschisis?. Am J Epidemiol. 2008. February 15;167(4):485–491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [83].Forrester MB, Merz RD. Risk of selected birth defects with prenatal illicit drug use, Hawaii, 1986-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health. 2007. January;70(1):7–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [84].Skarsgard ED, Meaney C, Bassil K, et al. Maternal risk factors for gastroschisis in Canada. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015. February;103(2):111–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [85].Torfs CP, Velie EM, Oechsli FW, et al. A population-based study of gastroschisis: demographic, pregnancy, and lifestyle risk factors. Teratology. 1994. July;50(1):44–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [86].van Gelder MM, Reefhuis J, Caton AR, et al. Maternal periconceptional illicit drug use and the risk of congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 2009. January;20(1):60–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [87].Werler MM, Sheehan JE, Mitchell AA. Association of vasoconstrictive exposures with risks of gastroschisis and small intestinal atresia. Epidemiology. 2003. May;14(3):349–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [88].Volkow ND, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014. August 28;371(9):879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [89].Bindukumar B, Mahajan SD, Reynolds JL, et al. Genomic and proteomic analysis of the effects of cannabinoids on normal human astrocytes. Brain Res. 2008. January;29(1191):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [90].Boa-Amponsem O, Zhang C, Mukhopadhyay S, et al. Birth Defects Res. In: Ethanol and cannabinoids interact to alter behavior in a zebrafish fetal alcohol spectrum disorder model Birth Defects Research. 2019 Jan 16.[Epub ahead of print].doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [91].Subbanna S, Nagre NN, Shivakumar M, et al. CB1R-Mediated Activation of Caspase-3 Causes Epigenetic and Neurobehavioral Abnormalities in Postnatal Ethanol-Exposed Mice. Front Mol Neurosci. 2018;11:45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [92].Nagre NN, Subbanna S, Shivakumar M, et al. CB1-receptor knockout neonatal mice are protected against ethanol-induced impairments of DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNA methylation. J Neurochem. 2015. February;132(4):429–442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [93].Banik A, Kandilya D, Ramya S, et al. Maternal Factors that Induce Epigenetic Changes Contribute to Neurological Disorders in Offspring. Genes (Basel). 2017. May 24;8(6). doi: 10.3390/genes8060150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [94].Chater-Diehl EJ, Laufer BI, Singh SM. Changes to histone modifications following prenatal alcohol exposure: an emerging picture. Alcohol. 2017. May;60:41–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [95].Lunde ER, Washburn SE, Golding MC, et al. Alcohol-Induced Developmental Origins of Adult-Onset Diseases. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016. July;40(7):1403–1414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [96].Veazey KJ, Wang H, Bedi YS, et al. Disconnect between alcohol-induced alterations in chromatin structure and gene transcription in a mouse embryonic stem cell model of exposure. Alcohol. 2017. May;60:121–133. (Fayetteville, NY. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [97].Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Kapser DL, et al. editors. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 17th Edition. 17th Edition New York: McGraw Hill; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • [98].Smith AM, Fried PA, Hogan MJ, et al. Effects of prenatal marijuana on visuospatial working memory: an fMRI study in young adults. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006. Mar-Apr;28(2):286–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [99].Smith AM, Longo CA, Fried PA, et al. Effects of marijuana on visuospatial working memory: an fMRI study in young adults. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010. June;210(3):429–438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [100].Smith AM, Mioduszewski O, Hatchard T, et al. Prenatal marijuana exposure impacts executive functioning into young adulthood: an fMRI study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2016;58:53–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [101].Brents L. Correlates and consequences of Prenatal Cannabis Exposure (PCE): identifying and Characterizing Vulnerable Maternal Populations and Determining Outcomes in Exposed Offspring In: Preedy VR, editor. Handbook of Cannabis and Related Pathologies: biology, Pharmacology, Diagnosis and Treatment. Vol. 1 London: Academic Press; 2017. p. 160–170. [Google Scholar]
  • [102].National Birth Defects Prevention Network National Birth Defects Prevention Network Houston, Texas, USA: National Birth Defects Prevention Network; 2018. [cited 2018 July15]. Available from: https://www.nbdpn.org/ar.php
  • [103].Nevison C, Blaxill M, Zahorodny W. California Autism Prevalence Trends from 1931 to 2014 and Comparison to National ASD Data from IDEA and ADDM. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018. December;48(12):4103–4117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [104].Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada Congenital Anomalies in Canada, 2013. A Perinatal Health Surveillance Report In: Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2013. p. 1–119. [Google Scholar]
  • [105].Statistics Canada National Cannabis Survey, Second Quarter, 2018 Ottawa Canada: Statistics Canada; 2018. [cited 2019 March17]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/StatisticsCanada/posts/1636405843137586:0
  • [106].Colorado: Department of Public Health and the Environment Colorado Responds to Children with Special Needs - Birth Defect Data, Colorado In: Environment CDoPHat. Denver Colorado, USA: Colorado: Department of Public Health and the Environment; 2018. http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/cohid/ [Google Scholar]
  • [107].Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, United States Government National Survey of Drug Use and Health 2018, NSDUH Bethesda, Maryland: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, United States Government,; 2018. [cited 2 June, 2018]. Available from: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/all-reports
  • [108].Reece AS, Hulse GK. Effect of Cannabis Legalization on US Autism Incidence and Medium Term Projections. Clin Pediatr Open Access. 2019;4(2). In Press. [Google Scholar]
  • [109].Reece AS, Hulse GK. Epidemiological Associations of Various Substances and Multiple Cannabinoids with Autism in USA. Submitted to Pediatrics. 2019.
  • [110].Willsher K. Baby arm defects prompt nationwide investigation in France. Guardian. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/baby-arm-defects-prompt-nationwide-investigation-france
  • [111].Agence France-Presse in Paris France to investigate cause of upper limb defects in babies. The Guardian. 2018. [cited 2018 November3][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/21/france-to-investigate-cause-of-upper-limb-defects-in-babies
  • [112].Huang H, Liu S, Kornberg TB. Glutamate signaling at cytoneme synapses. Science. 2019. March 1;363(6430):948–955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [113].Baylin SB, Herman JG. DNA hypermethylation in tumorigenesis: epigenetics joins genetics. Trends Genet. 2000. April;16(4):168–174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [114].Chiba T, Marusawa H, Ushijima T. Inflammation-associated cancer development in digestive organs: mechanisms and roles for genetic and epigenetic modulation. Gastroenterology. 2012. September;143(3):550–563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [115].Issa JP, Ahuja N, Toyota M, et al. Accelerated age-related CpG island methylation in ulcerative colitis. Cancer Res. 2001. May 1;61(9):3573–3577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [116].Vaz M, Hwang SY, Kagiampakis I, et al. Chronic Cigarette Smoke-Induced Epigenomic Changes Precede Sensitization of Bronchial Epithelial Cells to Single-Step Transformation by KRAS Mutations. Cancer Cell. 2017. September 11;32(3):360–376 e6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [117].O’Hagan HM, Wang W, Sen S, et al. Oxidative damage targets complexes containing DNA methyltransferases, SIRT1, and polycomb members to promoter CpG Islands. Cancer Cell. 2011. November 15;20(5):606–619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [118].Issa JP. CpG island methylator phenotype in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004. December;4(12):988–993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [119].Niwa T, Ushijima T. Induction of epigenetic alterations by chronic inflammation and its significance on carcinogenesis. Adv Genet. 2010;71:41–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [120].Maegawa S, Gough SM, Watanabe-Okochi N, et al. Age-related epigenetic drift in the pathogenesis of MDS and AML. Genome Res. 2014. April;24(4):580–591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [121].Reece AS, Norman A, Hulse GK. Cannabis Exposure as an Interactive Cardiovascular Risk Factor and Accelerant of Organismal Ageing – A Longitudinal Study. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 7;6(11):e011891. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-01189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [122].De Cecco M, Ito T, Petrashen AP, et al. L1 drives IFN in senescent cells and promotes age-associated inflammation. Nature. 2019. February;566(7742):73–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [123].Andriani GA, Almeida VP, Faggioli F, et al. Whole Chromosome Instability induces senescence and promotes SASP. Sci Rep. 2016. October;12(6):35218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [124].Cannizzo ES, Clement CC, Sahu R, et al. Oxidative stress, inflamm-aging and immunosenescence. J Proteomics. 2011. October 19;74(11):2313–2323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [125].Salminen A, Huuskonen J, Ojala J, et al. Activation of innate immunity system during aging: NF-kB signaling is the molecular culprit of inflamm-aging. Ageing Res Rev. 2008. April;7(2):83–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [126].Reece AS, Norman A, Hulse GK. Cannabis Exposure as an Interactive Cardiovascular Risk Factor and Accelerant of Organismal Ageing – A Longitudinal Study. BMJ - Open. 2016;6(11):e011891–e011900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [127].Zimmerman AM, Zimmerman S, Raj AY, et al. Effects of Cannabinoids on spermatogenesis in mice In: Nahas GG, Sutin KM, Harvey DJeditors. Marihuana and medicine. Totowa, N.J, USA: Humana Press; 1999. p. 347–358. [Google Scholar]
  • [128].Zimmerman AM, Raj AY. Influence of cannabinoids on somatic cells in vivo. Pharmacology. 1980;21(4):277–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [129].Zimmerman S, Zimmerman AM. Genetic effects of marijuana. Int J Addict. 1990;25(1A):19–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [130].Zimmerman AM, Bruce WR, Zimmerman S. Effects of cannabinoids on sperm morphology. Pharmacology. 1979;18(3):143–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [131].Hembree WC 3rd, Nahas GG, Zeidenberg P, et al. Changes in human spermatozoa associated with high dose marihuana smoking. Adv Biosci. 1978. July 22-23;22-23:429–439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [132].Huang HFSNGG, Hembree WC. Effects of marijuana inhalation on spermatogenesis of the rat In: Nahas GGSKM, Harvey DJ, Agurell S, editors. Marijuana and medicine. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press; 1999. p. 359–366. [Google Scholar]
  • [133].Morishima A. Effects of cannabis and natural cannabinoids on chromosomes and ova. NIDA Res Monogr. 1984;44:25–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [134].Mihalas BP, Redgrove KA, McLaughlin EA, et al. Molecular Mechanisms Responsible for Increased Vulnerability of the Ageing Oocyte to Oxidative Damage. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:4015874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [135].Di Nisio V, Rossi G, Palmerini MG, et al. Increased rounds of gonadotropin stimulation have side effects on mouse fallopian tubes and oocytes. Reproduction. 2018. March;155(3):245–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [136].Hughes SE, Miller DE, Miller AL, et al. Female Meiosis: synapsis, Recombination, and Segregation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2018. March;208(3):875–908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [137].Stefanis CN, Issidorides MR. Cellular Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use in Man In: Nahas GG, editor. Marihuana: chemistry, Biochemistry and Cellular Effects. Vol. 1 New York: Springer; 1976. p. 533–550. [Google Scholar]
  • [138].Reece AS, Hulse GK. Chromothripsis and epigenomics complete causality criteria for cannabis- and addiction-connected carcinogenicity, congenital toxicity and heritable genotoxicity. Mutat Res. 2016. July;789:15–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [139].Piatti E, Rizzi R, Re F, et al. Genotoxicity of heroin and cannabinoids in humans. Pharmacol Res. 1989;Nov-Dec;21(Suppl 1):59–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [140].Van Went GF. Mutagenicity testing of 3 hallucinogens: LSD, psilocybin and delta 9-THC, using the micronucleus test. Experientia. 1978. March 15;34(3):324–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [141].Pellestor F. Chromoanagenesis: cataclysms behind complex chromosomal rearrangements. Mol Cytogenet. 2019;12:6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [142].Kloosterman WP, Guryev V, van Roosmalen M, et al. Chromothripsis as a mechanism driving complex de novo structural rearrangements in the germline. Hum Mol Genet. 2011. May 15;20(10):1916–1924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [143].Gluck S, Guey B, Gulen MF, et al. Innate immune sensing of cytosolic chromatin fragments through cGAS promotes senescence. Nat Cell Biol. 2017. September;19(9):1061–1070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [144].Mackenzie KJ, Carroll P, Martin CA, et al. cGAS surveillance of micronuclei links genome instability to innate immunity. Nature. 2017. August 24;548(7668):461–465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [145].Yang H, Wang H, Ren J, et al. cGAS is essential for cellular senescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017. June 6;114(23):E4612–E4620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [146].Ablasser A, Chen ZJ. cGAS in action: expanding roles in immunity and inflammation. Science. 2019;363(6431):eaat8657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [147].Bakhoum SF, Ngo B, Laughney AM, et al. Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature. 2018. January 25;553(7689):467–472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [148].Van Gelder MMHJ, Donders ART, Devine O, et al. Using bayesian models to assess the effects of under-reporting of cannabis use on the association with birth defects, national birth defects prevention study, 1997-2005 [Article]. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28(5):424–433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [149].Van Gelder MMHJ, Reefhuis J, Caton AR, et al. Maternal periconceptional illicit drug use and the risk of congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 2009. January;20(1):60–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [150].Liu W, Komiya Y, Mezzacappa C, et al. MIM regulates vertebrate neural tube closure. Development. 2011. May;138(10):2035–2047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [151].Harper KL, Sosa MS, Entenberg D, et al. Mechanism of early dissemination and metastasis in Her2(+) mammary cancer. Nature. 2016. December 22;540(7634):588–592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [152].Janda CY, Dang LT, You C, et al. Surrogate Wnt agonists that phenocopy canonical Wnt and beta-catenin signalling. Nature. 2017. May 11;545(7653):234–237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [153].Tammela T, Sanchez-Rivera FJ, Cetinbas NM, et al. A Wnt-producing niche drives proliferative potential and progression in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2017. May 18;545(7654):355–359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [154].Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, Morrissy AS, et al. The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes. Nature. 2017. July 19;547(7663):311–317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [155].Szenker-Ravi E, Altunoglu U, Leushacke M, et al. RSPO2 inhibition of RNF43 and ZNRF3 governs limb development independently of LGR4/5/6. Nature. 2018. May;557(7706):564–569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [156].Liyanage VRB, Olson CO, Zachariah RM, et al. DNA Methylation Contributes to the Differential Expression Levels of Mecp2 in Male Mice Neurons and Astrocytes. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Apr 14;20(8). pii: E1845. doi: 10.3390/ijms20081845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [157].Kuehner JN, Bruggeman EC, Wen Z, et al. Epigenetic Regulations in Neuropsychiatric Disorders. Front Genet. 2019;10:268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [158].Garg P, Sharp AJ. Screening for rare epigenetic variations in autism and schizophrenia. Hum Mutat. 2019 Mar 21. doi: 10.1002/humu.23740. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [159].Bend EG, Aref-Eshghi E, Everman DB, et al. Gene domain-specific DNA methylation episignatures highlight distinct molecular entities of ADNP syndrome. Clin Epigenetics. 2019. April 27;11(1):64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [160].Alex AM, Saradalekshmi KR, Shilen N, et al. IUBMB Life. In: Genetic association of DNMT variants can play a critical role in defining the methylation patterns in autism. IUBMB Life. 2019 Jul;71(7):901–907. doi: 10.1002/iub.2021. Epub 2019 Feb 20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [161].Krol KM, Puglia MH, Morris JP, et al. Epigenetic modification of the oxytocin receptor gene is associated with emotion processing in the infant brain. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2019;37:100648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [162].Russo C, Ferk F, Misik M, et al. Low doses of widely consumed cannabinoids (cannabidiol and cannabidivarin) cause DNA damage and chromosomal aberrations in human-derived cells Arch Toxicol. 2019 Jan;93(1):179–188. Epub 2018 Oct 19.doi: 10.1007/s00204-018-2322-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [163].Zimmerman AM, Zimmerman S, Raj AY. Effects of Cannabinoids on Spermatogensis in Mice In: Nahas GG, Sutin KM, Harvey DJ, et al, editors. Marijuana and Medicine. Vol. 1 Totowa, New York: Humana Press; 1999. p. 347–358. [Google Scholar]
  • [164].Chiu P, Karler R, Craven C, et al. The influence of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabinol and cannabidiol on tissue oxygen consumption. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol. 1975. October;12(2):267–286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [165].Fisar Z, Singh N, Hroudova J. Cannabinoid-induced changes in respiration of brain mitochondria. Toxicol Lett. 2014. November 18;231(1):62–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [166].Hayakawa K, Mishima K, Hazekawa M, et al. Cannabidiol potentiates pharmacological effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol via CB(1) receptor-dependent mechanism. Brain Res. 2008. January 10;1188:157–164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [167].Mato S, Victoria Sanchez-Gomez M, Matute C. Cannabidiol induces intracellular calcium elevation and cytotoxicity in oligodendrocytes. Glia. 2010. November 1;58(14):1739–1747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [168].Silvestri C, Di Marzo V. The endocannabinoid system in energy homeostasis and the etiopathology of metabolic disorders. Cell Metab. 2013. April 2;17(4):475–490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [169].Rimmerman N, Ben-Hail D, Porat Z, et al. Direct modulation of the outer mitochondrial membrane channel, voltage-dependent anion channel 1 (VDAC1) by cannabidiol: a novel mechanism for cannabinoid-induced cell death. Cell Death Dis. 2013. December 5;4:e949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [170].Ryan D, Drysdale AJ, Lafourcade C, et al. Cannabidiol targets mitochondria to regulate intracellular Ca2+ levels. J Neurosci. 2009. February 18;29(7):2053–2063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [171].Singh N, Hroudova J, Fisar Z. Cannabinoid-Induced Changes in the Activity of Electron Transport Chain Complexes of Brain Mitochondria. J Mol Neurosci. 2015. August;56(4):926–931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [172].Alhamoruni A, Lee AC, Wright KL, et al. Pharmacological effects of cannabinoids on the Caco-2 cell culture model of intestinal permeability. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010. October;335(1):92–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [173].Da Silva JA, Biagioni AF, Almada RC, et al. Dissociation between the panicolytic effect of cannabidiol microinjected into the substantia nigra, pars reticulata, and fear-induced antinociception elicited by bicuculline administration in deep layers of the superior colliculus: the role of CB1-cannabinoid receptor in the ventral mesencephalon. Eur J Pharmacol. 2015. July 5;758:153–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [174].Hwang YS, Kim YJ, Kim MO, et al. Cannabidiol upregulates melanogenesis through CB1 dependent pathway by activating p38 MAPK and p42/44 MAPK. Chem Biol Interact. 2017. August 1;273:107–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [175].Laprairie RB, Bagher AM, Kelly ME, et al. Cannabidiol is a negative allosteric modulator of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. Br J Pharmacol. 2015. October;172(20):4790–4805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [176].Sartim AG, Guimaraes FS, Joca SR. Antidepressant-like effect of cannabidiol injection into the ventral medial prefrontal cortex-Possible involvement of 5-HT1A and CB1 receptors. Behav Brain Res. 2016. April 15;303:218–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [177].Stanley CP, Hind WH, Tufarelli C, et al. Cannabidiol causes endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation of human mesenteric arteries via CB1 activation. Cardiovasc Res. 2015. September 1;107(4):568–578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [178].Stern CAJ, Da Silva TR, Raymundi AM, et al. Cannabidiol disrupts the consolidation of specific and generalized fear memories via dorsal hippocampus CB1 and CB2 receptors. Neuropharmacology. 2017;125:220–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [179].Pucci M, Rapino C, Di Francesco A, et al. Epigenetic control of skin differentiation genes by phytocannabinoids. Br J Pharmacol. 2013. October;170(3):581–591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [180].De Filippis D, Esposito G, Cirillo C, et al. Cannabidiol reduces intestinal inflammation through the control of neuroimmune axis. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [181].Esposito G, Scuderi C, Valenza M, et al. Cannabidiol reduces Abeta-induced neuroinflammation and promotes hippocampal neurogenesis through PPARgamma involvement. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [182].Hegde VL, Singh UP, Nagarkatti PS, et al. Critical Role of Mast Cells and Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor gamma in the Induction of Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells by Marijuana Cannabidiol In Vivo. J Immunol. 2015. June 1;194(11):5211–5222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [183].Hind WH, England TJ, O’Sullivan SE. Cannabidiol protects an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier from oxygen-glucose deprivation via PPARgamma and 5-HT1A receptors. Br J Pharmacol. 2016. March;173(5):815–825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [184].O’Sullivan SE, Kendall DA. Cannabinoid activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: potential for modulation of inflammatory disease. Immunobiology. 2010. August;215(8):611–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [185].O’Sullivan SE, Sun Y, Bennett AJ, et al. Time-dependent vascular actions of cannabidiol in the rat aorta. Eur J Pharmacol. 2009. June 10;612(1–3):61–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [186].Ramer R, Heinemann K, Merkord J, et al. COX-2 and PPAR-gamma confer cannabidiol-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013. January;12(1):69–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [187].Scuderi C, Steardo L, Esposito G. Cannabidiol promotes amyloid precursor protein ubiquitination and reduction of beta amyloid expression in SHSY5YAPP+ cells through PPARgamma involvement. Phytother Res. 2014. July;28(7):1007–1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [188].Tyagi S, Gupta P, Saini AS, et al. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor: A family of nuclear receptors role in various diseases. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2011. October;2(4):236–240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [189].Cutando L, Maldonado R, Ozaita A. Microglial Activation and Cannabis Exposure. In: Preedy V. editor. Handbook of Cannabis and Related Pathologies: Biology, Pharmacology, Diagnosis and Treatment. New York: Academic Press; 2017:401–12. [Google Scholar]
  • [190].Leos-Toro C, Reid JL, Madill CL, et al. Cannabis in Canada - Tobacco Use in Canada: patterns and Trends, 2017 Edition, Special Supplement In: PROPEL, Centre for Population Health Impact, Waterloo University, editors. Cannabis in Canada: patterns and Trends, 2017. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo; 2017. p. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • [191].Public Health Agency of Canada. Congenital Anomalies in Canada , 2013. A Perinatal Health Surveillance Report In: public Health Agency of Canada HC, editor. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2013 p. 1–115. [Google Scholar]
  • [192].Arbour L, Gilpin C, Millor-Roy V, et al. Heart defects and other malformations in the Inuit in Canada: a baseline study. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2004. September;63(3):251–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [193].Pacher P, Steffens S, Hasko G, et al. Cardiovascular effects of marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018. March;15(3):151–166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [194].Frampton G, Coufal M, Li H, et al. Opposing actions of endocannabinoids on cholangiocarcinoma growth is via the differential activation of Notch signaling. Exp Cell Res. 2010. May 15;316(9):1465–1478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [195].Newton CA, Chou PJ, Perkins I, et al. CB(1) and CB(2) cannabinoid receptors mediate different aspects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-induced T helper cell shift following immune activation by Legionella pneumophila infection. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2009. March;4(1):92–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [196].Tanveer R, Gowran A, Noonan J, et al. The endocannabinoid, anandamide, augments Notch-1 signaling in cultured cortical neurons exposed to amyloid-beta and in the cortex of aged rats. J Biol Chem. 2012. October 5;287(41):34709–34721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [197].BM C. Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. Vol. 1 Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • [198].Basu M, Zhu JY, LaHaye S, et al. Epigenetic mechanisms underlying maternal diabetes-associated risk of congenital heart disease. In: J. Clin. Iinvest. Insight. 2017 Oct 19;2(20). pii: 95085. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.95085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [199].Chatterjee R, Law S. Epigenetic and microenvironmental alterations in bone marrow associated with ROS in experimental aplastic anemia. Eur J Cell Biol. 2018. January;97(1):32–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [200].Kwon H, Song K, Han C, et al. Epigenetic Silencing of miRNA-34a in Human Cholangiocarcinoma via EZH2 and DNA Methylation: impact on Regulation of Notch Pathway. Am J Pathol. 2017. October;187(10):2288–2299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [201].Jin L, Vu T, Yuan G, et al. STRAP Promotes Stemness of Human Colorectal Cancer via Epigenetic Regulation of the NOTCH Pathway. Cancer Res. 2017. October 15;77(20):5464–5478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [202].Katoh M. Canonical and non-canonical WNT signaling in cancer stem cells and their niches: cellular heterogeneity, omics reprogramming, targeted therapy and tumor plasticity (Review). Int J Oncol. 2017. November;51(5):1357–1369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [203].Kuang SQ, Fang Z, Zweidler-McKay PA, et al. Epigenetic inactivation of Notch-Hes pathway in human B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [204].Lian H, Jia X, Shi N, et al. Notch signaling promotes serrated neoplasia pathway in colorectal cancer through epigenetic modification of EPHB2 and EPHB4. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:6129–6141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [205].Geber WF, Schramm LC. Teratogenicity of marihuana extract as influenced by plant origin and seasonal variation. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1969. January;177(1):224–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [206].Graham JDP. Cannabis and Health In: Graham JDP, editor. Cannabis and Health. Vol. 1 1 ed ed. London, New York, San Francisco: Academic Press; 1976. p. 271–320. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. FierceBiotech Jay Bradner - Novartis: FiercePharma; 2018. [cited 2019 June6]. Available from: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/jay-bradner-novartis

Articles from Epigenetics are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES