Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 26;13:956030. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.956030

TABLE 1.

Activity of compounds at hCB1R.

Compound [3H]CP55,940 cAMP inhibition βarrestin2 recruitment
Ki (nM) Emin (%) EC50 (nM) Emax (%) EC50 (nM) Emax (%)
CP55,940 13 (5.6—33) 1.0 ± 4.7 1.0 (0.13—3.9) 100 ± 6.2 910 (700—1,200) 100 ± 3.3
9-THC 35 (17—71) 0.0 ± 3.5 5.2 (0.52—11) 70 ± 7.7* 600 (200—840) 47 ± 7.8*
8-THC 360 (120—1,000)*# 30 ± 5.0*# 440 (76—620)*# 56 ± 9.6*# >10,000 21 ± 1.8*#
CBN 140 (47—670)* 71 ± 3.1*# 49 (14 – 160)*# 64 ± 4.6*# >10,000 6.9 ± 0.96*#
6a,10a-THC 1,000 (470 – 2,000)*# 1.7 ± 6.5 600 (260—1,300)*# 100 ± 11# >10,000 54 ± 4.9*
11-OH-∆9-THC 0.37 (0.10—1.3)*# 70 ± 1.7*# 11 (2.0—49) 28 ± 3.9*# >10,000 47 ± 9.4*
Curcumin >10,000 100 ± 2.0*# >10,000 6.2 ± 0.76*# >10,000 8.9 ± 2.2*#
Egc G >10,000 95 ± 3.4*# >10,000 5.6 ± 0.52*# >10,000 7.2 ± 0.85*#
Olivetol 17 (3.3—90) 57 ± 5.5*# >10,000 5.6 ± 1.6*# >10,000 8.3 ± 2.1*#
PEA >10,000 46 ± 5.3*# 730 (210—1,600)*# 26 ± 1.8*# 2,100 (920—3,100) 5.6 ± 3.3*#
Piperine >10,000 37 ± 2.8*# >10,000 5.5 ± 0.63*# >10,000 7.9 ± 0.97*#
Quercetin 350 (44—860)* 78 ± 8.1*# >10,000 4.6 ± 0.80*# >10,000 7.0 ± 1.2*#
8-THC + ∆9-THC 2.6 (0.46—6.5)*# 7.0 ± 3.1 2.1 (0.58—12) 54 ± 1.6*# >10,000 8.7 ± 3.0*#
CBN + ∆9-THC 170 (17—260) 20 ± 5.4 >10,000 60 ± 7.1* >10,000 3.0 ± 0.21*#
6a,10a-THC + ∆9-THC 8.8 (0.29—14)# 1.5 ± 4.1 7.7 (0.89—19) 100 ± 4.4# >10,000 56 ± 2.7*
11-OH-∆9-THC + ∆9-THC 1.2 (0.23—7.4)# 5.1 ± 3.1 11 (2.0—29) 23 ± 4.4*# >10,000 44 ± 5.4*
Curcumin + ∆9-THC >10,000 24 ± 6.8 3.1 (0.62—16) 2.4 ± 5.0*# >10,000 1.8 ± 0.27*#
Egc G + ∆9-THC 7.9 (1.4—7.1)# 3.0 ± 3.9 4.0 (0.88—18) 13 ± 4.1*# >10,000 2.5 ± 0.28*#
Olivetol + ∆9-THC 4.6 (0.83—29) 1.1 ± 2.7 >10,000 61 ± 7.7* >10,000 1.4 ± 0.31*#
PEA + ∆9-THC >10,000 1.7 ± 2.1 57 (10—280) 103 ± 4.8# >10,000 14 ± 2.2*#
Piperine + ∆9-THC >10,000 12 ± 7.2 >10,000 48 ± 7.6*# >10,000 1.7 ± 0.28*#
Quercetin + ∆9-THC 350 (68—590) 3.2 ± 8.1 19 (5.3—95) 0.59 ± 4.3*# >10,000 1.2 ± 0.44*#

Compound activity was quantified for [3H]CP55,940 binding, inhibition of forskolin-stimulated cAMP, or βarrestin2 recruitment in CHO cells stably expressing hCB1R and treated with phytomolecules. Data were fit to a variable slope (four parameters) non-linear regression in GraphPad (v. 9.0). n ≥ 6 independent experiments were performed in triplicate. Emax and Emin refer to the top and bottom of the concentration–response curves, respectively. Data are expressed as nM with 95% CI or %CP55,940 response, mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05 compared to CP55,940; #p < 0.05 compared to ∆9-THC within assay and measurement as determined via non-overlapping 95% CI or one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test.