In Defense of the “Entourage Effect”: Terpenes Found in Cannabis sativa Activate the Cannabinoid Receptor 1 In Vitro

Abstract

Marijuana has been understudied for decades, primarily due to social stigma and legal restrictions. However, as legal restrictions begin to loosen among states, the potential medical benefits and pharmacological properties of marijuana are beginning to be explored. Terpenes, an expansive group of organic chemicals that impart odor and taste, are found in the Cannabis sativa plant and may work synergistically with cannabinoids, such as THC and CBD, in a term deemed the “entourage effect”. Anecdotally among the recreational and medical use community, terpenes have been reported to enhance the potency and physiological effects of marijuana. However, scientific evidence for the “entourage effect” is very limited. To evaluate this hypothesis, we obtained the C. sativa‐relevant terpenes: β‐pinene, α‐humulene, geraniol, and linalool. Utilizing Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) expressing the human cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1, CB1‐CHO) we screened these terpenes for CB1‐dependent phosphorylation of extracellular signal‐regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), a well‐known downstream target of CB1 activation, using Western blot. We observed that pERK levels were efficaciously stimulated by all four terpenes when compared to positive control, the selective CB1 agonist WIN 55,212‐2. These results appeared to be CB1‐dependent, as pre‐treatment of these cells with a selective CB1 antagonist, rimonabant (SRI141716), blocked ERK phosphorylation by each of the terpenes. We further verified the CB1‐dependent nature of these effects by examining ERK phosphorylation by the terpenes in wild type CHO (WT CHO) cells, which do not express the CB1 receptor. In these cells, β‐pinene and α‐humulene treatment resulted in ERK phosphorylation while linalool or geraniol treatment did not. In WT CHO cells, the ERK phosphorylation induced by β‐pinene and α‐humulene was not CB1‐dependent, as rimonabant pre‐treatment did not block it. These results thus suggest that geraniol and linalool could be CB1‐selective agonists, whereas β‐pinene and α‐humulene are non‐selective and may also activate one or more receptors besides CB1. Follow‐up studies will examine other measures of CB1 activity (binding, cAMP signaling, GTPgS coupling) to characterize the binding and functional properties of these terpenes at the CB1 receptor, as well as identifying the other targets of β‐pinene and α‐humulene. Once we’ve characterized these terpenes individually, we aim to investigate their role in the “entourage effect”, by testing their modulation of typical cannabinoid (THC, etc.) pharmacology. Translationally, these findings could have implications in marijuana cultivar breeding and could help produce strains optimized for specific terpene profiles, which could be more efficacious for chronic pain management and other therapeutic uses. Support or Funding Information This study was supported by institutional funds from the University of Arizona. JMS has received research funding from Botanical Results, LLC, a company that develops cannabidiol products (not related to cur...

Postharvest Operations of Cannabis and Their Effect on Cannabinoid Content: A Review

“…Entourage effect refers to the joint effects of taking these cannabinoids together with other minor cannabinoids and phytochemicals called terpenes (volatile aromatic compounds) being more beneficial than just taking pure THC or pure CBD [ 17 , 18 ]. Trichomes (as shown in Figure 1 ), which are the microscopic glandular membranes found on the surface of the cannabis inflorescence, contain cannabinoids and terpenes that are vital for psychoactive and medicinal effects.…”

The Pathophysiology and the Therapeutic Potential of Cannabinoids in Prostate Cancer

“…Several studies have further supported this mechanism and demonstrated that all the compounds present in the cannabis plant work together to produce the therapeutic effect [26,27]. Blasco-Benito et al [27] demonstrated that the botanical drug preparation was more potent than pure ∆ 9 -THC in both in vitro and in vivo models of breast cancer.…”