MOUNT HERBS / A BIOLOGICAL ATLAS
Evidence & reading notesThe System Within.
The endocannabinoid system includes locally produced lipid messengers, receptors and metabolic enzymes. What a signal does depends on its tissue, cell type and experimental setting.
Hemp seed foods are not cannabinoid medicines. Follow the evidence from the body to cell signals and molecular structures.
Body → cell → molecule → evidence
Follow a short passage, or choose any chapter.
A different kind of connection
TO THE SYSTEM WITHIN
READ WITHOUT THE ANIMATION
Biology, with the evidence beside it.
The endocannabinoid system includes locally produced lipid messengers, receptors and metabolic enzymes. What a signal does depends on its tissue, cell type and experimental setting. It is not a universal “balance” switch.
Hemp seed foods are not cannabinoid medicines. The studies here do not establish treatment benefits, ECS effects, CBD content or THC content for Mount Herbs products. No individual dose, treatment or health profile is calculated here.
The body uses a simplified BodyParts3D adult male reference with source anatomy retained when a tissue has no matching surface. RNA, protein staining and binding records remain separate measured evidence. Cellular scenes are teaching models; receptor structures retain their deposited ligands, and lipid conformers are explicitly identified as computed. Turning a model does not run a biological simulation.
Recorded search cutoff: 2026-10-26. Additional source appraisals state their own inspection dates. This edition contains 72 plant-compound identities, 13 target and enzyme records, 9 tissue examples and 40 curated compound–target relationships, including endogenous ligands. 72 compound searches are recorded across 936 compound–target screens. Search completion, original-study appraisal and admitted evidence are separate states. This is not an exhaustive systematic review.
72 / 72 compound searches recorded · 936 compound–target screens · cutoff 2026-10-26
Selected-source appraisals in the recorded search ledger cover 57 dossiers. 101 additional appraisals appear beside the relevant compounds. These are separate from the 40 curated interaction records.
What is finished, and what remains open?
54 dossiers retain unresolved candidate screens. A selected-source appraisal does not complete every candidate, and a missing graph edge does not mean a dossier is blank or a compound is inactive.
Search completion and scientific appraisal are different states. A retrieved mention can be background, a mixture, another chemical form or a study that does not answer the target question. 3 identities have no indexed candidate in the recorded search; that is not a negative biological result. External expert review and a complete systematic review are not claimed.
Measured human tissue evidence
1519 source-linked records. RNA expression, cell-type protein staining and study-specific binding measurements have separate units and interpretations.
Human tissue RNA · HPA 25.1
Consensus tissue-level normalized RNA expression. RNA is not receptor protein density; tissue-level values are not cell-specific.
Consensus tissue-level normalized RNA expression. RNA is not receptor protein density; tissue-level values are not cell-specific.
Original dataset ↗Human protein staining · HPA 25.1
Source-annotated protein immunohistochemistry categories by tissue and cell type. Reliability is retained; staining is not a receptor count.
Source-annotated protein immunohistochemistry categories by tissue and cell type. Reliability is retained; staining is not a receptor count.
Original dataset ↗CB1 brain availability · MePPEP 2014
Median regional volume of distribution from fifteen healthy subjects. Keep this tracer, model, sample and uncertainty together; values are not absolute receptor counts.
Human brain PET availability only. Table 2 does not report a dimensional unit. No biodistribution or RNA value is used as density.
Original dataset ↗The body: nine tissue contexts
Brain
Some neurons signal backwards across a synapse: activity in the receiving cell can change release from the sending terminal. Hippocampal slices and DAGL-knockout mouse circuits.
The animation is a selected synaptic mechanism, not a map of every neural connection or a prediction about cognition.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Spinal cord & peripheral nerves
Peripheral sensory-neuron CB1 contributed to cannabinoid responses in experimental pain models. Nociceptor-specific CB1 deletion in mice; central CB1 was preserved.
This is preclinical mechanism evidence. It does not establish pain relief from seed foods or show measured spinal receptor density.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Gastrointestinal tract
Human colonic samples show cell- and inflammation-dependent cannabinoid-receptor patterns. Human colon immunohistochemistry and epithelial-cell experiments.
Expression and an in-vitro wound-closure assay are not a clinical treatment result.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Immune cells & tissues
CB2 was initially characterized in an immune-tissue context. Immune signalling varies with cell type and activation. Receptor cloning and spleen macrophage localization.
The historical source does not establish that CB2 is absent from every brain cell; the marker represents a system, not an organ-wide concentration.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Skin
Cultured human sebocytes contained endocannabinoids and showed CB2-dependent lipid and cell responses. Human SZ95 sebocyte cell culture.
A sebocyte line is not the whole skin, and these results do not validate a skincare product.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Adipose tissue
Investigators detected CB1 and CB2 and measured functional responses in human fat-cell preparations. Human omental and subcutaneous adipocytes and precursors.
These samples do not supply a universal receptor map or demonstrate a weight-management benefit.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Liver & metabolism
Hepatic CB1 activation changed fatty-acid synthesis in mouse experiments. Mouse liver, isolated hepatocytes and dietary models.
Animal metabolic findings are not a human efficacy claim or a nutritional claim for Mount Herbs.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Reproductive biology
AEA-related signalling has been measured in human sperm, where experimental receptor activation changed motility and other functions. Human sperm studied outside the body.
This selected male-gamete experiment is not a complete reproductive atlas or a fertility treatment recommendation.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Bone & musculoskeletal research
CB2 deletion and agonist experiments affected bone-remodelling measures in mice. Mouse bone, osteoblast and osteoclast experiments.
The cited bone evidence does not establish an osteoporosis treatment or cover all muscle and joint physiology.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Two messenger pathways
2-AG: a signal sent backwards
A simplified CB1-containing synapse. GABA and glutamate contexts alter the network consequence; less release is not always less overall brain activity.
- A receiving cell becomes active
Postsynaptic activity can recruit calcium- and receptor-linked pathways. This scene follows a documented 2-AG route, not every synapse.
- Membrane lipids become a signal
DAGLα acts on an arachidonoyl-containing diacylglycerol precursor to form 2-AG. The signal is not drawn from a classical neurotransmitter vesicle.
- The message travels back
2-AG reaches the sending side of this synapse. The dotted travel path is explanatory, not a measured molecular trajectory.
- A presynaptic receptor responds
2-AG activates CB1 in the depicted terminal. Receptor presence and local metabolism constrain the response.
- Gi/o changes the response
CB1 can engage Gi/o-linked pathways, inhibit adenylyl cyclase and modulate ion channels in suitable cells.
- Release probability can fall
Presynaptic transmitter release can decrease. With GABA, this may reduce inhibition; with glutamate, it may reduce excitation. Network effects remain circuit-dependent.
- The signal is metabolized
MAGL and other hydrolases help terminate 2-AG signalling. Their positions and contributions differ between compartments.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Anandamide: a different lipid route
AEA is not substituted into the 2-AG animation as if its production and removal were identical. This membrane-and-enzyme study illustrates selected routes.
- Start with a membrane precursor
N-arachidonoyl phosphatidylethanolamine is a precursor to AEA. Production is regulated rather than a permanent stream.
- More than one synthesis route
NAPE-PLD can produce AEA; alternative routes were identified in biochemical and knockout experiments. The scene does not make NAPE-PLD obligatory everywhere.
- A local lipid signal
Newly formed AEA can encounter responsive targets. Transport and compartmentation are simplified here; no universal membrane transporter is asserted.
- Targets depend on context
AEA can activate cannabinoid receptors and, in selected experiments, TRPV1. These targets have different mechanisms.
- One molecule, several readouts
Binding, ion-channel current and cellular signalling are different measurements. None alone demonstrates a clinical effect.
- FAAH ends a signal
FAAH hydrolyses AEA into arachidonic acid and ethanolamine; this is distinct from the predominant 2-AG pathway.
- Return to a regulated system
Synthesis, local action and metabolism form a regulated cycle. This is a teaching model, not a measure of an individual’s endocannabinoid tone.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
The receptors and associated targets
CB1 · CNR1
A receptor that can couple to Gi/o signalling. In selected presynaptic terminals, its activation changes transmitter release.
Receptor location and signalling depend on the cell and state. CB1 is not confined to the brain.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
CB2 · CNR2
A cannabinoid receptor studied in immune cells and many other cellular contexts.
It is not an immune-only switch or a guaranteed anti-inflammatory treatment target.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
DAGLα · DAGLA
Converts arachidonoyl-containing diacylglycerol into 2-AG.
DAGLα knockout disrupted retrograde suppression in studied mouse brain circuits; that does not map every human circuit.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
DAGLβ · DAGLB
A second diacylglycerol lipase involved in lipid signalling.
DAGLβ did not substitute for DAGLα in the central-synapse knockout experiment shown here.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
NAPE-PLD · NAPEPLD
One route releases N-acylethanolamines from N-acyl phosphatidylethanolamines.
AEA also has NAPE-PLD-independent routes. This is not a single universal AEA production line.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
FAAH · FAAH
Hydrolyses AEA and other fatty-acid amides.
Substrate and location matter. Enzyme inhibition is not a treatment recommendation.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
MAGL · MGLL
An important 2-AG hydrolase in studied brain preparations.
Its contribution varies by tissue and compartment; mouse-brain percentages are not a human whole-body map.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
ABHD6 · ABHD6
Can hydrolyse 2-AG in studied preparations and occupies different subcellular compartments from MAGL.
Contribution is context-specific; no universal percentage is assigned.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
ABHD12 · ABHD12
A lipid hydrolase identified in a functional profile of brain 2-AG metabolism.
The cited experiment does not make 2-AG its only physiological substrate.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
TRPV1 · TRPV1
A cation channel responsive to heat, capsaicin and some lipid mediators, including AEA and NADA in selected experiments.
TRPV1 is not another CB receptor. Functional effects and concentration ranges differ from CB1.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
GPR55 · GPR55
An associated lipid-responsive receptor investigated with cannabinoid ligands.
Its ligand pharmacology and classification are debated. It is not labelled CB3 here.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
PPARα · PPARA
A transcription-regulating receptor studied with the related lipids OEA and PEA.
A nuclear-receptor pathway is different from rapid synaptic CB1 signalling.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
PPARγ · PPARG
An associated nuclear-receptor target in the broader endocannabinoidome literature.
This overview does not assign every phytocannabinoid a validated PPARγ interaction.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
What the experimental structures show
5U09 · CB1 · Taranabant
X-ray diffraction · 2.6 Å · Inactive, taranabant-bound.
Truncated human CB1 with a Pyrococcus abyssi glycogen-synthase fusion and T210A substitution. The fusion and expression tags are excluded from this display.
Experimental structural model of an engineered laboratory preparation. The bound ligand is the named synthetic research compound, not THC, CBD, anandamide or hemp seed oil. Rotation is a viewing operation, not a binding or signalling simulation.
RCSB PDB source ↗6KPC · CB2 · AM12033
X-ray diffraction · 3.2 Å · Agonist-bound crystal construct; no Gi in this entry.
Truncated human CB2 with a bacteriophage T4-lysozyme/endolysin fusion. Six substitutions belong to CB2; C54T and C97A belong to the fusion. Fusion and tags are excluded from this display. Agonist occupancy alone is not a demonstration of a native signalling state.
Experimental structural model of an engineered laboratory preparation. The bound ligand is the named synthetic research compound, not THC, CBD, anandamide or hemp seed oil. Rotation is a viewing operation, not a binding or signalling simulation.
RCSB PDB source ↗6PT0 · CB2 · WIN 55,212-2
Cryo-electron microscopy · 3.2 Å · Active, agonist-bound Gi complex.
Human CB2 receptor chain R has no receptor mutation listed by RCSB. The full experimental complex contains engineered Gi, an antibody fragment and expression tags. Only observed CB2 receptor coordinates and its bound agonist are displayed; Gi, antibody, lipids and tags are omitted.
Experimental structural model of an engineered laboratory preparation. The bound ligand is the named synthetic research compound, not THC, CBD, anandamide or hemp seed oil. Rotation is a viewing operation, not a binding or signalling simulation.
RCSB PDB source ↗72 compounds: coverage and individual evidence
Individual source appraisals, all 13 target-group reviews and exact recorded searches are retained in the compound review archive. Read or print that companion document for the full reviews; this page retains the identity summaries, admitted relationships and experimental-condition records.
Printed companion: https://mountherbs.in/ecs-compound-reviews.html
Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol
The best-known intoxicating cannabinoid, with a ring-closed structure.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · agonist activity
THC competed for binding and inhibited cAMP accumulation in the receptor-expression experiments.
Radioligand competition and cAMP-inhibition comparison · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO and mouse AtT-20 cells. Affinity and functional potency are distinct. No cross-assay potency ranking or occupancy calculation is supplied.
CB2 · agonist activity
THC competed for binding and inhibited cAMP accumulation in the receptor-expression experiments.
Radioligand competition and cAMP-inhibition comparison · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO and mouse AtT-20 cells. Affinity and functional potency are distinct. No cross-assay potency ranking or occupancy calculation is supplied.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A
An acidic precursor that can lose carbon dioxide to form THC.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Low-efficacy cAMP inhibition; an EC50 was not resolved within the tested range.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
cAMP inhibition was observed, with a maximum close to the reference agonist in this assay.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Cannabidiol
A cannabinoid whose open-ring arrangement differs from THC.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · negative allosteric modulation
CBD reduced selected THC- and 2-AG-driven responses; experiments supported noncompetitive negative allosteric modulation.
Receptor trafficking, arrestin and downstream signalling assays · Human HEK293A and mouse striatal cell model. Not evidence that CBD cancels THC effects in every person or formulation.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2024 · CBD Versus CBDP: Comparing In Vitro Receptor-Binding Activities ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2017 · Binding and Signaling Studies Disclose a Potential Allosteric Site for Cannabidiol in Cannabinoid CB2 Receptors ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Cannabidiol and Beta-Caryophyllene Alone or Combined in an In Vitro Inflammation Model. · CB2 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Cannabidiol and Beta-Caryophyllene Alone or Combined in an In Vitro Inflammation Model. · PPARγ ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cannabidiolic acid
The acidic counterpart of CBD found in the plant’s cannabinoid chemistry.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
A small cAMP response was reported, but little displacement and arrestin activity; the authors described weak or inactive CB1 pharmacology overall.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Low-efficacy partial agonism in the cAMP assay.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Cannabigerol
A cannabinoid with a flexible geranyl side chain.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Weak partial agonism with low binding affinity; functional potency and affinity are not the same measurement.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Weak partial agonism in the cAMP assay.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Cannabigerolic acid
A branch-point precursor in the production of several cannabinoid acids.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2022 · Effects of Rare Phytocannabinoids on the Endocannabinoid System of Human Keratinocytes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · Rare Phytocannabinoids Exert Anti-Inflammatory Effects on Human Keratinocytes via the Endocannabinoid System and MAPK Signaling Pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · Cannabigerolic acid, a major biosynthetic precursor molecule in cannabis, exhibits divergent effects on seizures in mouse models of epilepsy. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · Olivetolic acid, a cannabinoid precursor in Cannabis sativa, but not CBGA methyl ester exhibits a modest anticonvulsant effect in a mouse model of Dravet syndrome. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2011 · Effects of cannabinoids and cannabinoid-enriched Cannabis extracts on TRP channels and endocannabinoid metabolic enzymes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cannabichromene
A chromene-ring cannabinoid related to the acid CBCA.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Partial agonism in the cAMP assay, with a wide fitted confidence interval.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Partial agonism in the cAMP assay; arrestin results differed.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2025 · Cannabichromene: integrative modulation of apoptosis, ferroptosis, and endocannabinoid signaling in pancreatic cancer therapy. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · Cannabis-Derived Compounds Cannabichromene and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Interact and Exhibit Cytotoxic Activity against Urothelial Cell Carcinoma Correlated with Inhibition of Cell Migration and Cytoskeleton Organization. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- One reported experimental condition ↗
- 2024 · Activation of CB2 Receptors by (-)-Cannabichromene but Not (+)-Cannabichromene. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cannabichromenic acid
The carboxylated member of the cannabichromene branch.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabinol
An aromatic cannabinoid often associated with changes during cannabis storage.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabinolic acid
The carboxylated structural relative of cannabinol.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabivarin
A THC relative with a three-carbon rather than five-carbon side chain.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Partial agonist response in this cAMP assay; this differs from antagonist behaviour reported under other assay conditions.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Partial agonist response in the receptor-dependent cAMP assay.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabivarinic acid
An acidic, shorter-side-chain relative of THCA.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabidivarin
A propyl-side-chain relative of cannabidiol.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Very low apparent potency; no fitted EC50 within the reported range.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
CB2 · assay-specific cAMP modulation
Partial agonism in the cAMP assay; findings differed between functional readouts.
HitHunter forskolin-stimulated cAMP assay, 90-minute exposure · Human receptors expressed in hamster CHO cells. Full-text Results and Tables 1–3 checked. At least six independent experiments; receptor abundance and readout affect apparent activity. Clinical evidence stays in the existing atlas.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2011 · Modulation of l-α-Lysophosphatidylinositol/GPR55 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Signaling by Cannabinoids ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · An Evaluation of Understudied Phytocannabinoids and Their Effects in Two Neuronal Models. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2011 · Effects of cannabinoids and cannabinoid-enriched Cannabis extracts on TRP channels and endocannabinoid metabolic enzymes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cannabidivarinic acid
The acidic counterpart of the shorter-side-chain molecule CBDV.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Cannabigerovarin
The propyl homologue of cannabigerol.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2011 · Modulation of l-α-Lysophosphatidylinositol/GPR55 Mitogen-activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Signaling by Cannabinoids ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2011 · Effects of cannabinoids and cannabinoid-enriched Cannabis extracts on TRP channels and endocannabinoid metabolic enzymes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cannabigerovarinic acid
An acidic CBG relative with a shorter aromatic side chain.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabichromevarin
A shorter-side-chain structural relative of CBC.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabichromevarinic acid
The acidic form of the CBC varin branch.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabicyclol
A cannabinoid distinguished by a compact, rearranged ring system.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabicyclolic acid
A rearranged cannabinoid acid reported from stored cannabis.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabitriol
An oxygenated cannabinoid name that requires careful stereochemical qualification.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabicitran
A multiring cannabinoid that must not be confused with cannabitriol.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabielsoin
An oxygenated molecule studied as a CBD oxidation product.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabigerol monomethyl ether
A methyl-ether relative of cannabigerol.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabiphorol
A THC homologue with a seven-carbon side chain.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabiphorolic acid
The acidic member of the seven-carbon THC homologue branch.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabidiphorol
A seven-carbon-side-chain relative of CBD identified in cannabis.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Cannabidiphorolic acid
An acidic relative of the seven-carbon cannabinoid CBDP.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabutol
A four-carbon-side-chain homologue of THC.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabidibutol
A four-carbon-side-chain relative of CBD.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabihexol
A six-carbon-side-chain THC homologue.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannabidihexol
A six-carbon-side-chain relative of CBD.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗α-Pinene
Two joined rings give this ten-carbon molecule a compact shape. The α name places its double bond inside the larger ring.
Negative findings in the named assays. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB2 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
β-Pinene
β-Pinene has the same formula as α-pinene, with the double bond moved outside the ring.
Conflicting findings in the named assays. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB2 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB1 · reported receptor activation
The authors reported a rimonabant-sensitive ERK response in CB1-CHO cells. Some terpenes also activated ERK in cells without engineered CB1, so this readout is not proof of exclusive or direct receptor binding.
ERK phosphorylation with rimonabant and wild-type CHO controls, Figures 6–7 · CHO cells expressing CB1; separate mouse experiments in the paper. Selected cell findings only. Mouse tetrad and WIN55,212-2 combination results are separate. Materials identifiers were inspected; lot-specific enantiomeric purity was not established.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2016 · Modulation of Human Neutrophil Responses by the Essential Oils from Ferula akitschkensis and Their Constituents. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
β-Myrcene
Myrcene has an open chain and three double bonds, rather than the ringed framework of pinene.
Negative findings in the named assays. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB2 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
(S)-(−)-Limonene
This is the S form of limonene. Its mirror image has the same atoms but a different three-dimensional arrangement.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · Absence of Entourage: Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Functional Activity of Δ9-THC at Human CB1 and CB2 Receptors. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · D-limonene ameliorates metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease by inhibiting the PPARγ/SCD-1 pathway and improving lipid metabolism disorders. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · D-Limonene Promotes Anti-Obesity in 3T3-L1 Adipocytes and High-Calorie Diet-Induced Obese Rats by Activating the AMPK Signaling Pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2018 · R-Limonene Enhances Differentiation and 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Uptake in 3T3-L1 Preadipocytes by Activating the Akt Signaling Pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
(R)-(+)-Limonene
Also called D-limonene, this is the R mirror image. It should be distinguished from an unqualified limonene assay.
Mixture evidence only. A selected combination study is linked. It does not establish the isolated compound’s receptor mechanism.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · Absence of Entourage: Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Functional Activity of Δ9-THC at Human CB1 and CB2 Receptors. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · D-limonene ameliorates metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease by inhibiting the PPARγ/SCD-1 pathway and improving lipid metabolism disorders. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · D-Limonene Promotes Anti-Obesity in 3T3-L1 Adipocytes and High-Calorie Diet-Induced Obese Rats by Activating the AMPK Signaling Pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2018 · R-Limonene Enhances Differentiation and 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Uptake in 3T3-L1 Preadipocytes by Activating the Akt Signaling Pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Linalool
An alcohol group adds oxygen to an open ten-carbon framework. That makes linalool a terpenoid.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · reported receptor activation
The authors reported a rimonabant-sensitive ERK response in CB1-CHO cells. Some terpenes also activated ERK in cells without engineered CB1, so this readout is not proof of exclusive or direct receptor binding.
ERK phosphorylation with rimonabant and wild-type CHO controls, Figures 6–7 · CHO cells expressing CB1; separate mouse experiments in the paper. Selected cell findings only. Mouse tetrad and WIN55,212-2 combination results are separate. Materials identifiers were inspected; lot-specific enantiomeric purity was not established.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · Absence of Entourage: Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Functional Activity of Δ9-THC at Human CB1 and CB2 Receptors. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2014 · Linalool is a PPARα ligand that reduces plasma TG levels and rewires the hepatic transcriptome and plasma metabolome. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
(E)-β-Caryophyllene
This fifteen-carbon molecule contains a small four-membered ring. Its chemistry belongs to terpenes even though researchers have studied cannabinoid-receptor activity.
Conflicting findings in the named assays. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB2 · binding and functional agonism
The study reported CB2 binding and agonist activity for (E)-β-caryophyllene.
Competitive binding and CB2-related cellular signalling · Human CB2 receptor assays; separate mouse experiments. Later assays found no clear functional response. The 2008 docking pose was computational, not an observed receptor structure.
CB1 · no clear direct response in the tested system
No supporting direct receptor interaction or functional response was detected under the tested conditions.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB2 · no clear direct response in the tested system
A possible weak CB2 binding interaction was noted; no functional terpene effect was detected.
Radioligand binding and CAMYEL cAMP functional assays · Human receptors in cell assays. A negative result is limited to this assay. Unqualified limonene in the paper is not silently assigned to either atlas enantiomer.
CB1 · reported receptor activation
The authors reported a rimonabant-sensitive ERK response in CB1-CHO cells. Some terpenes also activated ERK in cells without engineered CB1, so this readout is not proof of exclusive or direct receptor binding.
ERK phosphorylation with rimonabant and wild-type CHO controls, Figures 6–7 · CHO cells expressing CB1; separate mouse experiments in the paper. Selected cell findings only. Mouse tetrad and WIN55,212-2 combination results are separate. Materials identifiers were inspected; lot-specific enantiomeric purity was not established.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Evaluation of Cannabimimetic Effects of Selected Minor Cannabinoids and Terpenoids in Mice ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · β-Caryophyllene Inhibits Monoacylglycerol Lipase Activity and Increases 2-Arachidonoyl Glycerol Levels In Vivo: A New Mechanism of Endocannabinoid-Mediated Analgesia? ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · Beta-Caryophyllene Modifies Intracellular Lipid Composition in a Cell Model of Hepatic Steatosis by Acting through CB2 and PPAR Receptors. · PPARα ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · Beta-Caryophyllene Modifies Intracellular Lipid Composition in a Cell Model of Hepatic Steatosis by Acting through CB2 and PPAR Receptors. · PPARγ ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Beta-caryophyllene inhibits cocaine addiction-related behavior by activation of PPARα and PPARγ: repurposing a FDA-approved food additive for cocaine use disorder. · GPR55 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Beta-caryophyllene inhibits cocaine addiction-related behavior by activation of PPARα and PPARγ: repurposing a FDA-approved food additive for cocaine use disorder. · PPARα ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Beta-caryophyllene inhibits cocaine addiction-related behavior by activation of PPARα and PPARγ: repurposing a FDA-approved food additive for cocaine use disorder. · PPARγ ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · β-Caryophyllene Inhibits Cell Proliferation through a Direct Modulation of CB2 Receptors in Glioblastoma Cells. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · β-Caryophyllene Mitigates Collagen Antibody Induced Arthritis (CAIA) in Mice Through a Cross-Talk between CB2 and PPAR-γ Receptors. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · β-Caryophyllene Reduces the Inflammatory Phenotype of Periodontal Cells by Targeting CB2 Receptors. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Beta-Caryophyllene Mediated by the Involvement of TRPV1, BDNF and trkB in the Rat Cerebral Cortex after Hypoperfusion/Reperfusion. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2018 · Acute administration of beta-caryophyllene prevents endocannabinoid system activation during transient common carotid artery occlusion and reperfusion. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2011 · β-Caryophyllene inhibits dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis in mice through CB2 receptor activation and PPARγ pathway. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2017 · β-Caryophyllene protects against alcoholic steatohepatitis by attenuating inflammation and metabolic dysregulation in mice. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Effect of β-Caryophyllene on PPAR-γ, NF-κB, and CNR2: Implications for Gut-Brain Axis Communication in a Murine Model of Diet-Induced Obesity. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Beta-Caryophyllene Augments Radiotherapy Efficacy in GBM by Modulating Cell Apoptosis and DNA Damage Repair via PPARγ and NF-κB Pathways. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Cannabidiol and Beta-Caryophyllene Alone or Combined in an In Vitro Inflammation Model. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Multi-Target Protective Effects of β-Caryophyllene (BCP) at the Intersection of Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · ViphyllinTM, a Standardized Black Pepper Seed Extract Exerts Antinociceptive Effects in Murine Pain Models via Activation of Cannabinoid Receptor CB2, Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-Alpha and TRPV1 Ion Channels. · TRPV1 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · ViphyllinTM, a Standardized Black Pepper Seed Extract Exerts Antinociceptive Effects in Murine Pain Models via Activation of Cannabinoid Receptor CB2, Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-Alpha and TRPV1 Ion Channels. · PPARα ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Metformin relieves bone cancer pain by reducing TGFβRI-TRPV1 signaling in rats. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
α-Humulene
A broad carbon ring with three double bonds distinguishes humulene from compact pinene.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · reported receptor activation
The authors reported a rimonabant-sensitive ERK response in CB1-CHO cells. Some terpenes also activated ERK in cells without engineered CB1, so this readout is not proof of exclusive or direct receptor binding.
ERK phosphorylation with rimonabant and wild-type CHO controls, Figures 6–7 · CHO cells expressing CB1; separate mouse experiments in the paper. Selected cell findings only. Mouse tetrad and WIN55,212-2 combination results are separate. Materials identifiers were inspected; lot-specific enantiomeric purity was not established.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2020 · Terpenoids Commonly Found in Cannabis sativa Do Not Modulate the Actions of Phytocannabinoids or Endocannabinoids on TRPA1 and TRPV1 Channels. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Structural basis of the inhibition of TRPV1 by analgesic sesquiterpenes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · Role of Caryophyllane Sesquiterpenes in the Entourage Effect of Felina 32 Hemp Inflorescence Phytocomplex in Triple Negative MDA-MB-468 Breast Cancer Cells. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Chemical compounds, anti-tumor and anti-neuropathic pain effect of hemp essential oil in vivo. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · A sesquiterpene-rich essential oil from Cannabis sativa L. attenuates symptoms and neuroinflammation in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model through a CB2-mediated signalling. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · Terpenes as modulators of nociceptive signaling: behavioral and molecular insights from Caenorhabditis elegans. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Terpinolene
One double bond sits in the ring and another links the ring to a side group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗α-Terpinene
Its two ring double bonds form a conjugated arrangement, separated by one single bond.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗γ-Terpinene
The ring double bonds occupy different positions from those in α-terpinene.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗p-Cymene
Its benzene ring makes p-cymene chemically aromatic. In chemistry, that word describes bonding rather than a smell.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Camphene
Bridged rings and an outward-facing double bond create a compact, rigid framework.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗(E)-β-Ocimene
A long open chain carries three double bonds. The E label specifies the geometry of the central one.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗(Z)-β-Ocimene
The central double bond has the opposite geometry from E-β-ocimene, while the formula remains unchanged.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Eucalyptol
An oxygen atom forms part of a bridged ring rather than an alcohol group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2025 · 1,8-Cineole ameliorates vascular endothelial senescence in diabetes mellitus by directly targeting and deubiquitinating PPAR-γ in vivo and in vitro. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · Molecular Docking Identifies 1,8-Cineole (Eucalyptol) as A Novel PPARγ Agonist That Alleviates Colon Inflammation. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · 1,8-Cineole Ameliorates LPS-Induced Vascular Endothelium Dysfunction in Mice via PPAR-γ Dependent Regulation of NF-κB. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · Descriptive aroma profiles of fresh sweet basil cultivars (Ocimum spp.): Relationship to volatile chemical composition. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · Eucalyptol prevents bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis and M2 macrophage polarization. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · 1,8-Cineole ameliorates diabetic retinopathy by inhibiting retinal pigment epithelium ferroptosis via PPAR-γ/TXNIP pathways. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Exploration of anti-atherosclerotic activity of 1,8-cineole through network pharmacology, molecular docking, and in vivo efficacy studies in high-fat-diet-induced atherosclerosis in hamsters. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · 1,8-Cineole reduces pulmonary vascular remodelling in pulmonary arterial hypertension by restoring intercellular communication and inhibiting angiogenesis. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Unearthing novel PPAR-γ activators: In silico design of eucalyptol analogues for ulcerative colitis. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · Phytochemistry and pharmacology of Melaleuca alternifolia: Bridging aboriginal heritage with contemporary science. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Fenchol
A bridged carbon framework carries an alcohol group. Several stereochemical forms are possible.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Borneol
Borneol carries an alcohol group on a rigid bridged skeleton. It shares a formula with fenchol but has different connectivity.
Mixture evidence only. A selected combination study is linked. It does not establish the isolated compound’s receptor mechanism.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
(E)-Nerolidol
Nerolidol extends an open terpene chain to fifteen carbons and includes an alcohol group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗α-Bisabolol
A six-membered ring connects to an oxygen-bearing side chain in this fifteen-carbon molecule.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Caryophyllene oxide
An epoxide adds oxygen across part of the caryophyllene framework. It is a separate molecule from β-caryophyllene.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2024 · Evaluation of Cannabimimetic Effects of Selected Minor Cannabinoids and Terpenoids in Mice · CB1 / CB2 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2016 · β-caryophyllene and β-caryophyllene oxide-natural compounds of anticancer and analgesic properties. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2021 · Role of Caryophyllane Sesquiterpenes in the Entourage Effect of Felina 32 Hemp Inflorescence Phytocomplex in Triple Negative MDA-MB-468 Breast Cancer Cells. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2023 · Sesquiterpene-evoked phytochemical toxicity in PC12 neuronal cells reveals a variable degree of oxidative stress and alpha-tocopherol and glutathione-dependent protection. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2024 · Evaluation of cannabimimetic effects of selected minor cannabinoids and Terpenoids in mice. · CB1 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · [Network pharmacology research on high frequency use of Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae and Aucklandiae Radix herb pair in treatment of constipation with aromatic traditional Chinese medicine based on data mining]. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2026 · A sesquiterpene-rich essential oil from Cannabis sativa L. attenuates symptoms and neuroinflammation in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis model through a CB2-mediated signalling. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Sabinene
A three-membered ring joins a larger ring in a bridged framework.
Mixture evidence only. A selected combination study is linked. It does not establish the isolated compound’s receptor mechanism.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Guaiol
Fused five- and seven-membered rings carry an alcohol-bearing side group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Fenchone
A carbon–oxygen double bond turns this bridged framework into a ketone, distinct from the alcohol fenchol.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Isopulegol
This oxygenated molecule has a six-membered ring, an alcohol and a double-bonded side group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Cannflavin A
A geranyl side chain attaches to the flavone core. This branch distinguishes cannflavin A from cannflavin B.
Review-level sources only. Cannflavin reviews describe preclinical non-CB inflammatory targets. No direct CB1/CB2 edge is admitted from those reviews; the original assays still require extraction.
Scoping review with search cutoff 26 February 2020. Not an original cannabinoid-receptor experiment. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Review abstract and chemistry/biological-activity sections inspected. The linked correction record is disclosed. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Correction is indexed. Correction text was not retrieved; no claim about the content of the correction is made. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Cannflavin B
A five-carbon prenyl group sits on a methylated flavone scaffold.
Review-level sources only. Do not transfer cannflavin A findings, docking predictions or a review’s clinical hopes into a validated CB-receptor interaction.
Scoping review with search cutoff 26 February 2020. Not an original cannabinoid-receptor experiment. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Review abstract and chemistry/biological-activity sections inspected. The linked correction record is disclosed. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Correction is indexed. Correction text was not retrieved; no claim about the content of the correction is made. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Cannflavin C
Cannflavin C shares a formula with cannflavin A, but its geranyl branch connects at a different site.
Review-level sources only. This is a distinct compound with a limited selected evidence review, not a clinically established cannabinoid medicine.
Scoping review with search cutoff 26 February 2020. Not an original cannabinoid-receptor experiment. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Review abstract and chemistry/biological-activity sections inspected. The linked correction record is disclosed. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Correction is indexed. Correction text was not retrieved; no claim about the content of the correction is made. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Apigenin
Apigenin illustrates the three-ring flavone core without an attached sugar.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Luteolin
An additional hydroxyl group distinguishes luteolin from apigenin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
Chrysoeriol
Methylation changes one of luteolin’s oxygen-bearing groups to a methoxy group.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Orientin
Orientin carries a glucose unit directly on carbon 8 of a luteolin scaffold.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2010 · Vitexin, orientin and other flavonoids from Spirodela polyrhiza inhibit adipogenesis in 3T3-L1 cells. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2018 · Suppression of Fatty Acid and Triglyceride Synthesis by the Flavonoid Orientin through Decrease of C/EBPδ Expression and Inhibition of PI3K/Akt-FOXO1 Signaling in Adipocytes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Herbal Combination of Phyllostachys pubescens and Scutellaria baicalensis Inhibits Adipogenesis and Promotes Browning via AMPK Activation in 3T3-L1 Adipocytes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · In Silico evaluation of phytoconstituents from Carica Papaya and its anti-hyperglycemic activities on high sucrose-induced oxidative stress in Drosophila melanogaster. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Phenolic-Rich Indian Almond (Terminalia catappa Linn) Leaf Extract Ameliorates Lipid Metabolism and Inflammation in High-Fat Diet (HFD)-Induced Obese Mice. · PPARα ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2025 · Phenolic-Rich Indian Almond (Terminalia catappa Linn) Leaf Extract Ameliorates Lipid Metabolism and Inflammation in High-Fat Diet (HFD)-Induced Obese Mice. · PPARγ ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2013 · Effects of fermented rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) on adipocyte differentiation. · PPARα ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2013 · Effects of fermented rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) on adipocyte differentiation. · PPARγ ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2016 · Cajanus cajan- a source of PPARγ activators leading to anti-inflammatory and cytotoxic effects. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Orientin reduces the inhibitory effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on adipogenic differentiation and insulin signaling pathway in murine 3T3-L1 adipocytes. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Vitexin
A glucose unit connects directly to carbon 8 of apigenin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Isovitexin
The glucose unit occupies carbon 6 rather than carbon 8. The formula remains identical to vitexin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Isoquercetin
An oxygen link joins glucose to carbon 3 of quercetin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Rutin
A two-sugar group is attached to the quercetin core, making rutin larger than isoquercetin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Quercetin
Quercetin has a hydroxyl group at carbon 3 of the central ring and no sugar attached.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2022 · Modulation of type 1 cannabinoid receptor activity by cannabinoid by-products from Cannabis sativa and non-cannabis phytomolecules. · CB1 · Original study · selected full-text sections inspected · reviewed 2026-10-31 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2019 · Phenolic Compounds Inhibit 3T3-L1 Adipogenesis Depending on the Stage of Differentiation and Their Binding Affinity to PPARγ. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2008 · Inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase by kaempferol and related naturally occurring flavonoids ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2022 · Modulation of type 1 cannabinoid receptor activity by cannabinoid by-products from Cannabis sativa and non-cannabis phytomolecules. · CB1 · Original study · selected full-text sections inspected · reviewed 2026-11-03 ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Kaempferol
Kaempferol has the same formula as luteolin, but a hydroxyl group occupies a different position.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2019 · Phenolic Compounds Inhibit 3T3-L1 Adipogenesis Depending on the Stage of Differentiation and Their Binding Affinity to PPARγ. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2008 · Inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase by kaempferol and related naturally occurring flavonoids ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2020 · Kaempferol Facilitated Extinction Learning in Contextual Fear Conditioned Rats via Inhibition of Fatty-Acid Amide Hydrolase. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Cynaroside
Glucose connects through the oxygen at position 7 of luteolin.
No admitted target-edge record. The source appraisal below is separate from this graph. A missing edge is not evidence that the compound is inactive.
Chemical identity and catalogue sources ↗Geraniol
An alcohol group sits at the end of an open ten-carbon chain. The E double-bond geometry distinguishes geraniol from nerol.
Selected target evidence admitted. Selected source records have been checked; this is not an exhaustive or systematic evidence review.
CB1 · reported receptor activation
The authors reported a rimonabant-sensitive ERK response in CB1-CHO cells. Some terpenes also activated ERK in cells without engineered CB1, so this readout is not proof of exclusive or direct receptor binding.
ERK phosphorylation with rimonabant and wild-type CHO controls, Figures 6–7 · CHO cells expressing CB1; separate mouse experiments in the paper. Selected cell findings only. Mouse tetrad and WIN55,212-2 combination results are separate. Materials identifiers were inspected; lot-specific enantiomeric purity was not established.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Read the recorded source review and exact search methods ↗
Source appraisal links
- 2004 · Characterization of the mouse cold-menthol receptor TRPM8 and vanilloid receptor type-1 VR1 using a fluorometric imaging plate reader (FLIPR) assay. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2008 · Citral sensing by Transient [corrected] receptor potential channels in dorsal root ganglion neurons. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2013 · Transient receptor potential channels encode volatile chemicals sensed by rat trigeminal ganglion neurons. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
- 2015 · Geraniol, alone and in combination with pioglitazone, ameliorates fructose-induced metabolic syndrome in rats via the modulation of both inflammatory and oxidative stress status. ↗
- Study context and methods ↗
Mixtures: positive, negative and unsettled findings
No receptor entourage effect in this assay
Five terpenes, alone and in mixtures, tested with THC, CBD or 2-AG. Limonene identity is unqualified in the inspected abstract.
Human-receptor cell binding and signalling assays · No terpene functional modulation was detected; β-caryophyllene had a possible weak CB2 binding interaction.
Does not test every target, mixture, exposure or human outcome.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Selected additive effects with a synthetic agonist
Individual terpenes with WIN55,212-2; this is not a THC mixture.
Cells and mice · Some behavioural effects were additive with WIN55,212-2; antagonist experiments suggested mixed mechanisms.
Mouse cannabinoid-tetrad behaviour is not clinical superiority or a universal synergy score.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Activation in a different expression system
Sixteen terpenes and mixtures. The inspected abstract does not safely identify all chemical forms; no automatic atlas-wide edges are created.
Xenopus oocytes expressing cannabinoid receptors; GIRK-current readout · The authors reported lower-efficacy activation for several terpenes.
An oocyte current is not a clinical-effect threshold. Exact per-compound concentrations and stereoforms await full-text extraction.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Additivity and synergy in a receptor assay
Individual terpenes and mixtures with THC. Unqualified limonene, terpineol and ocimene are not forced onto particular atlas isomers.
Xenopus oocytes; GIRK response and isobolography · The study reported additive interactions for some combinations and assay-specific synergy for others.
Synergy in this mathematical assay does not establish human benefit. Composition, ratio and exposure must match before comparison.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
An acute human result with a defined enantiomer
Vaporized D-limonene with THC; 20 adults, with the highest combination evaluated in 12.
Placebo-controlled crossover experiment in healthy adults who intermittently used cannabis · Some acute anxiety/paranoia ratings decreased with the highest combination; other pharmacodynamic outcomes were not broadly changed. Although the abstract summarizes no THC pharmacokinetic change, Results 3.6 reports a higher THC peak plasma concentration in the highest-combination comparison.
The highest combination was always last. The source’s abstract and detailed pharmacokinetic result differ; no anxiety-disorder treatment, oral seed-oil effect or general terpene benefit is established.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Tested experimental conditions
TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The Methods and figure captions disagree on the main THC concentration; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene alone · CB1 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + near-EC50 THC · CB1 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Δ9-THC · 3.16 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 3G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene alone · CB2 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene + near-EC50 THC · CB2 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Δ9-THC · 30 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 4G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The Methods and figure captions disagree on the main THC concentration; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene alone · CB1 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + near-EC50 THC · CB1 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Δ9-THC · 3.16 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 3G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene alone · CB2 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene + near-EC50 THC · CB2 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Δ9-THC · 30 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 4G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The Methods and figure captions disagree on the main THC concentration; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene alone · CB1 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + near-EC50 THC · CB1 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Δ9-THC · 3.16 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 3G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene alone · CB2 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + near-EC50 THC · CB2 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Δ9-THC · 30 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 4G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The Methods and figure captions disagree on the main THC concentration; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene alone · CB1 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + near-EC50 THC · CB1 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Δ9-THC · 3.16 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 3G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene alone · CB2 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- Approximately 25% displacement; insufficient to justify a full binding curve.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene + near-EC50 THC · CB2 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Δ9-THC · 30 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 4G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene with 10 µM cannabinoid; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; radioligand and maximum-displacement controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene alteration of cannabinoid displacement was reported in these comparisons.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A negative comparison at one concentration does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor preparations; not a simultaneous two-receptor measurement.
Figure 2; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The Methods and figure captions disagree on the main THC concentration; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant individual-terpene modulation of cannabinoid cAMP signalling was reported.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This result is restricted to the tested concentrations and readout.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Separate receptor assays are grouped only because the reported component amounts and model type match. No human or product inference.
Figures 3A–E and 4A–E; Methods, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene alone · CB1 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + near-EC50 THC · CB1 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 3.16 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 3G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene alone · CB2 binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 membrane preparation from HEK cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- 10 µM terpene; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Radioligand alone and 10 µM THC maximum displacement.
- Readout / result
- No significant displacement in this condition.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- This single tested concentration does not establish inactivity at every concentration.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No consumer dose. No clinical or product inference.
Figure 1; Methods, radioligand binding; Results, radioligand binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene + near-EC50 THC · CB2 cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 30 nMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 in HEK cells with CAMYEL biosensor
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched near-EC50 THC without terpene; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-dependent change in cAMP response.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Assay-specific negative result.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Near-EC50 concentrations are receptor- and assay-specific; they are not interchangeable.
Figure 4G; Results, functional assay.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- At CB2, a small reduction in THC displacement was reported; other paired comparisons did not show significant alteration.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cannabinoid displacement in these paired conditions.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The main THC concentration is inconsistent between Methods and figure captions; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cannabinoid displacement in these paired conditions.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cannabinoid displacement in these paired conditions.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The main THC concentration is inconsistent between Methods and figure captions; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 + THC · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cannabinoid displacement in these paired conditions.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 + CBD · binding
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK membrane preparations
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; 1 nM radioligand; 1 hour at 30 °C.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpenes.
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cannabinoid displacement in these paired conditions.
- Readout units
- Percentage specific radioligand binding
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- A binding comparison is not a demonstrated enhancement of downstream function.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
Composition percentages describe the reported experiment, not a recommended formulation.
Table 2; Figure 2; Methods, binding.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 + Δ9-THC · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Δ9-THC · Methods: 1 µM; Figures 3–4 captions: 10 µMresin · purity: ≥95%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- The main THC concentration is inconsistent between Methods and figure captions; no single numeric dose is assigned.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 + CBD · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- CBD · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 + 2-AG · cAMP
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
full text inspected with reported discrepancy · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- 2-AG · 10 µMas named · purity: ≥98%
- Preparation
- Separate human CB1 and CB2 HEK/CAMYEL assays
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- In vitro application to membranes or cultured cells; no animal or human administration.
- Exposure
- Total terpene mixture 10 µM; approximately 20 minutes at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM.
- Vehicle
- Terpenes: DMSO 1:1,000 final. Cannabinoids: ethanol 1:1,000 final; matched vehicle conditions.
- Comparator / controls
- Matched cannabinoid without terpene mixture; basal and forskolin controls.
- Readout / result
- No significant terpene-mixture modulation of cAMP signalling.
- Readout units
- Normalized BRET area under the curve
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Negative only in these tested conditions.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal synergy/additivity model; matched-condition tests used one-way ANOVA.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
No inference of an effect in humans.
Table 2; Methods, functional assay; Figures 3F and 4F.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3A, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3B, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3C, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3D, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3E, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 alone · CB1 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB1 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 3F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Myrcene alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 10 µMas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4A, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Pinene alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4B, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4C, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 10 µMas named · purity: 91.0%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4D, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Limonene alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Limonene · 10 µMenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Terpene 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4E, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 1, material purity.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 1 alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 40 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 15 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 20 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 1
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 40
- alpha pinene: 20
- beta pinene: 15
- beta caryophyllene: 20
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 2 alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 30 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 13 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 35 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 2
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 30
- alpha pinene: 17
- beta pinene: 13
- beta caryophyllene: 35
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Mixture 3 alone · CB2 cAMP control
Figures 1–4: selected binding/cAMP comparisons, near-EC50 comparisons and separate terpene-only cAMP controls. For cAMP: 60,000 cells per well, 35-minute serum starvation and duplicate technical wells; three independent determinations in figure captions. These controls are not cannabinoid coadministration and do not complete every experiment in the paper.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Myrcene · 50 % of total terpene mixtureas named; no stereochemical assignment · purity: 97.6%
- α-Pinene · 23 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 99.3%
- β-Pinene · 17 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported · purity: 98.2%
- β-Caryophyllene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureas named · purity: 91.0%
- Limonene · 5 % of total terpene mixtureenantiomer not reported; not assigned to D- or S-limonene · purity: 99.1%
- Preparation
- Human CB2 expressed in HEK cells with CAMYEL cAMP biosensor; 60,000 cells per well
- Species / population
- Human cannabinoid receptor expressed in HEK cells
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- 35-minute serum starvation; approximately 20-minute acquisition at 37 °C; forskolin 5 µM. Total terpene mixture 10 µM.
- Vehicle
- DMSO 1:1,000 final; matched ethanol vehicle 1:1,000.
- Comparator / controls
- Forskolin with matched vehicle; no cannabinoid co-treatment
- Readout / result
- No significant alteration of cAMP signalling in this tested control. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Normalized inverse-BRET area under the curve; forskolin 100%, basal 0%
- Sample size
- Three independent determinations; two technical wells per experiment. Methods report at least three repeats.
- Uncertainty
- A control result at this concentration and readout does not establish universal inactivity.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable to this control: no cannabinoid co-treatment.
Source-reported mixture proportions
Mixture 3
percent of total terpene mixture
- myrcene: 50
- alpha pinene: 23
- beta pinene: 17
- beta caryophyllene: 5
- limonene unspecified: 5
This is a functional control, not a cannabinoid mixture experiment. Supplier purity is source-reported, not an independent lot analysis. No human efficacy or consumer formulation follows from this assay.
Figure 4F, terpene-only control; Methods, Functional Assay: Cyclic AMP Signaling (s2_3); Results (s3_2); Table 2, mixture composition.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene + WIN · mouse tail-flick
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 200 mg/kgSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice; tail-flick thermal latency assay
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Intraperitoneal injection
- Exposure
- Simultaneous intraperitoneal administration; observed over 2 hours.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Each agent alone; separate 10 mg/kg rimonabant pretreatment condition.
- Readout / result
- The combination increased tail-flick latency relative to individual treatments in this experiment.
- Readout units
- Seconds; 10-second cutoff
- Sample size
- n=10–14 mice per group; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Repeated-measures two-way ANOVA; Results leave additivity versus synergy unresolved.
- Additivity analysis
- Not established by an isobolographic analysis.
This specific animal combination used synthetic WIN55,212-2, not THC. No conversion to a human dose is supplied.
Figure 2; Results paragraph 19; Materials and tail-flick methods.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + WIN · mouse tail-flick
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice; tail-flick thermal latency assay
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Intraperitoneal injection
- Exposure
- Simultaneous intraperitoneal administration; observed over 2 hours.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Each agent alone; separate 10 mg/kg rimonabant pretreatment condition.
- Readout / result
- The combination increased tail-flick latency relative to individual treatments in this experiment.
- Readout units
- Seconds; 10-second cutoff
- Sample size
- n=10–14 mice per group; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Repeated-measures two-way ANOVA; Results leave additivity versus synergy unresolved.
- Additivity analysis
- Not established by an isobolographic analysis.
This specific animal combination used synthetic WIN55,212-2, not THC. No conversion to a human dose is supplied.
Figure 2; Results paragraph 19; Materials and tail-flick methods.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool + WIN · mouse tail-flick
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice; tail-flick thermal latency assay
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Intraperitoneal injection
- Exposure
- Simultaneous intraperitoneal administration; observed over 2 hours.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Each agent alone; separate 10 mg/kg rimonabant pretreatment condition.
- Readout / result
- The combination increased tail-flick latency relative to individual treatments in this experiment.
- Readout units
- Seconds; 10-second cutoff
- Sample size
- n=10–14 mice per group; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Repeated-measures two-way ANOVA; Results leave additivity versus synergy unresolved.
- Additivity analysis
- Not established by an isobolographic analysis.
This specific animal combination used synthetic WIN55,212-2, not THC. No conversion to a human dose is supplied.
Figure 2; Results paragraph 19; Materials and tail-flick methods.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol + WIN · mouse tail-flick
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice; tail-flick thermal latency assay
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Intraperitoneal injection
- Exposure
- Simultaneous intraperitoneal administration; observed over 2 hours.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Each agent alone; separate 10 mg/kg rimonabant pretreatment condition.
- Readout / result
- The combination increased tail-flick latency relative to individual treatments in this experiment.
- Readout units
- Seconds; 10-second cutoff
- Sample size
- n=10–14 mice per group; mean ± SEM.
- Uncertainty
- Repeated-measures two-way ANOVA; Results leave additivity versus synergy unresolved.
- Additivity analysis
- Not established by an isobolographic analysis.
This specific animal combination used synthetic WIN55,212-2, not THC. No conversion to a human dose is supplied.
Figure 2; Results paragraph 19; Materials and tail-flick methods.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene · cell ERK response
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 500 µMSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO cells and separately untransfected wild-type CHO cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Serum-starved 1 hour; 5-minute treatment, with separate 5-minute rimonabant or vehicle pretreatment.
- Vehicle
- DMSO ≤1%; matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- 10 µM WIN55,212-2, matched vehicle and 10 µM rimonabant pretreatment; separate non-engineered cells.
- Readout / result
- Rimonabant-sensitive ERK signalling was reported in CB1-CHO cells; some terpenes also produced signalling without engineered CB1.
- Readout units
- pERK/tERK, normalized to WIN55,212-2 stimulation
- Sample size
- n=3 independent experiments per condition.
- Uncertainty
- Downstream ERK signalling alone is not a direct binding measurement or proof of exclusive receptor mediation.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable: this is a signalling-control experiment, not a mixture synergy experiment.
The 500 µM concentration is unrelated to the mouse mg/kg exposure.
Figure 7A–C; Figure 6 for the separate concentration-series experiment.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene · cell ERK response
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO cells and separately untransfected wild-type CHO cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Serum-starved 1 hour; 5-minute treatment, with separate 5-minute rimonabant or vehicle pretreatment.
- Vehicle
- DMSO ≤1%; matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- 10 µM WIN55,212-2, matched vehicle and 10 µM rimonabant pretreatment; separate non-engineered cells.
- Readout / result
- Rimonabant-sensitive ERK signalling was reported in CB1-CHO cells; some terpenes also produced signalling without engineered CB1.
- Readout units
- pERK/tERK, normalized to WIN55,212-2 stimulation
- Sample size
- n=3 independent experiments per condition.
- Uncertainty
- Downstream ERK signalling alone is not a direct binding measurement or proof of exclusive receptor mediation.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable: this is a signalling-control experiment, not a mixture synergy experiment.
The 500 µM concentration is unrelated to the mouse mg/kg exposure.
Figure 7A–C; Figure 6 for the separate concentration-series experiment.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool · cell ERK response
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO cells and separately untransfected wild-type CHO cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Serum-starved 1 hour; 5-minute treatment, with separate 5-minute rimonabant or vehicle pretreatment.
- Vehicle
- DMSO ≤1%; matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- 10 µM WIN55,212-2, matched vehicle and 10 µM rimonabant pretreatment; separate non-engineered cells.
- Readout / result
- Rimonabant-sensitive ERK signalling was reported in CB1-CHO cells; some terpenes also produced signalling without engineered CB1.
- Readout units
- pERK/tERK, normalized to WIN55,212-2 stimulation
- Sample size
- n=3 independent experiments per condition.
- Uncertainty
- Downstream ERK signalling alone is not a direct binding measurement or proof of exclusive receptor mediation.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable: this is a signalling-control experiment, not a mixture synergy experiment.
The 500 µM concentration is unrelated to the mouse mg/kg exposure.
Figure 7A–C; Figure 6 for the separate concentration-series experiment.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol · cell ERK response
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO cells and separately untransfected wild-type CHO cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Serum-starved 1 hour; 5-minute treatment, with separate 5-minute rimonabant or vehicle pretreatment.
- Vehicle
- DMSO ≤1%; matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- 10 µM WIN55,212-2, matched vehicle and 10 µM rimonabant pretreatment; separate non-engineered cells.
- Readout / result
- Rimonabant-sensitive ERK signalling was reported in CB1-CHO cells; some terpenes also produced signalling without engineered CB1.
- Readout units
- pERK/tERK, normalized to WIN55,212-2 stimulation
- Sample size
- n=3 independent experiments per condition.
- Uncertainty
- Downstream ERK signalling alone is not a direct binding measurement or proof of exclusive receptor mediation.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable: this is a signalling-control experiment, not a mixture synergy experiment.
The 500 µM concentration is unrelated to the mouse mg/kg exposure.
Figure 7A–C; Figure 6 for the separate concentration-series experiment.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene · cell ERK response
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
full text inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 500 µMCayman #21572 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO cells and separately untransfected wild-type CHO cells
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Serum-starved 1 hour; 5-minute treatment, with separate 5-minute rimonabant or vehicle pretreatment.
- Vehicle
- DMSO ≤1%; matched vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- 10 µM WIN55,212-2, matched vehicle and 10 µM rimonabant pretreatment; separate non-engineered cells.
- Readout / result
- Rimonabant-sensitive ERK signalling was reported in CB1-CHO cells; some terpenes also produced signalling without engineered CB1.
- Readout units
- pERK/tERK, normalized to WIN55,212-2 stimulation
- Sample size
- n=3 independent experiments per condition.
- Uncertainty
- Downstream ERK signalling alone is not a direct binding measurement or proof of exclusive receptor mediation.
- Additivity analysis
- Not applicable: this is a signalling-control experiment, not a mixture synergy experiment.
The 500 µM concentration is unrelated to the mouse mg/kg exposure.
Figure 7A–C; Figure 6 for the separate concentration-series experiment.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene + WIN · mouse hypothermia
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 200 mg/kgSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 30 minutes later. Observation duration beyond the temperature measurement is not reported in this extraction.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Greater hypothermia with combination. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Temperature; exact unit not extracted
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 3A; Hypothermia methods (Par47); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + WIN · mouse hypothermia
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 30 minutes later. Observation duration beyond the temperature measurement is not reported in this extraction.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Greater hypothermia with combination. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Temperature; exact unit not extracted
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 3B; Hypothermia methods (Par47); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool + WIN · mouse hypothermia
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 30 minutes later. Observation duration beyond the temperature measurement is not reported in this extraction.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Greater hypothermia with combination. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Temperature; exact unit not extracted
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 3C; Hypothermia methods (Par47); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol + WIN · mouse hypothermia
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 30 minutes later. Observation duration beyond the temperature measurement is not reported in this extraction.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Greater hypothermia with combination. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- Temperature; exact unit not extracted
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 3D; Hypothermia methods (Par47); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene + WIN · mouse catalepsy
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 200 mg/kgSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 15 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Increased combination response reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- % immobile time
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 4A; Catalepsy ring test methods (Par45); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + WIN · mouse catalepsy
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 15 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Increased combination response reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- % immobile time
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 4B; Catalepsy ring test methods (Par45); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool + WIN · mouse catalepsy
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 15 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- No additive increase reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- % immobile time
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 4C; Catalepsy ring test methods (Par45); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol + WIN · mouse catalepsy
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 15 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- No additive increase reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- % immobile time
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 4D; Catalepsy ring test methods (Par45); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene + WIN · mouse mobile time
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 200 mg/kgSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 10 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Further reduction in mobile time reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- seconds mobile
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 5A; Open field methods (Par46); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene + WIN · mouse mobile time
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 10 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Further reduction in mobile time reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- seconds mobile
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 5B; Open field methods (Par46); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool + WIN · mouse mobile time
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 10 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- Further reduction in mobile time reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- seconds mobile
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 5C; Open field methods (Par46); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol + WIN · mouse mobile time
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 200 mg/kgAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · 5.6 mg/kgsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks
- Species / population
- Male and female CD-1 mice, 5–6 weeks old
- Route
- Intraperitoneal; combination in same solution
- Exposure
- Same-solution co-injection; assessment 10 minutes later. 5-minute observation window.
- Vehicle
- 10% DMSO, 10% Tween-80, 80% USP saline; fresh matched vehicle. Antagonist comparison arms use a separate vehicle.
- Comparator / controls
- Terpene alone and WIN reference; matched vehicle; antagonist conditions are separate arms
- Readout / result
- No further reduction reported. Numeric means and SEM have not been independently digitized.
- Readout units
- seconds mobile
- Sample size
- n=10–20 mice per group, as reported in the caption; exact per-arm count not reported in this extraction.
- Uncertainty
- Endpoints do not establish separate independent animal cohorts. Mean ± SEM; the group-size range is not an exact n for this arm.
- Additivity analysis
- Descriptive matched-condition comparisons; no formal isobolographic synergy classification.
Synthetic WIN55,212-2 was tested, not THC. No conversion to human dose or clinical synergy is justified. Compound supplier/form is retained where the source identifies it; lot purity remains not reported.
Figure 5D; Open field methods (Par46); Materials/animals/administration (Par42–Par44).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
WIN alone · arrestin control (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Matched WIN concentration-response control; no terpene pretreatment.WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- WIN-alone reference curve within this experiment.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 254 nM (95% CI 194–331 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol 500 µM pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Figure 8D; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 3080 nM (95% CI 2180–4350 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
α-Humulene 500 µM pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- α-Humulene · 500 µMSigma #53675 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Figure 8D; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 471 nM (95% CI 295–743 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Linalool 500 µM pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Linalool · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #A14424; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Figure 8D; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 679 nM (95% CI 480–956 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Pinene 500 µM pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Pinene · 500 µMAlfa Aesar #A17818; lot enantiopurity not reported · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Figure 8D; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 302 nM (95% CI 147–621 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
β-Caryophyllene 500 µM pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (Figure 8D)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- β-Caryophyllene · 500 µMCayman #21572 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Figure 8D; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 283 nM (95% CI 169–470 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence.
Figure 8D: numerical caption; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
WIN alone · arrestin control (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Matched WIN concentration-response control; no terpene pretreatment.WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- WIN-alone reference curve within this experiment.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 348 nM (95% CI 195–612 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. The legend label 0 means WIN alone; it does not mean 1 M geraniol.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -3 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -3 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 4600 nM (95% CI 296–∞; upper bound unbounded nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -3.6 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -3.6 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 1360 nM (95% CI 794–2310 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -4.2 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -4.2 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 538 nM (95% CI 285–994 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -4.8 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -4.8 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 451 nM (95% CI 237–840 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -5.41 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -5.41 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 375 nM (95% CI 167–820 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -6.01 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -6.01 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 313 nM (95% CI 151–624 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Geraniol -6.61 log10(molar) pretreatment · WIN arrestin curve (S14C)
Selected Figures 2–5 mouse endpoints, Figure 7 ERK conditions, Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C arrestin curves. Other experiments are not fully extracted. Mouse antagonist arms used 20% DMSO / 10% Tween-80 / 70% saline; terpene/WIN co-injections used 10% / 10% / 80%. Endpoints and concentration points are not separate independent studies.
selected full text conditions independently cross checked · checked 2026-11-02
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Geraniol · -6.61 log10(molar)Alfa Aesar #13736 · purity: not reported
- WIN55,212-2 · Varied concentration; exact tested grid not extractedsynthetic cannabinoid agonist; Tocris #1038 · purity: not reported
- Preparation
- CB1-CHO-DX / CB1-CHO-βarr2 recruitment cells; 5,000 cells per well in 384-well plates
- Species / population
- Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing CB1; engineered β-arrestin2 recruitment assay
- Route
- Direct in vitro cell application
- Exposure
- Five-minute terpene pretreatment, followed by the WIN concentration series. WIN response measured after 1.5 hours.
- Vehicle
- Matched DMSO; final concentration ≤1%
- Comparator / controls
- Matched WIN-alone curve from Supplementary Figure S14C; not the other experiment’s control.
- Readout / result
- WIN functional EC50 440 nM (95% CI 239–792 nM). Source-reported curve fit, not a direct binding affinity.
- Readout units
- Functional EC50 in nM; recruitment as % of maximum WIN response; mean ± SEM
- Sample size
- Three independent experiments.
- Uncertainty
- Exact WIN concentration grid has not been extracted. A shifted functional curve alone does not establish direct allosteric binding or clinical synergy.
- Additivity analysis
- No formal mixture synergy inference from this functional recruitment curve.
Figure 8D and Supplementary Figure S14C are separate experiments; their control EC50 values must not be pooled. Reported functional potency is not direct binding, an exposure recommendation or clinical evidence. Rounded log10(molar) geraniol labels are retained; no falsely precise µM conversion is inferred.
Supplementary Figure S14C, page 15: legend and numerical caption visually checked; β-arrestin2 recruitment methods (Par52), Materials (Par42).
Original experiment ↗STUDY SUMMARY · FULL CONDITIONS UNAVAILABLE
Terpenes in a receptor-expression system
The abstract is available. The full methods and exact tested conditions have not been admitted here.
abstract inspected full text access incomplete · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
Exact component forms or amounts are not admitted from the accessible source.
- Preparation
- Sixteen individual terpenes and terpene mixtures; GIRK current readout.
- Species / population
- Xenopus oocytes expressing cannabinoid receptors.
- Route
- Application to Xenopus oocytes; not human administration.
- Exposure
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Vehicle
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Comparator / controls
- THC in the same expression system.
- Readout / result
- The abstract reports receptor activation by selected terpenes and mixtures. Full formulation and dose-specific conclusions require the original methods and tables.
- Readout units
- GIRK current response relative to THC; exact condition extraction pending.
- Sample size
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Uncertainty
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Additivity analysis
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
The publisher advertises open access but the direct full-text request returned 403; open-access metadata does not mean the methods were inspected. No exact terpene stereoisomer assignment is made from an unqualified name. An oocyte current is not a clinical effect threshold.
Indexed abstract; publisher methods/table access attempted.
Original experiment ↗STUDY SUMMARY · FULL CONDITIONS UNAVAILABLE
THC–terpene interactions tested at CB1 and CB2
The abstract is available. The full methods and exact tested conditions have not been admitted here.
abstract inspected full text access incomplete · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · not accessiblenot accessible · purity: not accessible
- Preparation
- THC concentration–response curves with individual terpenes or terpene mixtures; GIRK functional readout.
- Species / population
- Xenopus laevis oocytes expressing CB1 or CB2.
- Route
- Application to Xenopus laevis oocytes; not human administration.
- Exposure
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Vehicle
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Comparator / controls
- THC alone and combination response curves.
- Readout / result
- The abstract reports additive interactions for some tested conditions and isobolographically classified synergistic interactions for others. Exact ratios, concentrations and effect estimates remain inaccessible in this extraction.
- Readout units
- GIRK channel response; numerical condition estimates not accessible.
- Sample size
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Uncertainty
- Not accessible in the inspected abstract.
- Additivity analysis
- Isobolographic analysis reported in the abstract; precise implementation not accessible.
No selectable dose, ratio or inferred synergy score is generated from the abstract. Unqualified limonene, ocimene and terpineol names do not identify the atlas stereochemical records. Three authors disclose employment by a medical-cannabis manufacturer. Receptor-system interactions do not establish human treatment effects.
Indexed abstract and conflict-of-interest statement; publisher full-text request returned 403.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
Distilled-water placebo
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
Exact component forms or amounts are not admitted from the accessible source.
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
0 mg THC + 1 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- D-limonene · 1 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
0 mg THC + 5 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- D-limonene · 5 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
15 mg THC + 0 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 15 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
30 mg THC + 0 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 30 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
15 mg THC + 1 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 15 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- D-limonene · 1 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
15 mg THC + 5 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 15 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- D-limonene · 5 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
30 mg THC + 1 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 30 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- D-limonene · 1 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
30 mg THC + 5 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 30 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- D-limonene · 5 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- This arm contributes to the controlled comparison; a standalone condition-specific effect estimate has not been extracted.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=20; part of the nine-session double-blind schedule.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗TESTED EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene
Ten existing treatment arms. Supervised device setting 210 °C; 15-minute administration window, six-hour observation and three-hour peak analysis. Subjective/cognitive/vital measurements: baseline then 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours; blood: baseline then 0, 0.25, 1, 2 and 3 hours. Initial paced protocol: five participants, two completers and three drug-related discontinuations; changed to ad-libitum during enrollment. The optional final arm was introduced after the first eight participants. These nominal loads are not individual absorbed doses or instructions for use; no new arms or comparative safety conclusion are added.
selected full text methods and results inspected · checked 2026-10-26
Research exposures are context for this experiment, not instructions for personal use. Different preparations are not interchangeable.
- Δ9-THC · 30 mgsynthetic THC · purity: >99%
- D-limonene · 15 mgD form explicitly reported · purity: >99%
- Preparation
- Healthy adult intermittent cannabis users in controlled outpatient sessions
- Species / population
- See the named preparation for this condition.
- Route
- Vaporized inhalation using a Mighty Medic device in a supervised research setting.
- Exposure
- Supervised vaporized administration; sessions at least 48 hours apart.
- Vehicle
- THC initially dissolved in pharmacy-grade 190-proof ethanol; ethanol allowed to dissipate before inhalation. Distilled water placebo.
- Comparator / controls
- Placebo and corresponding single-compound conditions.
- Readout / result
- Lower selected acute anxiety-related ratings than the 30 mg THC-only condition; broader outcomes were not consistently changed.
- Readout units
- Subjective ratings, cognitive/psychomotor tests, vital signs and plasma cannabinoid concentrations.
- Sample size
- n=12; always last.
- Uncertainty
- Small controlled study; highest-combination order was not randomized. No therapeutic indication or general safety claim follows.
- Additivity analysis
- Not a receptor isobolographic synergy analysis.
These are administered research conditions, not dosing advice. The study concerns D-limonene, not S-limonene. Inhaled compounds are not edible hemp seed oil or hemp protein powder. The abstract says THC pharmacokinetics did not change, but Results 3.6 reports higher THC Cmax for 30 mg THC + 15 mg D-limonene versus 30 mg THC alone (p<0.05). Both statements are retained. Thirty-eight participants were randomized; twenty completers were analysed. Four participants discontinued because of drug-related adverse effects. The highest-combination contrast on the STAI-S anxiety composite was not statistically significant (p=0.08); the positive findings concern selected subjective rating items. Full numerical outcome-table extraction is not complete.
Methods 2.1 and 2.4; Abstract and Discussion limitations.
Original experiment ↗Nutrition and lipid biology
Dietary fats enter a larger metabolic network
Linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid are nutritional fatty acids. They are not AEA, 2-AG, CBD or THC.
No batch composition or product-specific effect is inferred.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Tissue pools are regulated
Absorption, elongation, desaturation and lipid remodelling influence tissue fatty-acid pools. Arachidonoyl membrane lipids can become precursors for AEA and 2-AG.
Diet-to-tissue conversion is not one-to-one and differs with background diet and physiology.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Other fatty acids, other mediators
EPA and DHA can give rise to related ethanolamides and epoxy metabolites. These were studied in tissue, cell and enzyme experiments.
α-Linolenic acid is not EPA or DHA; do not imply complete conversion or a demonstrated effect from seed oil.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Animal and human results do not automatically agree
A mouse feeding study linked dietary linoleic acid with altered endocannabinoid measures. A 12-week trial in 62 women found no between-diet difference in AEA or 2-AG despite lowering linoleic acid.
Different models and exposures cannot be collapsed into a universal dietary prescription.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Keep the categories separate
Nutritional lipids, endogenous signalling molecules and phytocannabinoids are not interchangeable.
The research does not show that Mount Herbs seed foods deliver cannabinoids or modify a customer’s ECS.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Interpreting evidence and keeping the boundaries
Binding is not activation
Ki and Kd describe different binding measurements. A molecule can bind without producing the response measured for an agonist.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Potency is assay-specific
EC50 is the concentration producing half the assay’s maximal response; IC50 describes half-inhibition in a specified assay. Neither is a clinical dose or receptor occupancy.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
A partial agonist has a ceiling in its assay
Maximum response depends on receptor abundance, coupling and the chosen readout. Numbers from different systems should not become a single potency leaderboard.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Modulation is different from replacement
An allosteric modulator changes a receptor’s response to another ligand. It does not simply occupy the same site and act like a weaker copy.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Missing evidence is a visible state
Not yet reviewed, no effect in one assay, conflicting findings and no established human outcome are different statements. This graph keeps them separate.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
An educational model
These scenes explain selected experiments. They do not diagnose endocannabinoid deficiency, recommend cannabis, calculate a dose or predict a patient response.
Narrative review. Europe PMC metadata and abstract rechecked on 2026-10-26; online 15 December 2023, January 2024 issue. PubMed returned a footer-only page and the open full-text XML was unavailable. Abstract-level orientation only. Full-text claims, clinical risk details and source-specific mechanistic numbers were not extracted.
Chemical-probe review; 2026 issue, DOI assigned 2024. Tools and mechanistic research do not establish clinical benefit. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
THC can impair function
Intoxicating cannabinoid effects can include cognitive, memory and motor impairment. Receptor activation is not automatically desirable.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Medicines need formulation-specific evidence
This module cannot assess pregnancy, developmental, co-medication or other personal risks. Those questions need qualified clinical guidance and formulation-specific evidence; this is an editorial boundary, not a risk estimate extracted from the review abstract.
Narrative review. Europe PMC metadata and abstract rechecked on 2026-10-26; online 15 December 2023, January 2024 issue. PubMed returned a footer-only page and the open full-text XML was unavailable. Abstract-level orientation only. Full-text claims, clinical risk details and source-specific mechanistic numbers were not extracted.
Seed foods remain separate
No ECS finding here is a claim that Mount Herbs hemp seed oil or powder contains therapeutically meaningful cannabinoids or treats a disease.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Original sources and access record
Xenopus-oocyte GIRK assay and isobolographic analysis. Reported mathematical synergy is specific to the tested mixtures and assay; exact mixtures are not reproduced from the abstract. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Chemical-probe review; 2026 issue, DOI assigned 2024. Tools and mechanistic research do not establish clinical benefit. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
2026 issue, 2025 DOI. Xenopus-oocyte GIRK functional assay. The authors use clinical-effect language; this site does not treat an oocyte current as a clinical endpoint. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Correction is indexed. Correction text was not retrieved; no claim about the content of the correction is made. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Narrative review. Europe PMC metadata and abstract rechecked on 2026-10-26; online 15 December 2023, January 2024 issue. PubMed returned a footer-only page and the open full-text XML was unavailable. Abstract-level orientation only. Full-text claims, clinical risk details and source-specific mechanistic numbers were not extracted.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Review abstract and chemistry/biological-activity sections inspected. The linked correction record is disclosed. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, Materials, relevant Results and Figures 6–7 inspected. CB1-linked ERK responses coexist with receptor-independent responses. Supplier identifiers do not alone establish lot-specific stereochemical purity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Europe PMC full-text Results, Discussion and Tables 1–3 inspected. Fitted cAMP values preserve 95% confidence intervals; unresolved values remain null. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Scoping review with search cutoff 26 February 2020. Not an original cannabinoid-receptor experiment. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Abstract, materials, Tables 1–2 and relevant assay methods inspected. Table 1 names terpenes without resolving every enantiomer; mixture proportions are not substituted for individual-compound activity. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
Indexed metadata and abstract inspected through PubMed or Europe PMC. Only the specific model and outcome described are admitted. Selected evidence, not a systematic review. Numerical detail is omitted when not verified.
The full molecular catalogue · The medical research library · The existing law and product-context reader