Is Powdery Mildew Systemic?

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

Ben Amirault of Medicinal Genomics looks into the research surrounding powdery mildew that affects cannabis and answers the question of whether Powdery Mildew is a systemic pest or not.

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


Disclaimer

This Contributors article has been reproduced with permission from Medicinal Genomics. The original article can be found here.

Introduction

Cannabis growers are divided when it comes to powdery mildew, one of the plant’s most notorious pathogens. In one camp, there are those who believe powdery mildew is a systemic pathogen that permeates via the plant’s vascular system. Others believe is it superficial pest that spreads across the plant’s surface.

As it turns out, there is a good reason for the debate. Based on the available literature and the tests we have conducted at Medicinal Genomics, it’s not clear whether powdery mildew is systemic. The science is not settled. But here is what we know so far:


Powdery Mildew that infects Cannabis is a novel organism

The powdery mildew species that infects cannabis is a different organism than the powdery mildew that infects other plants, such as tomatoes or cucumbers.

We genetically sequenced infected cannabis plants from the United States and Canada and found that the DNA didn’t match any known powdery mildew sequences. Further complicating things is the possibility that there could be more than one powdery mildew species infecting cannabis. We need to collect more samples from Europe and Asia in order to determine that.

There has been no published research into how this novel powdery mildew organism infects the cannabis plant. For now, the best we can do is look to studies on how other powdery mildew species infect other plants for clues. However, until similar studies are conducted on cannabis, we can’t be sure exactly how the pathogen behaves.


Powdery mildew can create an invisible network before spores are visible

Powdery mildew is an obligate biotroph, which is a fancy way of saying it cannot survive without taking nutrients from a host. A 2012 study showed how the Golovinomyces orontii species of powdery mildew (affects Arabidopsis thaliana) does just that. After dyeing an infected leaf, researchers observed that spores penetrated the leaf and the cell wall with a taproot called a haustorium, which serves as its primary feeding mechanism. The pathogen then forms secondary taproots into neighboring cells, creating a mycelium network over a period of several days before producing the tell-tale white powder.

Editor’s Note: The above picture demonstrates the formation of a haustorium and secondary taproots.

It’s important to note that Golovinomyces orontii is not the same organism that infects cannabis. G. orontii infects Arabidopsis thaliana. However, we have designed a test that can detect the unique DNA signature of the powdery mildew species that infects cannabis from a 4mm leaf punch. In fact, our youPCR Powdery Mildew detection assay can detect powdery mildew DNA from cannabis leaves that show no visual signs. This means that we are detecting the DNA from the mycelium network that the pathogen creates prior to sporulation. This early detection can be useful to growers who can remove and quarantine infected plants so they do not further infect the grow room.


Powdery Mildew can be detected elsewhere in an infected plant

If powdery mildew penetrates the plant, the next question is whether it gets into the plant’s vasculature and infects other parts of the plant. There is no published literature that supports that theory, and it is likely the mycelium network is made externally.

Example of sample preparation.

However, we collected four samples from visually clean leaves off of a plant that had visual powdery mildew elsewhere on the plant. Of those four samples, three tested positive for powdery mildew. This does not prove the theory that PM can travel through the plant’s vascular system. It is possible that the other parts of the plant were infected by separate infection events. It may also be that some powdery mildew DNA gets into the plant’s vasculature when the haustorium penetrates the plant. In any case, it is a topic that warrants further study.


Cannabis can be bred for powdery mildew resistance

Powdery mildew does not affect all cannabis strains and varieties equally. Some varieties of cannabis are resistant, while others are very susceptible to the pathogen. We also believe that powdery mildew resistance is not binary, but additive. In hops, for example, we have seen that there are lineages that are partially resistant.

In any case, powdery mildew resistance is a trait that can be selected for. Using early detection technology, such as the youPCR Powdery Mildew assay, growers can screen plants for infection before visual signs are present. By continuing to screen for powdery mildew infections, and selecting against plants that test positive, breeders can enrich their resistance.


Conclusions

As you can see, there is still much to be learned about powdery mildew on cannabis. As with most plant pathogens, the best defense is prevention. This can be done with strict environmental controls, periodic screenings of grow rooms, and screening of incoming clones. The latter two can be done using the youPCR Point-of-Grow Powdery Mildew assay.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

  1. Want to get in touch with Medicinal Genomics? They can be reached via the following methods:
    1. Website: https://www.medicinalgenomics.com/
    2. Phone: 866-574-3582
    3. Email: info@medicinalgenomics.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Ben is the Marketing Manager at Medicinal Genomics (MGC) and enjoys the challenge of trying to simplify the amazing science performed in the MGC lab into content for the layman. Ben also maintains Kannapedia.net and helps to organize and execute MGCs annual CannMed Conference. Prior to joining MGC Ben worked as an writer and editor. He earned his journalism degree from the University of New Hampshire.


Variations in Cannabinoid Reporting: Part One

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this contributor article, Savino Sguera of Digamma Consulting explores the reasons that laboratories may report different cannabinoid and terpene profiles for similar samples. There are many steps in sample testing and collection that can go wrong or can be intentionally manipulated, and Savino is here to guide us through the process.

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.

Based on a presentation to the American Chemical Society Fall Conference, 2016

by Savino Sguera


Introduction

In all laboratory analyses, a degree of variation will always exist between the results of any two identical samples. For example, two environmental laboratories that are looking for the toxic metal lead may find slightly different amounts of lead in the same sample. In the environmental testing industry, this variation is kept at a negligibly small value via strict quality control measures which makes slight differences a non-issue.

In the cannabis industry, which is an industry with highly variable regulation, differences of over 30% are detected routinely. While plant products always contain some natural variation (typically less than 15%), much of this variation is due either to negligence or intentional manipulation. In this article, we will examine some of the different sources of variation in THCA/THC reporting. We use THCA/THC reporting as an example, although the same principles hold for any potency or contamination analysis.

As cannabis becomes a mainstream medical option and more patients come to rely upon it, there will be a need to increase the precision and accuracy of cannabis laboratories. This will most likely be done by an increase in laboratory standards, training and qualification, certification, and proper laboratory audits.


Intentional Inflation

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”Hanlon's Razor

One of the most important causes of the wide variation in cannabinoid reporting is inflation. Reporting inflation is a process by which laboratories manipulate or modify the process of their analysis or reporting to increase the final reported value. This often comes at the expense of accuracy, and is motivated by a desire to gain an edge over competition. Laboratories are also pressured to inflate potency numbers by their clients, who are in turn pressured by market forces and unscrupulous distributors. These clients use high THC numbers as a sales tactic to sell products and increase prices. The patients and customers who spend money on mislabeled products are ultimately the ones who suffer from this bad practice.

But how can we confidently say that inflation is occurring? How do we know that variations in lab results are not the product of incompetence? The answer lies in the variation data. Close examination can tell whether the variation appears random or manipulated.

As an example, we used some reported THCA values from medical flowers sold in the state of Nevada in 2016. At the time there was concern among the public that numbers were being manipulated, as products were being sold with labels claiming over 35% THCA in some cases, which had never been seen before anywhere and also doesn’t make biological sense. Plants don’t produce such a disproportionate amount of one chemical.

As a result of this information, an inquiry was called for and the state set up a round-robin program to assess the performance of different laboratories by distributing the same homogenized sample to all parties and assessing the variation. THC results in Nevada have since stabilized at believable values.

Figure 1: Reported lab results for strains in Las Vegas versus the national average as derived from Confident Cannabis databases.

If incompetence could explain the variation seen in Figure 1, we would see random variation in either direction, both positive and negative. What we see instead is a manipulated appearance, with Las Vegas numbers almost exclusively appearing above the national average. The only exception is the pre-98 Bubba Kush, which is 0.1% lower than the national average.

The average deviation is +25%, meaning the results from Las Vegas are on average 25% higher than those in other states for a given strain. Some are even reported as high as 50% over the national average. If the data were not manipulated, we would expect to see some samples at -25% and -50%, which is not observed. The only other possibility would be if every grower in Nevada had some secret method that dramatically increases cannabinoid yields on their plants. As far as I’m aware, no such method has been discovered.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

Want to get in touch with Savino? He can be reached via the following methods:

  1. Website: https://www.digammaconsulting.com/
  2. Email: savino@digammaconsulting.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Savino Sguera is founder and CSO of Digamma Consulting. Since 2010 he has been an analytical chemist and researcher in the cannabis industry, working with both private and public interests to bring scientific integrity to the business. Savino holds a B.Sci. in Biomedical Engineering from Columbia University.


Scrogging: Bringing your Grow into Control

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this contributor's article, Dustin Keller, CEO of Canopy Crawler, discusses an important plant training technique known as ScrOGging.

Dustin Keller, CEO of Canopy Crawler

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


ScrOGging


The best growers I’ve met engage in various forms of plant training, such as super-cropping, low-stress training, and pruning/topping to increase their yields and grow bigger buds. In this article, I’ll be going over one of the tried-and-true plant training methods and combinations that can produce yields well over 3 lbs. per 1kw light.


It starts with your rooted clones. Make sure to top them when you begin to see some lateral growth on the lower nodes. Topping at this time promotes lateral growth and branching. This will also cause your cannabis plants to diverge at the top and create two dominant heads instead of one. Creating more tops creates more colas in your canopy, thereby increasing your harvest.

Topping at least one more time, at the right time, will create four dominant heads. This will also give the lower branches time to catch up with the canopy. It takes roughly five to seven weeks for your plants to reach a stage where they are large, round, and bushy with 6-8 tops. Be sure to halt the topping phase 2 or 3 weeks prior to flower. This will ensure your tops have plenty of time to get established as dominant branches. Then, using a low-stress form of training called Screen of Green (ScrOG), we lower a steel grid trellis horizontally onto the plants. You can see a video of us using our Canopy Crawler to achieve a ScrOG here!

The material used for the ScrOG method is important. The steel grid trellis of the Canopy Crawler provides the plants with resistance that they can push off of to promote quick lateral growth. Each node on each branch will begin to receive signals from the plant telling it to grow vertically. Fabric or plastic trellis netting can flex when branches are pushing through, which slows down lateral growth and counteracts the ScrOG method all together. Full plant resistance is the key to generating more bud sites.

Combination of a steel trellis with a net trellis.

Lowering the ScrOG trellis spreads the plants out horizontally. After the screen is lowered, leaves and branches turn towards the light the next day and begin to grow vertically again. While still in the vegetative cycle, over the next 7-14 days the goal is to spread or “stretch” the plants’ branches all the way out to the edges of the screen. Simultaneously, the lateral branching starts to dominate in-between. Branches that reach the edge of the crawler can simply be turned back towards to center without any stress or harm to the plant.

A branch that has been "stretched" to the next square.

No need to worry if any breakage happens during the stretch process. You can simply tie up any broken lateral branches for support and it will continue to grow stress-free. We have heard reports of broken branches healing and coming back strong, so don't write off any broken branches for at least 24 hours. Most of the time you'll see it come back stronger then before.

24 hours after "stretching."

During this stretching process, I recommend defoliating everything beneath the canopy. This includes fan leaves, bud sites, small lateral branches, and anything else that will receive insufficient light for growth. Defoliating prior to the flower cycle is necessary to reduce the prevalence of underdeveloped buds. By defoliating beforehand, you focus nutrients towards the top of the canopy, and improve airflow around the plants.

Once a branch top is in every square of the steel grid trellis at an even height, you’re ready to switch the light cycle to flowering mode. The full and even canopy is key to maximizing your light utility and yield. This is because during the first 2 weeks of the flower cycle, cannabis plants will continue to stretch and grow vertically before transitioning into full bud development. An even distribution of colas improves light penetration throughout the canopy and allows for utilization of every inch of optimal light. What you get is a sea of dense colas and minimization of underdeveloped buds.

Defoliation under the canopy.

ScrOGging does take a little extra work to train the plants, but with the reduced plant count, we find ourselves saving on cloning time, transplantation efforts, water, pots, and grow medium. This makes it worth the effort. You will absolutely notice increased yields per plant with this training technique. Growers we work with see an average 25% increase in their yield when they move to using the steel trellis ScrOG technique. The magic to our method is full plant resistance using a steel trellis to create an even canopy; by utilizing the optimal light in an even canopy, with steel trellises, all of your product contains consistent, high-quality, dense, sellable buds.

Have you ever used the Screen of Green method? Please share your experiences in the comments section below!


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

  1. Want to get in touch with Canopy Crawler? They can be reached via the following methods:
    1. Website: http://canopycrawler.com/
    2. Phone: 530-285-0577
    3. Email: contact@canopycrawler.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Dustin Keller is the founder of Groficient Solutions and inventor of Canopy Crawler.


The+Source – Las Vegas, Nevada

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this Growers Spotlight, we interview Andrew Jolley, owner and CEO of The+Source, a Las Vegas-based dispensary.

Andrew Jolley

The following is an interview with industry experts. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our interviewees, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our interviewees for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


Abbreviated Article


Editor's Note: Growers Network appreciates its readers! If you are limited on time, we are now offering abbreviated versions of our articles. Click below to view.

If you like the abbreviated article, let us know in the survey at the bottom of the article! We're always interested in hearing your feedback.

If you want to read more, you can read the full article below.


The Dispensary



The Grow



The Philosophy

We need to maintain a clean and professional image so that the public recognizes cannabis as a legitimate product, and the industry as a legitimate business.Andrew Jolley

About the Interviewee


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now


Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Want to get in touch with The+Source?

You can reach them via the following methods:

  1. Website: https://thesourcenv.com/
  2. Phone: 702.708.2000
  3. Email: info@thesourcenv.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Hunter Wilson is a community builder with Growers Network. He graduated from the University of Arizona in 2011 with a Masters in Teaching and in 2007 with a Bachelors in Biology.


Trimming Services: Save Money and Time

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this Growers Spotlight, we interview Susan Chicovsky, owner and CEO of Green Mountain Harvest, about using contract trimming companies to make the process of harvesting and trimming simpler on your team.

Susan Chicovsky

The following is an interview with industry experts. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our interviewees, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our interviewees for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


Abbreviated Article


Editor's Note: Growers Network appreciates its readers! If you are limited on time, we are now offering abbreviated versions of our articles. Click below to view.

If you like the abbreviated article, let us know in the survey at the bottom of the article! We're always interested in hearing your feedback.

If you want to read more, you can read the full article below.


Harvesting and Curing



Trimming



Philosophy

I have the vision for the company, but I couldn’t do it without my managerial team and my trimmersSusan Chicovsky

About Susan and Green Mountain Harvest


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now


Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Want to get in touch with Green Mountain Harvest?

You can reach them via the following methods:

  1. Phone: 303-981-4273
  2. Email: greenmountainharvest@gmail.com
  3. Website contact form: http://www.greenmountainharvest.com/contact-us/

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Hunter Wilson is a community builder with Growers Network. He graduated from the University of Arizona in 2011 with a Masters in Teaching and in 2007 with a Bachelors in Biology.


Smoking vs. Eating Cannabis: The Effects on Patient Health Pt. 3

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In the third article of this series, Marco Troiani of Digamma Consulting analyzes how the human body is affected by cannabinoids. If you would like to read the previous article, please click here!

Part 1
Part 2

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


Short on time? You can listen to our harvest Podcast Episode on this article here.


Foreword

Cannabis is becoming a popular medicine in the United States for patients wanting to fight a wide variety of diseases and disorders. Cannabis and derived products are used to treat conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), cancer, inflammatory disorders, autoimmune disorders, and a wide variety of psychological disorders, ranging from depression and anxiety to schizophrenia. The majority of medical benefits cannabis consumption provides are due to the presence of cannabinoids that interact with the human endocannabinoid system.


PHARMACOKINETICS


To get a good picture of the differences in effects between inhaled and orally-ingested cannabinoids, it is useful to monitor cannabinoid and metabolite concentrations in the blood of a patient over time. Oral ingestion of cannabis leads to higher levels of OH-THC found in the blood instead of the much lower levels of OH-THC found following inhalation. We first examine blood serum levels after inhalation in figure 6.

Figure 6: This graph illustrates the amount of THC and two primary metabolites in a patient's blood over time during inhalation.

We can see that immediately after smoking, the patient has the highest THC levels and very few metabolites. As time elapses, the body converts THC to OH-THC gradually, and THC levels begin to fall. A small amount of OH-THC accumulates in the blood. After sufficient time passes, the THC and OH-THC are fully converted into the inactive COOH-THC which becomes the predominant metabolite in the patient's blood.

Notice the very low levels OH-THC relative to THC. Only a small portion of blood exposed to THC is sent to the liver, resulting in the body converting THC to OH-THC very slowly. This leads to lower blood serum levels of OH-THC following inhalation. OH-THC peaks around the time that THC levels begin to decline. This pattern coincides with the cessation of initial symptoms of cannabinoid intoxication; in colloquial terms, this is the end of the “high” and the beginning of a “burn out” or “coming down” phase. The onset of these delayed symptoms, or “after effects” coincide with a OH-THC blood serum peak, which strongly implies that OH-THC plays a role in this phenomenon.

Now that we are familiar with the general pattern of THC/metabolite concentrations in blood after inhalation, we can examine empirical evidence from a published study, conducted by Huestis et al in 20095, from which figure 7 is taken.

Figure 7: Here we see three lines representing THC and its metabolites over time. Vertical arrows indicate when the test subject inhaled cannabinoids.

Because this is an experimental study, researchers first had to document blood levels before the introduction of any cannabinoids. Ten minutes after first inhalation, the graph mirrors figure 6, with decreasing THC levels, increasing COOH-THC levels, and a small bump of OH-THC in between the two.


The next scenario examines the oral ingestion of cannabinoids and how the resulting blood serum levels of THC, OH-THC, and COOH-THC change over time. Feel free to revisit our first article to review anatomical path of orally-ingested cannabinoids.

Figure 8: This graph illustrates the amount of THC and two primary metabolites in a patient's blood over time during ingestion.

In figure 8, at time=0, we see that the patient’s blood serum contains THC and OH-THC at approximately equal levels. THC must pass through the liver before reaching the brain, accounting for the high levels of OH-THC. However, some THC passes through the liver without being metabolized. For this reason, we do not see a complete absence of THC in the patient's blood.

As time progresses, THC continues its conversion into OH-THC, leading to an increased accumulation of OH-THC in the blood. As time passes though, all active THC metabolites are eventually converted to COOH-THC and rendered inactive. If OH-THC is higher potency than THC, it is clear how small doses of ingested THC have strong effects on patients relative to the same dose of inhaled THC.


Now that we are familiar with ingested cannabinoid pharmacokinetics, let’s examine the empirical data from Huestis5.

Figure 9: Lines represent blood concentration levels of THC and its metabolites over time. Note that the concentration of COOH-THC is plotted on a different scale than the other THC metabolites. This is due to COOH-THC's tendency to accumulate in the blood as an inactive product with a slow half-life, yielding higher concentrations than the transient concentrations of THC and OH-THC.

At beginning of the experiment, absorption rates in the blood are high, with OH-THC absorbing at slightly higher levels than THC. Between 5 and 15 hours, THC levels fall off while OH-THC continues to accumulate from THC metabolism. Around 15-25 hours, OH-THC levels fall to zero as it converts into COOH-THC, which also begins to decrease.

The scale covered in this experiment is between 0-2 parts per billion (ppb) in the blood. The concentration of THC-COOH was the only cannabinoid that exceeded 30 ppb. The previous experiment on inhalation was done over a much shorter time interval (minutes), but displayed concentrations ranging from 0-150 ppb. The difference in scales supports the hypothesis that OH-THC has increased potency over THC. However, further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.


DECARBOXYLATION


One important factor for patients who choose oral ingestion is the decarboxylation of THCA into THC. THCA does not have the psychoactive properties of THC, but it provides medical benefits that THC does not, such as anti-inflammatory effects (via inhibition of inflammatory cyclooxygenase (COX-1 and -2) enzymes)6. This distinction is less important for patients who choose inhalation, because the the process of smoking or vaporizing THCA automatically decarboxylates it into THC. An open flame (>300 C or >500F) or red hot nail (approximately 400 C or 750 F) will convert THCA to THC, as will an oven at baking temperature (approximately 177 C or 350 F) with 30-70% efficiency7.

THCA can be decarboxylated with relatively gentle heat outside the body, but once THCA enters the body it follows a different metabolic pathway than THC, and leads to no psychoactive effects. Studies have shown that it is not possible to decarboxylate THCA to THC in vivo8. Once THCA is introduced to the body, it is metabolized and excreted by the body as a metabolite of THCA, not THC or any of its metabolites. The following diagram, figure 10, outlines the relationship between THC and THCA as metabolites in the human body.

Figure 10: If THCA is not decarboxylated, it remains non-psychoactive throughout metabolism. The blue carboxylic acid (COOH) group remains attached to both THCA and its metabolite.

It is important for patients to understand their specific needs from cannabis therapy. If a patient chooses to ingest edible cannabis for their psychoactive effects, it is important that they read the lab testing results of any products they purchase in a dispensary. They should examine the levels of THC, THCA, and other cannabinoids that are relevant to their health. In general, patients looking for psychoactive effects should seek out products with high THC levels and almost no THCA. Conversely, a patient who does not desire the psychoactive effects from cannabis but instead seeks treatment for an inflammation-based or autoimmune-based dysfunction will need to orally ingest THCA, since absorption of THCA through inhalation is not known to be possible. The patient will want to check lab results for products purchased at dispensaries to make sure the level of THC present is low enough to be acceptable, and the level of THCA is adequate.


In Conclusion...


A firm grasp of the science behind cannabinoids and their interactions with the body can help a medical patient, prescribing doctor, or industry professional understand the effects that different routes of administration will have on health, function, and experience. As accidental oral ingestion “overdoses” become more frequent in recreational states, it is important for a patient or recreational user to be aware of how this route of administration will affect their body and mind.

Author’s Note: The term “overdose” appears in quotes because cannabinoids can cause a mentally unpleasant state, but have no known lethal dose associated with them.

As the cannabis industry becomes more aware of the chemistry of both the plant and biochemistry of the human body, it will be better able to serve, and more importantly meet, the needs of all patients and users.


REFERENCES


  1. Huestis MA (June 2009) “Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetics”. Chem Biodivers. 2007 August ; 4(8): 1770–1804. doi:10.1002/cbdv.200790152.
  2. Ruhaak LR, Felth J, Karlsson PC, Rafter JJ, Verpoorte R, Bohlin L (2011), "Evaluation of the cyclooxygenase inhibiting effects of six major cannabinoids isolated from Cannabis sativa", Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 34 (5): 774– 8,doi:10.1248/bpb.34.774, PMID 21532172
  3. Dussy F, et al “Isolation of delta9-THCA-A from hemp and analytical aspects concerning the determination of delta9-THC in cannabis products”. Forensic Science Interanational, Volume 149, Issue 1, 3-10
  4. Jung J, Meyer MR, Maurer HH, Neusüss C, Weinmann W, Auwärter V (Oct 2009), "Studies on the metabolism of the Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol precursor delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (Delta9-THCA-A) in rat using LC-MS/MS, LC-QTOF MS and GC-MS techniques", Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 44 (10): 1423–33, doi:10.1002/jms.1624, PMID 19728318
  5. Pacher, Pál, Sándor Bátkai, and George Kunos. "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy." Pharmacological reviews 58.3 (2006): 389-462.
  6. Röhrich, J., et al. "Concentrations of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-nor-9-carboxytetrahydrocannabinol in blood and urine after passive exposure to cannabis smoke in a coffee shop." Journal of analytical toxicology 34.4 (2010): 196-203.
  7. Schwilke, Eugene W., et al. "Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 11-hydroxy-THC, and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC plasma pharmacokinetics during and after continuous high-dose oral THC." Clinical chemistry 55.12 (2009): 2180-2189.
  8. Takahashi, Harumi, et al. "Population differences in S‐warfarin metabolism between CYP2C9 genotype‐matched Caucasian and Japanese patients." Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 73.3 (2003): 253-263.
  9. Wang, Su-Lan, et al. "Detection of CYP2C9 polymorphism based on the polymerase chain reaction in Chinese." Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 5.1 (1995): 37-42.
  10. Imai, Jun, et al. "Polymorphism of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 gene in Japanese epileptic patients: genetic analysis of the CYP2C9 locus." Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 10.1 (2000): 85-89.
  11. Niwa, Toshiro, Toshifumi Shiraga, and Akira Takagi. "Effect of antifungal drugs on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 activities in human liver microsomes." Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 28.9 (2005): 1805-1808.
  12. Fouts, James R. "Factors influencing the metabolism of drugs in liver microsomes." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 104.1 (1963): 875-880.
  13. Kato, Ryuichi, and James R. Gillette. "Sex differences in the effects of abnormal physiological states on the metabolism of drugs by rat liver microsomes." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 150.2 (1965): 285-291.
  14. Fouts, James R. "Factors influencing the metabolism of drugs in liver microsomes." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 104.1 (1963): 875-880.
  15. Forrester, L. M., et al. "Relative expression of cytochrome P450 isoenzymes in human liver and association with the metabolism of drugs and xenobiotics." Biochemical Journal 281.2 (1992): 359-368.
  16. Kuntzman, R., et al. "Metabolism of drugs and carcinogens by human liver enzymes." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 152.1 (1966): 151-156.
  17. Kuntzman, R., et al. "Metabolism of drugs and carcinogens by human liver enzymes." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 152.1 (1966): 151-156.
  18. Pirola, R. C., and C. S. Lieber. "The energy cost of the metabolism of drugs, including ethanol." Pharmacology 7.3 (1972): 185-196.
  19. Fouts, James R. "The metabolism of drugs by subfractions of hepatic microsomes." Biochemical and biophysical research communications 6.5 (1961): 373-378.
  20. Dixon, Robert L., Larry G. Hart, and James R. Fouts. "The metabolism of drugs by liver microsomes from alloxan-diabetic rats." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 133.1 (1961): 7-11.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

Want to get in touch with Marco? He can be reached via the following methods:

  1. Email: marco@digammaconsulting.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Marco Troiani is one of the founding members of Digamma Consulting and the laboratory manager. He was also the laboratory manager of DB Labs from its founding 2015-2016. His responsibilities included developing detection methods for terpenes and solvents (GC-MS), metals (ICP-MS), pesticides (GC-MS-MS), and Total Yeast and Mold, Total Aerobic Bacteria, Total Coliform Bacteria, and Salmonella spp. in cannabis and associated products.


Smoking vs. Eating Cannabis: The Effects on Patient Health Pt. 2

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In the second article of this series, Marco Troiani of Digamma Consulting continues his explanation of how the human body processes cannabinoids. If you would like to read the previous article, please click here!

Part 1
Part 3

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.


Short on time? You can listen to our harvest Podcast Episode on this article here.


Smoking vs Eating Cannabis: The Effects on Patient Health


Foreword

Cannabis is becoming a popular medicine in the United States for patients wanting to fight a wide variety of diseases and disorders. Cannabis and derived products are used to treat conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), cancer, inflammatory disorders, autoimmune disorders, and a wide variety of psychological disorders, ranging from depression and anxiety to schizophrenia. The majority of medical benefits cannabis consumption provides are due to the presence of cannabinoids that interact with the human endocannabinoid system.


METABOLISM


Metabolism is the process by which a living organism converts one compound into another. OH-THC has psychoactive effects very similar to THC, with some minor distinctions that are still being explored by researchers. Scientists theorize that the differences between OH-THC and THC is the reason that edible and inhalation experiences differ. Before we delve into the effects of OH-THC versus those of THC, let's review where OH-THC comes from and where it goes in the human body.

Figure 4: The conversion of THC into OH-THC in the liver.

OH-THC is produced in the human body by an enzyme called Cytochrome P450 Oxidase 2C9 or CYP2C9 (pronounced: sip-two-cee-nine)1. Enzymes are essentially large molecules that modify specific target molecules. CYP2C9 modifies THC by adding an OH group to it, increasing its water solubility. This change also makes THC easier to excrete from the body through urination.

Although CYP2C9 is found in small amounts in the brain, it is found in significantly higher quantities in the liver. CYP2C9 is responsible for metabolizing serotonin and over 100 pharmaceutical drugs, such as warfarin2. Besides helping to excrete and breakdown, CYP2C9 also uses many of the fats and oils acquired from the diet to synthesize eicosanoids, signaling molecules the body uses for communication, often in regulating inflammation3.

Although OH-THC is psychoactive, the next metabolite down the chain, 11-nor-9-carboxytetrahydrocannabinol, or COOH-THC, is not4. When the body converts all available THC into COOH-THC, the “high” ends. Drug testing kits look for COOH-THC, as it builds up in the body very easily and can take up to one month to completely clear. One study found that urban sewage can have concentrations of COOH-THC as high as 10 part per trillion (ppt), due to excretion after consumption4.

The metabolic pathway from THC to OH-THC to COOH-THC represents the majority of human metabolism of THC, but there are minor metabolites and variants, the largest of which are the 8-OH-THC metabolites5. CYP3A4 metabolizes THC at the 8th carbon instead of the 11, creating 8-OH-THC. Enzymes have been observed oxidizing THC at a variety of carbon locations, creating polyhydroxylated THC derivatives (metabolites). These minor variants are seen in larger quantities in studies on non-human animals. For an overview of human metabolism of THC, see figure 5.


METABOLITES


Figure 5: Different metabolites and pathways in the human body.

The conversion of THC to OH-THC does not reduce the THC’s psychoactivity, and some suspect that OH-THC is actually more potent than an equivalent dose of THC. This hypothesis would explain how a patient who regularly smokes approximately 200 mg of THC, can eat a 50 mg THC edible and feel overly high or overly tired. If OH-THC is more psychoactive, it could explain how 50 mg of THC orally ingested can exceed the effects experienced when 200 mg of THC is being inhaled.

The gradual conversion of THC to OH-THC is thought to be responsible for the delayed onset of some of the effects of cannabis, such as increased appetite, drowsiness and sedation. This is in contrast to the initial effects which can include heightened sensations, euphoria and mental enhancements associated with THC.

In pharmacology, there are many examples of drug metabolites gaining new biological activity after being metabolized. Chemists have discovered over 100 different metabolites of THC, and the effects of only a few are well-studied1. We simply don’t know if other minor metabolites also have psychoactive properties. Aside from possible psychoactivity, cannabinoid metabolites may also interact with other extra-neural signaling pathways, yielding physical effects distinct from those of classical cannabinoids (IE Inflammation).


REFERENCES


  1. Mazur A, Lichti CF, et al (2009) “Characterization of Human Hepatic and Extrahepatic UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase Enzymes Involved in the Metabolism of Classic Cannabinoids”. Drug Metabolism and Disposition. DMD 37:1496–1504, 2009
  2. Rettie AE, Jones JP (2005). "Clinical and toxicological relevance of CYP2C9: drug-drug interactions and pharmacogenetics". Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 45: 477–94.doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.45.120403.095821.PMID 15822186.
  3. Spector AA, Kim HY (Apr 2015). "Cytochrome P450 epoxygenase pathway of polyunsaturated fatty acid metabolism". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1851 (4): 356–65. doi:10.1016/j.bbalip.2014.07.020. PMC 4314516 . PMID 25093613
  4. Ujvary I, Grotenhermen F (2014) “11-Nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol – a ubiquitous yet underresearched cannabinoid. A review of the literature”. Cannabinoids 2014;9(1):1-8
  5. Huestis MA (June 2009) “Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetics”. Chem Biodivers. 2007 August ; 4(8): 1770–1804. doi:10.1002/cbdv.200790152.
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4729039


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

Want to get in touch with Marco? He can be reached via the following methods:

  1. Email: marco@digammaconsulting.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Marco Troiani is one of the founding members of Digamma Consulting and the laboratory manager. He was also the laboratory manager of DB Labs from its founding 2015-2016. His responsibilities included developing detection methods for terpenes and solvents (GC-MS), metals (ICP-MS), pesticides (GC-MS-MS), and Total Yeast and Mold, Total Aerobic Bacteria, Total Coliform Bacteria, and Salmonella spp. in cannabis and associated products.


Ask DryGair: An eMail-In Question and Answer Series

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

What are your HVAC needs? What do you want to know about the Ideal Gas Law or humidity? In this series of contributor articles, Yonatan Peretz and Hadar Fuchs-Rubal of DryGair want to answer your questions about climate control inside your growing facilities or grow operation.


Hadar Fuchs-Rubal | Yonatan Peretz

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.



An eMail-In Question and Answer Series

For the next few months, we intend to publish articles about the effects of humidity on the growing process during the different seasons. We’ll emphasize different options for different growing facilities and how climate is the primary obstacle to the highest quality cannabis. We encourage you to send us any question you may have, and our team will be happy to answer them.

Editor’s Note: If you’d like to reach out to DryGair, feel free to reach them with the contact information listed below.

It is well-known that climate control is essential when growing plants, especially cannabis. Since plants are living, breathing organisms, they adapt to the environment in order to regulate their internal conditions, a process known as homeostasis. The energy and nutrients each plant expends to maintain its homeostasis alters its development and yield

One of the biggest questions that new growers must answer is how to control their environment to maximize plant growth and yield. Nowadays, growers can monitor fine details, such as the humidity and temperatures on plants' leaves and soil. These factors influence growing decisions and yield. A lot of thought and money is invested into the climate controls of a new grow facility.

In our experience, each greenhouse and grow room is different. They can vary by a wide variety of factors, including size, crops, and exterior climate. Additionally, there are many ways to control climate -- from small, localized machines to complicated infrastructure. When choosing appropriate climate controls, growers should carefully consider multiple factors, including:

  1. Covered area in greenhouses
  2. Grow room size
  3. Energy sources
  4. Energy efficiency
  5. Integrated equipment
  6. And more!


About DryGair

DryGair is an Israeli-based company that specializes in humidity control in greenhouses and growing facilities. We provide solutions to the growing requirements of different crops in different countries and climates. Our team has extensive experience in all fields of agriculture, especially the cannabis industry.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

  1. Want to get in touch with DryGair? They can be reached via the following methods:
    1. Website: https://www.drygair.com
    2. Phone: +972-9-7730980
    3. Email: info@drygair.com

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Hadar Fuchs-Rubal is DryGair's Economist and Marketing Manager. Hadar specializes in agriculture and environment economics. Her experience includes economic and business consulting for the private and public sectors- mainly on environment and agriculture subjects.


How to Measure Horticultural Lighting Performance – Part Three

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this series of contributor articles, Tharindu Weeraratne, Ph.D., of Fluence Bioengineering, explains the different tools used to measure horticultural lighting performance.

Tharindu Weeraratne, PhD

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.

In the final installment of our series on measuring horticultural lighting performance, we examine other factors that play a role in horticultural lighting.

If you'd like to read the previous articles, you can find them here:

  1. Part One
  2. Part Two


Electrical Energy Input (Fixture Input Wattage)


The input wattage of horticultural lighting systems is one of the most incorrectly-used metrics to describe the lighting capabilities of a fixture. The input wattage of a fixture doesn’t tell you anything about the fixture’s performance, as two fixtures with same input wattages can, and likely, will have drastically different light outputs (PPF). If a fixture tech spec sheet only shows you the input wattage, then you are still left wondering how many photons that fixture can produce. For example, if a 1000-watt fixture and 500-watt fixture have the same PPF, what would you buy?


Photon Efficacy (PE)


Horticultural lighting systems convert electrical energy into light energy (measured in PPF) just like a fan converts electrical energy into kinetic energy. Photon Efficacy (PE) indicates how efficiently a certain fixture can convert input electrical energy into light energy in the form of PAR (µmol/Joule or µmol/s/watt). In addition to driving the luminaires, input electrical energy may also be used to power drivers, fans, and any other moving parts in a fixture. These extra components decrease Photon Efficacy.

LED performance and lifetime is highly dependent on efficient heat management. As a consequence, efficient passive heat-dissipation techniques are superior to active cooling techniques, because active cooling requires electrical energy input, thereby reducing photon efficacy. Additionally, active cooling lowers the reliability of the lighting fixtures due to the nature of extra components and complex designs that increase the likelihood of component failure.

Fixtures with higher photon efficiencies reduce the total energy required for a grow-operation, reducing electrical operating expenses. They also help grow-operations qualify for energy efficiency rebates, depending on the local power company.


Other Considerations


The Coefficient of Utilization (CU) is the fraction of photons reaching the canopy from a fixture. CU depends on the distance from the fixture to the canopy, fixture light distribution pattern (beam angle), and fixture form factor. A proper lighting simulation will provide a quantitative measure about the CU. Higher CUs reduce light loss and thus are considered more economical. However, there is no magical beam angle that fits all horticultural lighting applications. Depending on the cultivation setup and structural arrangement, optimum lighting layouts must be designed uniquely to achieve maximum CU.

LED fixtures that have proper thermal management techniques differ from HID fixtures in that HID fixtures radiate significantly more heat. This makes HID fixtures unfavorable for close-proximity lighting, as the plant canopy will experience excessive heating and growers will need to compensate with additional cooling units and fans to accommodate for the extra heat on the canopy. This is why most HID fixtures require significant distance between the fixtures and the plant canopy and are not typically suitable for high-density, vertical farming applications.

A vertical farm of leafy greens and herbs in Virginia.

The ability to modulate the PPF of a fixture is a useful tool for precision agriculture. Properly designed LED lighting fixtures provide the ability to control PPF. Light levels can be altered based on crop growth stage and dimming an LED fixture increases its lifespan.

Safety is another important consideration when it comes horticultural lighting fixtures. Fixtures that are properly protected from power surges, excessive dust, and high humidity can save lives and money. Similarly, avoiding the use of harmful chemicals, such as mercury, protect workers and consumers alike.

A lighting fixture is just one item of the total grow-operation equation. The lighting recommendations should tie in with the environmental conditions, growing techniques and financial goals. The right horticultural lighting system is a partnership between lighting manufacturer and the grower that ensures mutual success.


Conclusions


Before selecting your lighting system, do some homework on your crop and business goals. Thoroughly understand lighting requirements in conjunction with other environmental factors. Review all of the aforementioned lighting metrics to select the proper lighting system that meets your goals. Remember, great lighting also comes with great customer support. Reach out and call as many lighting solution providers as you can to get a feel for their knowledge, support, and willingness to help you succeed.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

Want to get in touch with Tharindu? He can be reached via the following methods:

  1. Email: tharindu@fluence.science
  2. Phone: (512) 387-8453

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

Tharindu Weeraratne, PhD, is a horticulture scientist and a plant physiologist working with Fluence Bioengineering.


What is DNA? What is a gene? What is protein?

Do you want to be part of our private, professional community?
Join Now

In this contributor article, Drs. CJ Schwartz and Marie Turner of Marigene Consulting explains the basics of genetics when it comes to cannabis cultivation.

The following is an article produced by a contributing author. Growers Network does not endorse nor evaluate the claims of our contributors, nor do they influence our editorial process. We thank our contributors for their time and effort so we can continue our exclusive Growers Spotlight service.

Society is currently experiencing a revolution. Like the industrial revolution and the computer revolution, we are now experiencing the DNA revolution. The secrets to the vast and amazing abilities of living things, and human health, lie in the DNA code. So what is DNA?

DNA is a molecule, made up of 4 building blocks. These building blocks, called monomers, are referred to as nucleotides. DNA is typically found as long chains called chromosomes within the nucleus of eukaryotic cells. Despite the fact that cells cannot be observed without a microscope, each individual cell contains several feet of DNA, depending on the species. If you laid out all of the DNA in your body end-to-end, it would extend to the moon and back, multiple times.

DNA serves as the basic form of data storage required to encode life. DNA has the capacity to store an enormous amount of data, similar to a computer hardrive, but orders of magnitude more efficient. To illustrate: Computer code is binary and has two choices (0 or 1) per position, while DNA has 4 choices per position (A, C, G, or T). For example, if there are 5 positions, each with 4 choices, you end up with 4 x4 x4 x4 x4 = 45 = 1024 potential combinations. A binary code, on the other hand, would only have 2 x2 x2 x2 x2 = 25 = 32 potential combinations. As you add positions, the differences become exponentially greater. In the Cannabis genome there are 820 million positions or base-pairs of DNA (humans have 3.2 billion). The number of possible combinations is truly incredible!

DNA sequences encode for the 20 amino acids that are used as the building blocks for proteins found within cells. Proteins can be thought of as the basic working units of an organism, similar to the workers in a construction company. The specific biochemical properties and combinations of the individual amino acids determine the function of a protein, while the proteins themselves can be shaped differently to make different structures. THCAS (THCA Synthase) and CBDAS (CBDA Synthase) have very similar amino acid sequences (roughly 90% identical), but the difference in amino acids between the two proteins result in different end products.

Editor's Note: Synthases are proteins that create certain molecules. THCA synthase makes THCA, and CBDA synthase makes CBDA.



Pictured Above: DNA codes for different amino acids which can then be combined into proteins.


A gene is most commonly defined as a DNA sequence that codes for a specific protein. E. coli has about 5000 genes, while more complex organisms have 25,000-30,000 genes. For any given gene, there exists some natural variation, which can result in a protein with a different function (or even no function). Thus, genetic differences (genotype) can result in physical differences (phenotype). The DNA sequence also determines the timing of gene expression to coordinate developmental processes, such as flowering time. In layman’s terms, the DNA sequence is like a building blueprint.


Editor’s Note: Geneticists have a variety of terms they use in genetic parlance. A “P” generation stands for the initial parents of a cross. The “F1” generation means “Filial 1”, or the children of the parents. The “F2” generation means “Filial 2”, or the children of the F1 generation. This can be continued indefinitely.


In any given cannabis strain, certain genes have been brought to the forefront through inbreeding. Strains become increasingly stable by inbreeding, decreasing heterozygosity (two different copies of a specific gene). Crossing two strain often results in hybrid vigor, where the child displays the strengths from each strain and an overall increase in vigor for many traits. When F1 hybrids are allowed to progress to the next generation (F2), there is often a loss in the hybrid vigor, thus clonally-propagated F1 plants are desirable for production. However, the loss of vigor in the F2 also comes with increased variation – which can be the starting material for a breeding program and in fact may produce even better production strains. Proper selection in the F2 and subsequent generations, results in gene combinations that can phenotypically exceed the F1 plants.

Legend: Crossing a pest resistant (Normal) parent (DD) x a sensitive (Lesion) parent (dd) produces identical F1 plants (Dd). In the F2 we can identify stable lines (DD), using DNA sequencing, for further breeding. Thus, pest resistance would be FIXED in this strain.

In the F2 plants, the genes from the parents have been shuffled, due to naturally occurring chromosomal rearrangements, resulting in novel genotypes and phenotypes. Stabilizing a genotype/phenotype is accomplished by sibling crosses (inbreeding) in subsequent generations (F3, F4, etc.), with heterozygosity decreasing with each generation.

With next-generation sequencing technologies, billions of DNA sequences are generated every day, and technologies to understand and make use of these sequences are improving rapidly. This information offers endless possibilities for improving human well-being as well as for breeding better plants with desired traits; it’s simply a matter of finding the right genes.


Editor’s Note: Finding the right combination of genes is not creating GMOs, merely classical breeding! Knowing which plants have which genes can lead to a more efficient and effective breeding program.


Enjoyed the article? Want to continue the conversation?
Join Now

Do you want to receive the next Grower's Spotlight as soon as it's available? Sign up below!


Resources:

  1. Want to get in touch with Marigene Consulting? You can reach them via the following methods:
    1. Website: http://www.marigene.com/
    2. Phone: 970.372.5363
    3. Email: info@marigene.com
  2. Want to learn more about genetics? Please let us know in the survey below.

Do you have any questions or comments?

Feel free to post below!


About the Author

CJ Schwartz has a BS degree in Genetics and Cell Biology from the University of Minnesota and a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin. For the last decade Dr. Schwartz’s research has focused on the genetic differences that control flowering time.