This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this template or visit the project page for details on the project.
Why do people continue to remove URB597 and URB754 from the cannabinoids template? They belong in the group as cannabinoid modulatory substances esp. if Win55,212-2 gets included.
Seems to me that inhibitors (URB597, AM404, URB754) should not be listed as 'cannabinoids.' My impression is that a 'cannabinoid' is anything that binds to cannabinoid receptors ("cannabinoid" means "cannabis-like"). Despite the fact that they cause cannabinoid-receptor mediated effects, inhibitors of enzymes that metabolize endocannabinoids (FAAH, MGL, etc) are not cannabinoids any more than aspirin is a prostaglandin. Roadnottaken 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
PS - check the definition in the intro to the cannabinoid page, it is quite clear. Roadnottaken 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe a new template for these set of drugs ? (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 02:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
i hate to bring up the same point again but to my intuition, a 'cannabinoid' is anything that is cannabis-like and CB receptor antagonists are the opposite. antagonists (AM251, rimonabant, etc) are anti-cannabinergic so i don't really see why they should be included in the 'synthetic cannabinoids' category. they should probably be listed on the template somewhere but this categorization really doesn't seem kosher to me. Roadnottaken (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that at least two other compounds are reported as having been used in smoking blends but have not been listed here as their structure has not been definitively identified, these are a derivative of JWH-018 with a methoxy on the indole ring (as opposed to the naphthyl ring as in JWH-081 or JWH-164) and a derivative of JWH-073 with an extra methyl group at an unidentified position (most likely the 2-position of the indole ring or the 4-position of the naphthyl ring, but could possibly be elsewhere). These will be added when the exact structures are verified by a reliable source. Meodipt (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Were these compounds ever identified and added? Enix150 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No follow-up papers were published that I could find, and given the multitude of synthetic cannabis products available and the wide variety of cannabinoids used as active ingredients, it seems unlikely that further analysis will be forthcoming on these particular batches. However note that in the updated Swedish controlled drug list where RCS-4 was added, they also list JWH-073 as having a 2-methyl substitution (which is incorrect, the code for this derivative is in fact JWH-016 - see Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2000;60(2):133–40.) So presumably "methyl JWH-073" refers to 2-methyl-JWH-073, i.e. JWH-016, but the derivative of JWH-018 with a methoxy group on the indole ring may never be definitively identified. Meodipt (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears as if these might be the same compound, but Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 12 (1977), page 15 shows A-42574 as the 1,1-dimethylheptyl compound, while nabazenil seems to be the 1,2-dimethylheptyl...the original paper that should clear this up (The Pharmacologist 1976;18:136) unfortunately does not appear to be available online. Meodipt (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
