Parental Thc Exposure Leads To Altered Striatal Synaptic Plasticity In The Subsequent Generation.

[in vivo]

 

 

Abstract

Recent attention has been focused on the long-term impact of cannabis exposure, for which experimental animal studies have validated causal relationships between neurobiological and behavioral alterations during the individual's lifetime. Here, we show that adolescent exposure to Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component of cannabis, results in behavioral and neurobiological abnormalities in the subsequent generation of rats as a consequence of parental germline exposure to the drug. Adult F1 offspring that were themselves unexposed to THC displayed increased work effort to self-administer heroin, with enhanced stereotyped behaviors during the period of acute heroin withdrawal. On the molecular level, parental THC exposure was associated with changes in the mRNA expression of cannabinoid, dopamine, and glutamatergic receptor genes in the striatum, a key component of the neuronal circuitry mediating compulsive behaviors and reward sensitivity. Specifically, decreased mRNA and protein levels, as well as NMDA receptor binding were observed in the dorsal striatum of adult offspring as a consequence of germline THC exposure. Electrophysiologically, plasticity was altered at excitatory synapses of the striatal circuitry that is known to mediate compulsive and goal-directed behaviors. These findings demonstrate that parental history of germline THC exposure affects the molecular characteristics of the striatum, can impact offspring phenotype, and could possibly confer enhanced risk for psychiatric disorders in the subsequent generation.Neuropsychopharmacology advance online publication, 22 January 2014; doi:10.1038/npp.2013.352.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24385132

 

I guess it's not all fun and games.. I knew this was likely going to be true. A bunch of evidence points to this. Not that anyone here will believe it. Exposure to THC can cause problems in genetic offspring. Chew on that.   

[in vivo]

...

Edited March 21, 2014 by in vivo

[+Malamute]

Vitamin C supplements can increase prostate cancer risk by 30%.

 

Peanuts be killing people.

 

I would want to see who funded the research, amounts used and their double blind statistics on a control group.

 

:-)

[+Malamute]

Hmm, it appears to be the same group that said it caused teenagers to have mental health problems.   That study was thoroughly debunked and the science shown to be faulty.

 

I will hold my judgment.

[t-pain]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/45508-rat-parents-who-get-thc-leads-to-compulsive-heroin-seeking-in-their-offspring-rat-study-says/

 

where ya been invivo?

 

 

[in vivo]

If you believe in endocannabinoid deficiencies by default you pretty much have to believe in this as well. You don't get to have it both ways. It's not just this study. There's a ton of research into the modulation of gene transcription.

 

If they were just talking about the drug seeking behavior that'd be one thing, but the reductions in cannabinoid, dopamine, and glutamate receptors seem difficult to argue. Particularly since CB1 is symmetrically aligned with those other receptors in some areas of the brain and modulate one another. 

 

The two real issues in my mind are expression levels, mice and rats have fewer CB1 receptors in the brain, so I'd imagine that might mean that knocking them back has more severe consequences. But even that argument is only based on a matter of degree and not mechanism.

 

The other issue is that they're using THC rather than a botanical extract. Again though, due to the mechanisms involved, that seems like an argument over degree rather than whether or not it's happening. Unless you'd like to try and make an argument that botanical extracts don't effect gene transcription, your endocannabinoid levels, or the expression level of receptors.     

[t-pain]

you cant study rat behaviors in solitary cages and then extrapolate thats how it works in humans.

 

this is the worst kind of 'science'. your blind belief in every study that comes out is dangerous.

[in vivo]

http://michiganmedic...rat-study-says/ where ya been invivo?

 

 

My bad. I should know better than not to look prior to posting. You've been on top of stuff!

[t-pain]

what else is in the thc that they inject into the rats?

isnt it in some kind of solution? what if that solution is causing any of these effects, including the changes in the brains?

 

what did they feed the rats? how big was the rat population they studied?

sure i'll go along with the premise, that giving rats (how much dose?) of thc could alter their brains and offspring brains.

but how can they know it changes their behaviors based on that ?

[in vivo]

I believed this before I ever read this study. I had a conversation about it with people from this board. Don't worry, they laughed at me too.

[in vivo]

I don't care about the behavior. If you tell your body it doesn't need a regular amount of endocannabinoids or cannabinoid receptors and that gets passed down to offspring it might cause issues (ie clinical endocannabinoid deficiency). What part are you debating?

Edited March 21, 2014 by in vivo

[Restorium2]

I believed this before I ever read this study. I had a conversation about it with people from this board. Don't worry, they laughed at me too.

You hated THC before you ever even read anything because you are predisposed to that for your own personal reasons. So you latch onto a 'maybe possibly' in a study because it's the only thing you could find to hang your hat on. You are a sad excuse for a thinker, but a darned good 'cut and paste' jockey with an evil agenda.

[t-pain]

Exposure to THC can cause problems in genetic offspring.

 

is the part i am debating. did they even hand inject these rats? i've seen rat studies where they implanted an auto injector into their brains connected via a tube. what does constant pain and exposing a brain to random things (molds, plastic bpa chemicals, whatever metal the injector is made out of) do to genetic offspring ? nothing?

 

now i really want to know how they make synthetic thc. i bet no one would touch marinol if they knew.

Edited March 21, 2014 by t-pain

[in vivo]

I wouldn't expect someone as ignorant as you to present an argument less justified. (rest)

Edited March 21, 2014 by in vivo

[Restorium2]

I wouldn't expect someone as ignorant as you to present an argument less justified. (rest)

What? No cut and paste? LOL

[in vivo]

I think they normally buy THC from Sigma or GW Pharm. I don't believe that it's synthetic.

 

What's your debate? I don't here you discussing the fact that exogenous cannabinoids modulate the ECS and gene transcription. 

 

If you read Russo's paper on clinical endocannabinoid deficiencies he discusses this likelihood as a possibility. That was prior to understanding the role of gene transcription.  

[in vivo]

...

Edited March 21, 2014 by in vivo

[Restorium2]

Go cook some extract at 400 degrees to get your CBC you sad old man.

315 F. But that idea was just for you and your THC hater parade. THC is valued by everyone real.

[t-pain]

I think they normally buy THC from Sigma or GW Pharm. I don't believe that it's synthetic.

you are assuming a hell of a lot. a lot of the research good or bad for thc also does this 'we assume' crap.

heres an idea, throw out every single study that contains the word 'assume' and 'estimate' and see what we're left with.

 

What's your debate? I don't here you discussing the fact that exogenous cannabinoids modulate the ECS and gene transcription. 

you said yourself that a book on the ECS does not even exist yet because it would be outdated as soon as it were printed.

we are just at the beginner stages of understanding this system, and the science has been tainted by its connection with marijuana research.

 

the only study that comes to mind is the study of jamaican babies from mothers who smoked marijuana.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1957518

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8121737

more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Dreher%20MC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=3353135

 

 

If you read Russo's paper on clinical endocannabinoid deficiencies he discusses this likelihood as a possibility. That was prior to understanding the role of gene transcription.  

theres a 'possibility' of rats flying out of my butt too.

[in vivo]

You guys are right. Science is bogus. Weed is miracle from god. I'll be on my merry way now. Enjoy yourselves.

[t-pain]

i'm not trying to attack you invivo.

 

but i wish you would follow the scientific method.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edited March 21, 2014 by t-pain

[t-pain]

one of the reasons to distrust nida funded studies is the marijuana kills brain cells study done on chimps.

 

 

Myth: Pot Kills Brain Cells

Government experts now admit that pot doesn’t kill brain cells. This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis. This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International. Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology. Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence. It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

 

it took 30 years to finally get scientists to agree that marijuana doesnt kill brain cells.

the urban myth that pot kills brain cells will probably exist forever.

 

those other animal studies directly conflict with this study. they even tested humans in jamaica and costa rica and found no abnormalities.

 

but i'm getting too lazy to dig all of these studies up. need coffee.

[Restorium2]

You guys are right. Science is bogus. Weed is miracle from god. I'll be on my merry way now. Enjoy yourselves.

I believed this (THC is bad) before I ever read this study.

I studied you and found that you are lacking in the 'impartial' department. So much so that you can't even understand what you are 'cutting and pasting'. You do not even compare what you are reading with actual patient accounting to understand the errors in the studies. You just drink the color coolaid you are looking for.

[t-pain]

I think they normally buy THC from Sigma or GW Pharm. I don't believe that it's synthetic.

 

dont think i've seen anyone claim to be able to make pure thc from botanical marijuana.

extracts contain chlorophyll, thats why most oil is green, even sativex is green.

[t-pain]

another study popped into my head.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/booming/revisiting-the-crack-babies-epidemic-that-was-not.html

 

the crack baby myth. after 25 years finally debunked. it was all based on a bad research study.

scientists now agree cocaine use by a mother doesnt affect the offspring. and thats in humans.