The antimicrobial potential of cannabidiol | Hacker News Reader

The antimicrobial potential of cannabidiol

nature.com

71 pointsostenning20 comments

This is for relatively high concentrations of CBD in isolation. Notably, adding human serum greatly diminishes the effects because the CBD is highly protein bound.

> In line with previous reports, addition of 50% human serum to the assay media abrogated antibacterial activity in our tests (MRSA MIC >256 μg mL−1). This decreased activity is likely due to low levels of free CBD as a result of CBD’s previously reported high levels of protein binding. One publication describes CBD as 86–90% bound in human plasma25, though THC and other cannabinoids have even higher levels of 95–99% binding, primarily to lipoproteins26,27, and the Epidiolex FDA filing indicates >94% protein binding for CBD and its metabolites (with up to >99% depending on method used)28

The concentrations required for efficacy are also generally much higher than typical antibiotics.

This essentially has zero relevance to humans consuming CBD. It's interesting because researchers could potentially use the CBD structure as a hint for developing new antibiotics.

> This essentially has zero relevance to humans consuming CBD

That statement essentially has zero relevance to humans consuming CBD. You cannot extrapolate in vivo from in vitro, not even negatively.

Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates that I'm instantly suspicious that anything like this is overhyped or selectively reported. If it was discovered that the marijuana derivative turned out to be useless in six months, would we even hear about it?

Also, notice that we have an article also on the first page titled "Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?"

> Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates

That is a non-argument. Of course advocates of a good thing will defend their thing on its good merits. But overhyped? Do you understand cannabis has been very actively studied for decades, with the majority of fraudulent studies being heavily against cannabis?

The majority of fraudulent studies have been against cannabis? How do you know that?

Think for a moment about the incentives. We are no longer making ”science” where animals are suffocated by forcing them to inhale smoke for extended periods just to make the results look like marijuana causes brain damage. That particular study was pure bullshit, yet official doctrine was based on the results for decades. These kinds of studies were typically funded by government or public anti-drug entities like NIDA and DARE.

That's an example, I was asking how you know it's a majority. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but you stated it as an obvious fact so I'm just asking how you know.

I’m extrapolating this advanced hunch from the fact that cannabis-related studies have for a long time been funded primarily by the century-old anti-cannabis lobby. The relatively young pro-cannabis lobby has much less prestige, money and power behind it, and thus the incentives to intentionally produce bunk science lay mostly on the anti-cannabis side.

Then there’s the matter of public perception: even obvious falsehoods against cannabis are tolerated in the press when the source is ”scientists”. This is likely due to the falsehoods being in support of opinions entrenched by decades of similar falsehoods being passed as shocking truths. Obviously, pro-cannabis publications suffer the reverse: any falsehoods would get picked apart by the public; hell, even the truths regarding cannabis often get trainwrecked by people who just know better because someone told them a story.

It is absolutely implausible that falsified pro-cannabis articles would outnumber falsified anti-cannabis articles. The monetary incentives and intellectual lenience are not there.

I suspect there probably have been more falsified anti-cannabis articles than pro- ones. But you referenced this as a hard statistic, and you don’t seem to have any evidence, just lots of theory and “it’s obvious” rhetoric. I’m not convinced you would be open to changing your mind even if you were presented evidence to the contrary.

Anyone who is old enough has seen the misinformation surrounding cannabis and the damage that has caused against people of color.

> That is a non-argument.

You're right, but it's still a good idea to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism when something comes out that would benefit a industry/special interest group. There's a lot of activity/attention in the cannabis industry right now and a lot of money at stake. I'd agree that it's not a real argument against any particular study or paper, but it is a pretty good reason to be cautious and pay a little extra attention since there's a long and continuing trend of using research (often very flawed research) in order to promote a product or an industry. It's unfortunate, but until there are adequate protections against those kinds of abuses it's not unreasonable to be a bit pessimistic/skeptical initially.

Are you equally suspicious about supposed positive effects of alcohol?

If we were during Prohibition and journals started publishing articles about the positive effects of alcohol at the time there was a movement to legalize alcohol, sure.

I think I remember being taught in a college biology class that cannabinoids may have evolved as an anti-microbial / anti-insecticide defence. Sort of like capsaicin, or aromatics like lavender.

So this doesn't surprise me, but...it was college. My memory might be flawed.

As far as the evolutionary purpose, it’s worth noting that cannabis produces many of the same terpenes and related chemicals as other common herbs or fruit, including carophyllene (black pepper, cloves), terpinolene (nutmeg, cumin), myrcene (hops, mango), limonene (citrus, rosemary, citronella, cilantro), pinene (conifers, basil) and dozens of others.

The resin glands are also quite sticky when damaged, which could play a role as a physical defense against insects.

I'd think they work against large animals as well. If you were a herbivore mammal and the plant you were eating made you more hungry, thirsty, tired, and sexual, you'd probably stop eating it and go find water/shelter/mate or otherwise wander off in a haze.

And then there's humans, those weirdos, who eat anything no matter how poisonous.

More importantly, we now report for the first time that cannabidiol can selectively kill a subset of Gram-negative bacteria that includes the ‘urgent threat’ pathogen Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

So weed kills the clap?

Topically applied CBD cream might.

Yes, and HCQ/CQ prevents SARSr-CoV viruses from replicating in many useful cell cultures. This does not really mean anything at all, though this is targeting bacteria, at least in theory.

This headline surely would have blown 16 year old me's mind. Regardless, here's hoping we can rapidly identify novel therapies for bacteria that actually also work in vivo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com