Canna~Fangled Abstracts

Cannabinoid Ester Constituents from High-Potency Cannabis sativa

By February 28, 2008 No Comments
Logo of nihpa

J Nat Prod. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 27.
Published in final edited form as:

Published online 2008 Feb 28. doi:  10.1021/np070454a

PMCID: PMC4883103
NIHMSID: NIHMS787122

Abstract

PM thumb siteEleven new cannabinoid esters, together with three known cannabinoid acids and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), were isolated from a high-potency variety of Cannabis sativa. The structures were determined by extensive spectroscopic analyses to be β-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (1), epi-bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (2), α-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (3), 4-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (4), α-cadinyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (5), γ-eudesmyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (6), γ-eudesmyl cannabigerolate (7), 4-terpenyl cannabinolate (8), bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (9), α-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (10), α-cadinyl cannabigerolate (11), Δ9-tetrahydro-cannabinol (Δ9-THC), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (Δ9-THCA), cannabinolic acid A (CBNA), and cannabigerolic acid (CBGA). Compound 8 showed moderate antimicrobial activity against Candida albicans ATCC 90028 with an IC50 value of 8.5 μg/mL. CB-1 receptor assay indicated that the esters, as well as the parent acids, are not active.

The family Cannabaceae is currently recognized as containing only one genus, namely, Cannabis, which includes only one highly variable species: Cannabis sativa L. Other previously reported species include Cannabis indica Lam. and Cannabis ruderalis Janisch. Plants considered to have belonged to these species are now recognized as varieties of C. sativa L. (var. indica and var. ruderalis, respectively). C. sativa L. has been used by humans for thousands of years, providing fiber for spinning and making paper, seed for human and animal consumption, and aromatic resin for medicinal use. The chemotypes of C. sativa L. can be divided into drug type (marijuana), intermediate type, and fiber type (hemp), with the tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) content ranging from 1 to 20%, 0.3–1.0%, and <0.3%, respectively.13

Cannabis is very complex in its chemistry due to the vast number of its constituents and their possible interaction with one another. The compounds reported include many natural product classes, e.g., mono- and sesquiterpenes, sugars, hydrocarbons, steroids, flavonoids, nitrogenous compounds, and amino acids.410 The best-known and the most specific group of compounds found in cannabis is the C21 terpenophenolics, the cannabinoids, with (−)-Δ9trans-(6aR,10aR)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) being the most psychoactive constituent.11 The development of synthetic cannabinoids and the discovery of chemically different endogenous cannabinoid receptor ligands (endocannabinoids) have prompted the use of the term “phytocannabinoids” to describe these compounds.12 The class cannabinoids can be divided into 11 groups: cannabigerol type (7 known), cannabichromene type (5 known), cannabidiol type (7 known), (−)-Δ9trans-tetrahydrocannabinol type (9 known), (−)-Δ8trans-tetrahydrocannabinol type (2 known), cannabicyclol type (3 known), cannabielsoin type (5 known), cannabinol type (7 known), cannabinodiol type (2 known), cannabitriol type (9 known), and miscellaneous type (14 known).7

The medicinal properties of Cannabis have been much debated from scientific and political points of view, and the subject has lost and gained interest over the years. After the discovery of the primary active constituent in marijuana, Δ9-THC, in 1964,13 various clinical trials were undertaken to determine its efficacy as an analgesic,14 antiemetic,15antidepressant,16 and appetite suppressant17 and for the treatment of glaucoma18 and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.19 The onset of HIV as a worldwide problem refocused marijuana as a possible symptom management drug and led to the discovery of the endocannabinoid (endogenous cannabinoid) system.20

Features of this system include that cannabinoids act through receptors, that there are at least two types of receptors (CB121 and CB222), and that there are endogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists (ligands). The CB1 receptor, uniquely recognized by cannabinoids, is found in brain and peripheral tissue of the central nervous system (CNS),23while the CB2 receptor is primarily found outside the CNS in tissues associated with immune function.24

The availability of high-potency marijuana on the illicit market with unprecedented Δ9-THC concentrations (>20% by dry weight)25 has renewed our interest in the discovery of new constituents from C. sativa L. We herein report the isolation and structure elucidation of 11 new esters from a high-potency variety of cannabis. These esters are β-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (1), epi-bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (2), α-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (3), 4-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (4), α-cadinyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (5), γ-eudesmyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (6), γ-eudesmyl cannabigerolate (7), 4-terpenyl cannabinolate (8), bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (9), α-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (10), and α-cadinyl cannabigerolate (11). In addition, four known cannabinoids were isolated, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (Δ9-THCA), cannabinolic acid A (CBNA), and cannabigerolic acid (CBGA). All isolated compounds were evaluated for antimicrobial and antimalarial activity, as well as CB-1 receptor binding.

Results and Discussion

Cannabis plant material was sequentially extracted with hexanes, CH2Cl2, EtOAc, EtOH, EtOH/H2O, and H2O. The hexanes extract was subjected to vacuum liquid chromatography (VLC) on flash silica gel. Fractions were combined according to their TLC profiles and chromatographed using flash silica gel eluting with hexanes. Fractions with Rf higher than Δ9-THC were combined and purified by flash silica gel and Sephadex LH-20 chromatography, followed by final purification by semipreparative reversed-phase (RP) and chiral HPLC. This yielded 11 new esters (111).

The spectroscopic data of 16, 9, and 10 were similar to that of Δ9-THCA, with the characteristic four methyls resonating at δ 1.67 (3H, s, H-11), 1.43 (3H, s, H-13), 1.09 (3H, s, H-12), and 0.88 (3H, t, J = 6.4 Hz, H-5′), an aromatic proton signal at δ 6.23 (1H, s, H-4), and a broad olefinic resonance at δ 6.41 (1H, s, H-10) for 1 (Table 1).26 Significant differences between these compounds and Δ9-THCA were observed in the NMR spectra, in which the carbonyl resonance was shifted upfield from δ 176.4 to δ 173.6 and the OH resonance shifted downfield from δ 12.18 to δ 12.72. These findings, together with an IR absorption band at 1718 cm−1 (ester C=O), indicated that compounds 16, 9, and 10 are Δ9-THCA esters.

Table 1

1H NMR Data (δ) for Δ9-THCA Esters 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 in CDCl3 (J in Hz)
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms787122u1.jpg

Compound 1 was obtained as a colorless oil, and its molecular formula was determined to be C32H46O4 by HRESIMS (m/z 495.3532 [M + H]+), representing 10 degrees of unsaturation. The 13C NMR spectrum of 1 revealed 32 carbon resonances, of which 22 corresponded to the Δ9-THCA moiety (assigned through 2J and 3J HMBC correlations). A comparison between the 13C NMR spectra of 1 and Δ9-THCA revealed that the carbon resonances were almost identical, except for an upfield chemical shift of the carbonyl signal from δ 176.4 to δ 173.6. The 10 additional signals were assigned to an oxymethine carbon of the ester moiety at δ 89.6 (C-1″) and three methyl, three methylene, one methine, and two quaternary carbons. The HMBC spectrum of 1 displayed correlation between H-1″ (δH4.70, s) and the carbonyl carbon (δC 173.6), indicating that 1 was a monoterpenol Δ9-THCA ester. HMQC and HMBC data suggested that the monoterpenol moiety was fenchol, in which the position of the oxygenated methine (δC 89.6, δH 4.70, s) was confirmed by HMBC correlations between H3-8″/C-1″ (3JCH), H3-9″/C-1″ (3JCH), and H3-10″6/C-1″ (3JCH). The structure was confirmed by GC-MS: compound 1 spontaneously hydrolyzed and decarboxylated on injection to give Δ9-THC and a monoterpenol. The monoterpenol was identified as β-fenchol by library search (NIST), by retention time comparison with an authentic sample, and by comparison with published mass spectra.27 The trimethylsilyl derivative of 1 showed a molecular ion at m/z 566 in the GC-MS, confirming the HRESIMS result and the presence of one phenolic group. Full assignments of the 1H and 13C NMR resonances were completed via analysis of the COSY, HMQC, HMBC, and ROESY spectra (Tables 1 and and2,2, Figure 1), confirming as β-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate.

Figure 1

Important HMBC (arrows) and COSY (bold) correlations of 1.
Table 2

13C NMR Data (δ) for Δ9-THCA Esters 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 in CDCl3

Compounds 26, 9, and 10 were isolated as oily compounds, with 1H NMR (Table 1), 13C NMR (Table 2), and GC-MS data similar to the data for 1, indicating that they also were Δ9-THCA esters. Analyses of the spectroscopic data in the manner described above for 1 led to the structure elucidation of these compounds as epi-bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (2), α-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (3), 4-terpenyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (4), α-cadinyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (5), γ-eudesmyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (6), bornyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (9), and α-fenchyl Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolate (10).

The spectroscopic data of 7 and 11 were in accordance with that of CBGA.28 The 1H NMR spectrum for 11 displayed three methyl resonances at δ 1.58 (3H, s, H-8), 1.68 (3H, s, H-9), and 1.83 (3H, s, H-10), three methylenes at δ 2.11 (2H, m, H-5), 2.21 (2H, m, H-4), and 3.44 (2H, d, J) 7.0 Hz, H-1), and two olefinic proton resonances at δ 5.07 (1H, t, J) 6.4 Hz, H-6) and 5.28 (1H, t, J = 7.0 Hz, H-2), attributed to a geranyl substituent. It also displayed an aromatic proton signal at δ 6.23 (1H, s, H-4′). Detailed analyses of the spectroscopic data indicated that 7 and 11 were CBGA esters.

Compound 11 was obtained as a colorless oil, and its molecular formula was determined to be C37H56O4 by HRESIMS (m/z 563.4122 [M – H]), representing 10 degrees of unsaturation. The 13C NMR spectrum of 11 revealed 22 carbon resonances almost identical to those of CBGA, except for an upfield chemical shift of the carbonyl carbon from δ 176.2 to δ 171.3. The spectrum showed 15 additional carbon resonances attributed to an oxygenated quaternary carbon at δ 85.0 (C-1‴) and four methyl, four methylene, five methine, and one quaternary carbon, indicating that 11 is a sesquiterpenol CBGA ester. GC-MS analysis spontaneously hydrolyzed and decarboxylated 11 to give CBG and a sesquiterpenol. The sesquiterpenol was initially identified as a cadinol isomer via a library search (NIST) and was subsequently found to be α-cadinol through retention time comparison with an authentic sample and by comparison with published mass spectra.27GC-MS analysis of the trimethylsilyl derivative of 11 yielded a molecular ion at m/z 636, confirming the presence of one phenolic group in 11. Therefore, the structure of 11 was assigned as α-cadinyl cannabigerolate.

The structure of 7 was similarly elucidated as γ-eudesmyl cannabigerolate based on 1H NMR,29 HRESIMS, GC-MS, trimethylsilyl derivatization, and IR data.

The spectroscopic data of 8 were in accordance with that of CBNA, displaying characteristic aromatic protons at δ 8.46 (1H, s, H-10), 7.14 (1H, d, J = 7.8, H-7), and 7.09 (1H, d, J = 7.8, H-8)30 and carbons at δ 127.3 (C-10), 122.5 (C-7), and 128.2 (C-8), indicating, in conjunction with HRESIMS, GC-MS, trimethylsilyl derivatization, and IR data, that 8 was a CBNA ester. Compound 8 was obtained as a yellow oil, and its molecular formula was determined to be C32H42O4 by HRESIMS (m/z 513.2133 [M + Na]+), representing 12 degrees of unsaturation. The 13C NMR spectrum revealed 22 carbon resonances corresponding to the CBNA moiety, with only an upfield shift of the carbonyl group from δ 176.2 to δ 171.9. Compound 8 showed 10 additional carbon resonances due to an oxygenated sp3 quaternary carbon at δ 89.0 (C-1″) and three methyl, three methylene, two methine, and one sp2 quaternary carbon, indicating that 8 was a monoterpenol CBNAester. GC-MS analysis gave CBN and the liberated monoterpenol. The alcohol was identified as a terpineol isomer via a library search (NIST) and was subsequently found to be 4-terpineol through retention time comparison with an authentic sample and by comparison with published mass spectra.27 GC-MS analysis of the trimethylsilyl derivative of 8 yielded a molecular ion at m/z 562, confirming the HRESIMS result. On the basis of these observations, 8 was assigned as 4-terpenyl cannabinolate.

In identifying the mono- and sesquiterpene moieties of these esters, an extensive search was undertaken to determine whether these terpenols have previously been found in Cannabis. This was problematic, since in most cases only a general identification was made. For example, fenchol is reported in eight publications as a volatile oil constituent of cannabis, without any indication of stereochemistry, with β-fenchol being reported in two publications31,32 and α-fenchol not being reported. All reports for borneol are for (±)-endo-borneol,32 as in 9; however 2, which is a C-1″ epimer of borneol, has not been reported before. (±)-α-Terpineol has been reported in numerous publications,32 with only two publications giving the absolute configuration as (−)-(S), although identification was achieved only via GC-MS analysis. (±)-4-Terpineol has also been reported in a number of publications, without any indication of stereochemistry.32 Cadinol has been reported as the epi-α-isomer (τ-cadinol);33 however based on GC-MS library data,27 5 and 11 were identified as α-cadinol esters. γ-Eudesmol has been reported before.32,34

Although the cannabis plant has been studied extensively over the past four decades, this is, to the best of our knowledge, the first phytochemical analysis of a high-potency material,25and the first newly isolated cannabinoids since 1995,7 indicating that the high-potency nature of the plant material could open the field to the isolation of other new metabolites.

Biological Activity

The isolated compounds were evaluated for antimicrobial activity35 (Candida albicansATCC 90028, Escherichia coli ATCC 35218, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Mycobacterium intracellulare ATCC 23068, and Aspergillus fumigat ATCC 90906), as well as antimalarial activity [Plasmodium falciparum (D6 clone) and Plasmodium falciparum(W2 clone)].35 The isolated esters and the parent acids were tested for their binding affinity to CB-1 receptor.36

Compound 8 showed moderate antimicrobial activity against C. albicans ATCC 90028, with an IC50 value of 8.5 μg/mL, and mild antimalarial activity gainst P. falciparum (D6 clone) and P. falciparum (W2 clone), with IC50 values of 2.7 and 2.4 μg/mL, respectively. CB-1 receptor binding assay indicated that the esters, as well as the parent acids, are not active.

Experimental Section

General Experimental Procedures

1D and 2D NMR spectra were recorded in CDCl3 on a Bruker Avance DPX-500 spectrometer and on a Varian AS 400 spectrometer. IR spectra were recorded on a Bruker Tensor 27 spectrophotometer. UV spectra were obtained on a Varian Cary 50 Bio UV–visible spectrophotometer. Optical rotations were measured at ambient temperature using a Rudolph Research Analytical Autopol IV automatic polarimeter. HRESIMS was obtained using a Bruker Bioapex FTMS in ESI mode.

TLC was carried out on aluminum-backed plates precoated with silica gel F254 (20 × 20 cm, 200 μm, 60 Å, Merck) and on glass-backed plates precoated with C18 silica gel F254(10 × 10 cm, 200 μm, 60 Å, 11% carbon loading, Silicycle). Visualization was accomplished by spraying with Fast Blue B salt (0.5% w/w in H2O) or p-anisaldehyde [0.5 mL in glacial acetic acid (50 mL) and H2SO4 (97%, 1 mL)] spray reagent followed by heating. Flash silica gel (40–63 μm, 60 Å, Silicycle) and SiliaBond C18 silica gel (40–63 μm, 60 Å, 17% carbon loading, Silicycle) were used for column chromatography. Analytical HPLC was performed on a Waters 2695 separations module [Empower Pro 2 software (Build 2154)] connected to a Waters 2996 photodiode array (PDA) detector (190–500 nm) and a Sedere Sedex 75 evaporative light scattering (ELS) detector (3.5 psi N2, 50 °C) using a Phenomenex Luna C18(2) column (150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, 100 Å) [MeCN (100%), 1.0 mL/min], a Phenomenex Luna Silica (2) column (150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, 100 Å) [n-hexane/EtOH (99:1), 1.0 mL/min], and a Regis (R,R)-DACH DNB 10/100 chiral column (250 × 4.6 mm, 10 μm, 100 Å) [n-hexane/EtOH (99:1), 1.0 mL/min]. Semipreparative HPLC was performed on a Waters Delta Prep 4000 preparative chromatography system [Empower Pro Software (Build 1154)] connected to a Waters 486 tunable absorbance detector (206 nm) using a Phenomenex Luna C18(2) column (250 × 21.2 mm, 5 μm, 100 Å) [MeCN (100%), 35.4 mL/min], a Phenomenex Luna Silica (2) column (250 × 21.2 mm, 5 μm, 100 Å) [n-hexane/EtOH (99:1), 35.4 mL/min], and a Regis (R,R)-DACH DNB 10/100 chiral column (250 × 10 mm, 10 μm, 100 Å) [n-hexane/EtOH (99:1), 35.4 mL/min].

GC-MS analyses were carried out on a ThermoQuest Trace 2000 GC, equipped with a single split/splitless capillary injector, a ThermoQuest AS2000 autosampler, and a Phenomenex ZB-5 column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm), interfaced to a ThermoQuest-Finnigan Trace MS quadrupole detector. The injector temperature was 250 °C, and 1 μL injections were performed in splitless mode, with the splitless time set at 60 s, the split flow set at 50 mL/min, and the septum purge valve set to close 60 s after the injection occurred. The oven temperature was raised from 70 to 270 °C (hold 20 min) at a rate of 5 °C/min, for a total run time of 60 min; the transfer line temperature was 250 °C. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a constant pressure of 20 psi. The mass spectrometer was operated in the electron impact mode (EI+) and scanned from 40 to 800 amu at 1 scan/s, with an ionizing voltage of 70 eV and an emission current of 350 μA. Data were recorded using an IBM Netfinity 3000 workstation with Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 operating system (Build 1381, Service pack 6) and Xcalibur data acquisition and analysis software (Version 1.2). The NIST Mass Spectral Search Program (Version 1.7, Build 11/05/1999) for the NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library was employed to assist in the identification of the mono- and sesquiterpenols.

Mono- and sesquiterpene reference standards, including DL-isoborneol, (−)-borneol, (+)-fenchol, β-terpineol, α-terpineol, (−)-4-terpineol, (+)-4-terpineol, and cadinol, were purchased from Acros Organics (Morris Plains, NJ), Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, MA), Chem-SampCo (Trenton, NJ), Sigma (St. Louis, MO), Aldrich (Milwaukee, WI), Fluka (St. Louis, MO), and MicroSource Discovery Systems (Gaylordsville, CT). Solutions (1 mg/mL) were prepared in CH2Cl2 for GC-MS analysis.

Plant Material

Plants were grown from high-potency Mexican C. sativa seeds (variety code CHPF-01). Whole buds of mature female plants were harvested, air-dried, manicured, packed in barrels (# 1196), and stored at low temperature (−24 °C).

Extraction and Isolation

The plant material (9.0 kg) was sequentially extracted with hexanes (2 × 60 L), CH2Cl2 (48 L), EtOAc (40 L), EtOH (37.5 L), EtOH/H2O (36 L, 1:1), and H2O (40 L) at room temperature. The extracts were evaporated under reduced pressure at 40 °C to afford hexanes (1.48 kg), CH2Cl2 (0.15 kg), EtOAc (0.13 kg), EtOH (0.09 kg), EtOH/H2O (0.77 kg), and H2O (0.54 kg) extracts for a total extract of 3.16 kg (35.1%, w/w).

The hexanes extract (0.96 kg) was subjected to VLC on flash silica gel eluting with a hexanes, EtOAc, and MeOH gradient. Reversed-phase column chromatography of VLC fraction 4 (hexanes gradient) (7 g) using MeOH as eluent, followed by pooling of fractions with Rf higher than Δ9-THC according to silica gel TLC (hexanes/EtOAc, 9:1) and final purification by semipreparative C18 HPLC, afforded 1 (4 mg, tR) 30 min), 2 (15 mg, tR) 29 min), fraction A (18 mg, tR) 22 min), and fraction B (6 mg, tR) 24 min).

Final purification of fractions A and B through semipreparative chiral HPLC afforded 3 (0.5 mg, tR) 3 min), 4 (6 mg, tR) 3.5 min), 5 (3.8 mg, tR) 4.8 min), 6 (0.7 mg, tR) 15 min), 7 (0.6 mg, tR) 14 min) and 8 (1.3 mg, tR) 20 min) and 9 (1.5 mg, tR) 4 min), 10 (2 mg, tR) 4.5 min), and 11 (1 mg, tR) 17 min), respectively.

Fractions with Rf similar to or lower than Δ9-THC according to silica gel TLC (hexanes/EtOAc, 75:25) were combined and purified by flash silica gel chromatography (hexanes, 100%), followed by final purification by semipreparative silica HPLC, to afford Δ9-THC (250 mg), Δ9-THCA (150 mg), CBNA (5 mg), and CBGA (40 mg).

Δ9-THC,26 Δ9-THCA,26 CBNA,30 and CBGA28 were identified by comparison with published data; however, this is the first time full NMR data are reported for CBNA.

GC-MS Trimethylsilyl Derivatization

Dried samples (ca. 100 μg) were treated with pyridine (5 μL, silylation grade, Pierce) and BSTFA [N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide] (100 μL, 98+%, Acros Organics), followed by heating at 75 °C for 1 h. After cooling to room temperature, CH2Cl2 (0.9 mL) was added to the reaction mixture and the solution analyzed by GC-MS.

β-Fenchyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (1): colorless oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +363.2 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3404, 2930, 1718, 1638, 1568, 1314, 1013 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Tables 1 and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 495.3532 [M + H]+ (calcd for C32H47O4, 495.3474).

epi-Bornyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (2): yellow oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +89.9 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3404, 2941, 1718, 1638, 1568, 1457, 1015 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Tables 1 and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 493.3322 [M − H] (calcd for C32H45O4, 493.3318).

α-Terpenyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (3): yellow oil; Rf) 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +115.6 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax3404, 2941, 1718, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1015 cm−1; HRESIMS m/z 493.3304 [M − H] (calcd for C32H45O4 493.3318).

4-Terpenyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (4): yellow oil; Rf) 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +118.0 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax3404, 2941, 1718, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1189 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Tables 1and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 493.3335 [M − H] (calcd for C32H45O4, 493.3318).

α-Cadinyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (5): yellow oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +175.6 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax3410, 2915, 1718, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1110 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Tables 1and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 561.3958 [M − H] (calcd for C37H53O4, 561.3944).

γ-Eudesmyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (6): colorless oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +125.1 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3410, 2915, 1718, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1110 cm−1; for 1H NMR, see Table 1; HRESIMS m/z 561.3946 [M − H] (calcd for C37H53O4, 561.3944).

γ-Eudesmyl Cannabigerolate (7): colorless oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D+136.2 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 220, 205 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3420, 2915, 1717, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1110 cm−1; for 1H NMR, see Table 3; HRESIMS m/z563.4120 [M − H] (calcd for C37H55O4, 563.4100).

Table 3

1H and 13C NMR Data (δ) for CBGA Esters 7 and 11and CBNA Ester 8 in CDCl3 (J in Hz)

4-Terpenyl Cannabinolate (8): yellow oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +100.0 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 225, 205 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3446, 2920, 2815, 1716, 1636, 1541, 1457, 1418, 1067 cm−1; 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Table 3; HRESIMS m/z 513.2963 [M + Na]+ (calcd for C32H42O4Na, 513.2981).

Bornyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (9): yellow oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +156.2 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax3404, 2941, 1718, 1638, 1568, 1457, 1015 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, Tables 1 and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 493.3330 [M − H] (calcd for C32H45O4, 493.3318).

α-Fenchyl Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolate (10): colorless oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D +363.2 (c 0.1, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 230 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3404, 2930, 1718, 1638, 1568, 1314, 1013 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, Tables 1 and and2,2, respectively; HRESIMS m/z 495.3499 [M + H]+ (calcd for C32H47O4, 495.3474).

α-Cadinyl Cannabigerolate (11): colorless oil; Rf = 0.9 (hexanes/EtOAc, 98:2); [α]25D+136.2 (c 0.05, CHCl3); UV (EtOH) λmax 312 (sh), 265, 220, 205 nm; IR (neat) νmax 3420, 2915, 1717, 1610, 1568, 1457, 1110 cm−1; for 1H NMR and 13C NMR, see Table 3; HRESIMS m/z 563.4122 [M − H] (calcd for C37H55O4, 563.4100).

Supplementary Material

SI

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (contract #N01DA-5-7746) and by the Center of Research Excellence in Natural Products Neuroscience, The University of Mississippi (contract #1P20RR021929-01).

Footnotes

Supporting Information Available: HRESIMS, GC-MS, GC-MS trimethylsilyl derivatization, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and selected 2D NMR spectra for compound 1. HPLC chromatograms of isolated compounds. GC-MS data of isolated compounds. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

References and Notes

1. Grotenhermen F, Russo E. In: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, editors. The Haworth Press Inc; Binghamton, NY: 2002. pp. xxvii–xxxi. Definitions and Explanations.
2. Clarke RC, Watson DP. In: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, editors. The Haworth Press Inc; Binghamton, NY: 2002. pp. 3–14. Chapter 1 – Botany of Natural Cannabis Medicines.
3. Clarke RC, Watson DP. In: Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. ElSohly MA, editor. Humana Press Inc; Totowa, NJ: 2007. pp. 1–16. Chapter 1 – Cannabis and Natural Cannabis Medicines.
4. ElSohly MA, Turner CE. Pharm Weekbl. 1976;111:1069–1075.
5. Turner CE, ElSohly MA, Boeren EG. J Nat Prod. 1980;43:169–234. [PubMed]
6. Ross SA, ElSohly MA. Zagazig J Pharm Sci. 1995;4:1–10.
7. ElSohly MA, Slade D. Life Sci. 2005;78:539–548. [PubMed]
8. Pate DW. In: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, editors. The Haworth Press Inc; Binghamton, NY: 2002. pp. 15–26. Chapter 2 -Taxonomy of Cannabinoids.
9. ElSohly MA. In: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Grotenhermen F, Russo E, editors. The Haworth Press Inc; Binghamton, NY: 2002. pp. 27–36. Chapter 3 -Chemical Constituents of Cannabis.
10. Brenneisen R. In: Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. ElSohly MA, editor. Humana Press Inc; Totowa, NJ: 2007. pp. 17–50. Chapter 2 – Chemistry and Analysis of Phytocannabinoids and Other Cannabis Constituents.
11. Mechoulam R, Gaoni Y. Fortschr Chem Org Naturst (Prog Chem of Org Nat Prod) 1967;25:175–213. [PubMed]
12. Pate D. PhD Thesis. University of Kuopio; Kuopio, Finland: 1999. Anandamide structure—activity relationships and mechanisms of action on intraocular pressure in the normotensive rabbit model.
13. Gaoni Y, Mechoulam R. J Am Chem Soc. 1964;86:1646–1647.
14. Roberts JD, Gennings C, Shih M. Eur J Pharmacol. 2006;530:54–58. [PubMed]
15. Darmani NA, Johnson JC. Eur J Pharmacol. 2004;488:201–212. [PubMed]
16. Sofia RD, Kubena RK, Barry H. Psychopharmacologia. 1973;31:121–130. [PubMed]
17. Mannila J, Jaervinen T, Jaervinen K, Tervonen J, Jarho P. Life Sci. 2006;78:1911–1914.[PubMed]
18. Plange N, Arend KO, Kaup M, Doehmen B, Adams H, Hendricks S, Cordes A, Huth J, Sponsel WE, Remky A. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:173–174. [PubMed]
19. Parker LA, Kwiatkowska M, Mechoulam R. Physiol BehaV. 2006;87:66–71. [PubMed]
20. Raymon LP, Walls HC. In: Marijuana and the Cannabinoids. ElSohly MA, editor. Humana Press Inc; Totowa, NJ: 2007. pp. 97–123. Chapter 5 – Pharmacology of Cannabinoids.
21. Devane WA, Dysarz FA, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, Howlett AC. Mol Pharmacol. 1988;34:605–613. [PubMed]
22. Munro S, Thomas KL, Abu-Shaar M. Nature. 1993;365:61–65. [PubMed]
23. Barth F. Annu Rep Med Chem. 2005;40:103–118.
24. Ashton JC, Giass M. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2007;5:73–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. ElSohly MA, Ross SA, Mehmedic Z, Arafat R, Yi B, Banahan BF. J Forensic Sci. 2000;45:24–30. [PubMed]
26. Choi YH, Hazekamp A, Peltenburg-Looman AMG, Frederich M, Erkelens C, Lefeber AWM, Verpoorte R. Phytochem Anal. 2004;15:345–354. [PubMed]
27. Adams RP. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. 4th. Allured; IL: 2007.
28. Radwan MM, Ross SA, Slade D, Ahmed SA, Zulfiqar F, ElSohly MA. Planta Med. 2008;74:1–6.
29. Barton DHR, Beloeil JC, Billion A, Boivin J, Lallemand JY, Lelandais P, Mergui S. Helv Chim Acta. 1987;70:2187–2200.
30. Bastola KP, Hazekamp A, Verpoorte R. Planta Med. 2007;73:273–275. [PubMed]
31. Hillig KW. Biochem Syst Ecol. 2004;32:875–891.
32. Ross SA, ElSohly MA. J Nat Prod. 1996;59:49–51. [PubMed]
33. Tognolini M, Barocelli E, Ballabeni V, Bruni R, Bianchi A, Chiavarini M, Impicciatore M. Life Sci. 2006;78:1419–1432. [PubMed]
34. Brenneisen R, ElSohly MA. J Forensic Sci. 1988;33:1385–1404. [PubMed]
35. Bharate SB, Khan SI, Yunus NAM, Chauthe SK, Jacob MR, Tekwani BL, Khan IA, Singh IP. Bioorg Med Chem. 2007;15:87–96. [PubMed]
36. Howlett AC, Barth F, Bonner TI, Cabral G, Casellas P, Devane WA, Felder CC, Herkenham M, Mackie K, Martin BR, Mechoulam R, Pertwee RG. Pharmacol Rev. 2002;54:161–202. [PubMed]
pot logo blog2
en English