Using In Silico Molecular Docking to Explain Differences in Receptor Binding Behavior of HHC and THCV Isomers: Revealing New Binding Modes.
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)(2024)
Abstract
Even slight structural differences between phytocannabinoid isomers are usually enough to cause a change in their biological properties. In this study, we used in vitro CB1 agonism/antagonism assays to compare the receptor binding functionality of THCV (tetrahydrocannabivarin) and HHC (hexahydrocannabinol) isomers and applied molecular docking to provide an explanation for the difference in the activities. No CB1 agonism was observed for ∆9- and ∆8-THCV. Instead, both isomers antagonized CP 55940, with ∆9-THCV being approximately two times more potent than the ∆8 counterpart (IC50 = 52.4 nM and 119.6 nM for ∆9- and ∆8-THCV, respectively). Docking simulations found two binding poses for THCV isomers, one very similar to ∆9-THC and one newly discovered pose involving the occupation of side pocket 1 of the CB1 receptor by the alkyl chain of the ligand. We suggested the latter as a potential antagonist pose. In addition, our results established 9R-HHC and 9S-HHC among partial agonists of the CB1 receptor. The 9R-HHC (EC50 = 53.4 nM) isomer was a significantly more potent agonist than 9S (EC50 = 624.3 nM). ∆9-THC and 9R-HHC showed comparable binding poses inside the receptor pocket, whereas 9S-HHC adopted a new and different binding posture that can explain its weak agonist activity.
MoreTranslated text
Key words
tetrahydrocannabivarin,hexahydrocannabinol,CB1 receptor,agonist,antagonist,molecular docking
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
![](https://originalfileserver.aminer.cn/sys/aminer/pubs/mrt_preview.jpeg)
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined