ArticleCellular and molecular neurobiology2011
Dual neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects of cannabinoid drugs in vitro.
Article in Cellular and molecular neurobiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carbon monoxide incompletely prevents isoflurane-induced defects in murine neurodevelopment.Neurotoxicology and teratology · 2017Article
- The Cannabinoid CB1/CB2 Agonist WIN55212.2 Promotes Oligodendrocyte Differentiation In Vitro and Neuroprotection During the Cuprizone-Induced Central Nervous System Demyelination.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2016Article
- The dual neuroprotective-neurotoxic profile of cannabinoid drugs.British journal of pharmacology · 2011Review
- Carbon monoxide and anesthesia-induced neurotoxicity.Neurotoxicology and teratologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Either protective or toxic effects of cannabinoids on cell survival have been reported extensively in the literature; however, the factors that determine the direction of the effect are still obscured. In this study we have used the neuroblastoma cell line N18TG2 that expresses CB1 cannabinoid receptors to investigate several factors that may determine the consequences of exposure to cannabinoid agonists. Cells that were grown under optimal, stressful, or differentiating conditions were exposed to cannabinoid agonists and then assayed for cell viability by measuring MTT, LDH, and caspase-3 activity. Various cannabinoid agonists (CP 55,940, ∆9-THC, HU-210, and WIN 55,212-2) failed to affect cell viability when the cells were grown under optimal conditions. On the other hand, the same agonists significantly reduced cell viability when the cells were grown under stressful conditions (glucose- and serum-free medium), while enhancing the viability of cells grown in differentiation medium (0.5% serum and 1.5% DMSO). The toxic/protective profile was not dependent on the type or the concentration of the cannabinoid agonist that was applied. The cannabinoid agonist CP 55,940 similarly affected the non-neuronal HEK-293 cells that were grown under stressful conditions only when they expressed CB1 receptors. Our results shed light on the conflicting reports regarding the protective or toxic effects of cannabinoids in vitro and indicate that cannabinoids may activate different intracellular signaling mechanisms, depending on the state of the cell, thus leading to different physiological consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.