Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264914›Full record

ReviewNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2015

Molecular Targets of Cannabidiol in Neurological Disorders.

Clementino Ibeas Bih, Tong Chen, Alistair V W Nunn, Michaël Bazelot, Mark Dallas, Benjamin J Whalley

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 295 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
295citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

295 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 555 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Cys-loop receptors on cannabinoids: All high?Frontiers in physiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Cannabidiol at the crossroads: panacea, placebo, or problem?Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

235 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clementino Ibeas BihSchool of Chemistry, Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Tong ChenSchool of Chemistry, Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Alistair V W NunnBroadmind Science Ltd, 47 Bow Field, Hook, Hants, RG27 9SA, UK.
Michaël BazelotSchool of Chemistry, Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Mark DallasSchool of Chemistry, Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK.
Benjamin J WhalleySchool of Chemistry, Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Pharmacy, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AP, UK. b.j.whalley@reading.ac.uk.
University of Reading · GBGW Pharmaceuticals (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cannabis has a long history of anecdotal medicinal use and limited licensed medicinal use. Until recently, alleged clinical effects from anecdotal reports and the use of licensed cannabinoid medicines are most likely mediated by tetrahydrocannabinol by virtue of: 1) this cannabinoid being present in the most significant quantities in these preparations; and b) the proportion:potency relationship between tetrahydrocannabinol and other plant cannabinoids derived from cannabis. However, there has recently been considerable interest in the therapeutic potential for the plant cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), in neurological disorders but the current evidence suggests that CBD does not directly interact with the endocannabinoid system except in vitro at supraphysiological concentrations. Thus, as further evidence for CBD's beneficial effects in neurological disease emerges, there remains an urgent need to establish the molecular targets through which it exerts its therapeutic effects. Here, we conducted a systematic search of the extant literature for original articles describing the molecular pharmacology of CBD. We critically appraised the results for the validity of the molecular targets proposed. Thereafter, we considered whether the molecular targets of CBD identified hold therapeutic potential in relevant neurological diseases. The molecular targets identified include numerous classical ion channels, receptors, transporters, and enzymes. Some CBD effects at these targets in in vitro assays only manifest at high concentrations, which may be difficult to achieve in vivo, particularly given CBD's relatively poor bioavailability. Moreover, several targets were asserted through experimental designs that demonstrate only correlation with a given target rather than a causal proof. When the molecular targets of CBD that were physiologically plausible were considered for their potential for exploitation in neurological therapeutics, the results were variable. In some cases, the targets identified had little or no established link to the diseases considered. In others, molecular targets of CBD were entirely consistent with those already actively exploited in relevant, clinically used, neurological treatments. Finally, CBD was found to act upon a number of targets that are linked to neurological therapeutics but that its actions were not consistent withmodulation of such targets that would derive a therapeutically beneficial outcome. Overall, we find that while >65 discrete molecular targets have been reported in the literature for CBD, a relatively limited number represent plausible targets for the drug's action in neurological disorders when judged by the criteria we set. We conclude that CBD is very unlikely to exert effects in neurological diseases through modulation of the endocannabinoid system. Moreover, a number of other molecular targets of CBD reported in the literature are unlikely to be of relevance owing to effects only being observed at supraphysiological concentrations. Of interest and after excluding unlikely and implausible targets, the remaining molecular targets of CBD with plausible evidence for involvement in therapeutic effects in neurological disorders (e.g., voltage-dependent anion channel 1, G protein-coupled receptor 55, CaV3.x, etc.) are associated with either the regulation of, or responses to changes in, intracellular calcium levels. While no causal proof yet exists for CBD's effects at these targets, they represent the most probable for such investigations and should be prioritized in further studies of CBD's therapeutic mechanism of action.

Indexed as

AnimalsCannabinoidsEndocannabinoidsGene Expression RegulationHumansNervous System DiseasesReceptors, Cell SurfaceCannabinoidsEndocannabinoidsReceptors, Cell SurfaceCannabidiolcannabinoidmechanism of actionneurological disorderspharmacology.

Identifiers

PMID26264914
PMCPMC4604182
OpenAlexW1166458116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.