ArticleJournal of cannabis research2019
Genetic tools weed out misconceptions of strain reliability in Cannabis sativa: implications for a budding industry.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Marijuana (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genotype and chemotype insights of high-THC medicinal Cannabis sativa L.: the role of SSR markers in the identification of cultivars.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a minimal SNP genotyping panel for the differentiation of Cannabis sativa cultivars.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Molecular profiling and sex determination ofPeerJ · 2025Article
- Genetic insights into agronomic and morphological traits of drug-type cannabis revealed by genome-wide association studies.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Glandular trichome development, morphology, and maturation are influenced by plant age and genotype in high THC-containing cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) inflorescences.Journal of cannabis research · 2023Article
- Total yeast and mold levels in high THC-containing cannabis (Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- An investigation of cannabis use for insomnia in depression and anxiety in a naturalistic sample.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Human olfactory discrimination of genetic variation withinFrontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- Contents of Cannabinoids in Hemp Varieties Grown in Maryland.ACS omega · 2021Article
- The Use of Cannabinoids for Insomnia in Daily Life: Naturalistic Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Developing and Testing Molecular Markers inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Cannabis labelling is associated with genetic variation in terpene synthase genes.Nature plants · 2021Article
- Impact of Three Different Light Spectra on the Yield, Morphology and Growth Trajectory of Three DifferentPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Are researchers getting the terms used to denote different types of recreational cannabis right?-a user perspective.Journal of cannabis research · 2021Article
- Recent advances in Cannabis sativa genomics research.The New phytologist · 2021Review
- The Past, Present and Future ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Genomic and Chemical Diversity of Commercially Available High-CBD Industrial Hemp Accessions.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Widely assumed phenotypic associations inPeerJ · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnlike other plants, Cannabis sativa is excluded from regulation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Distinctive Cannabis varieties are ostracized from registration and therefore nearly impossible to verify. As Cannabis has become legal for medical and recreational consumption in many states, consumers have been exposed to a wave of novel Cannabis products with many distinctive names. Despite more than 2000 named strains being available to consumers, questions about the consistency of commercially available strains have not been investigated through scientific methodologies. As Cannabis legalization and consumption increases, the need to provide consumers with consistent products becomes more pressing. In this research, we examined commercially available, drug-type Cannabis strains using genetic methods to determine if the commonly referenced distinctions are supported and if samples with the same strain name are consistent when obtained from different facilities.
methodsWe developed ten de-novo microsatellite markers using the "Purple Kush" genome to investigate potential genetic variation within 30 strains obtained from dispensaries in three states. Samples were examined to determine if there is any genetic distinction separating the commonly referenced Sativa, Indica and Hybrid types and if there is consistent genetic identity found within strain accessions obtained from different facilities.
resultsAlthough there was strong statistical support dividing the samples into two genetic groups, the groups did not correspond to commonly reported Sativa/Hybrid/Indica types. The analyses revealed genetic inconsistencies within strains, with most strains containing at least one genetic outlier. However, after the removal of obvious outliers, many strains showed considerable genetic stability.
conclusionsWe failed to find clear genetic support for commonly referenced Sativa, Indica and Hybrid types as described in online databases. Significant genetic differences within samples of the same strain were observed indicating that consumers could be provided inconsistent products. These differences have the potential to lead to phenotypic differences and unexpected effects, which could be surprising for the recreational user, but have more serious implications for patients relying on strains that alleviate specific medical symptoms.
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.