ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
A Comparative Analysis on the Potential Anticancer Properties of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol, and Tetrahydrocannabivarin Compounds Through In Silico Approach.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cannabinoid Oral Mucosal Delivery: Approaches to Formulation, Fabrication, and Permeation Enhancement.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- The Endocannabinoid System in Human Disease: Molecular Signaling, Receptor Pharmacology, and Therapeutic Innovation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Optimising Cannabidiol Delivery: Improving Water Solubility and Permeability Through Phospholipid Complexation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to comparatively analyze the anticancer properties of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Cannabidiol (CBD), and Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) using In silico tools.
methodsUsing SwissADME and pkCSM, the physicochemical and pharmacokinetics properties of the cannabinoids were evaluated. Protox-II was utilized for the assessment of their cytotoxicity. The chemical-biological interactions of the cannabinoids were also predicted using the Way2Drug Predictive Server which comprises Acute Rat Toxicity, Adver-Pred, CLC-Pred, and Pass Target Prediction.
resultsBoth physicochemical and drug-likeness analysis using SwissADME favored THCV due to high water solubility and lower MLOGP value. On the other hand, ADMET assessment demonstrated that THC and CBD have good skin permeability while both THC and THCV exhibited better BBB permeability and have low inhibitory activity on the CYP1A2 enzyme. Furthermore, toxicity predictions by Protox-II revealed that CBD has the lowest probability of hepatotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and immunotoxicity. Contrarily, it has the highest probability of being inactive in mutagenicity and cytotoxicity. Additionally, CLC results revealed that CBD has the highest probability against lung carcinoma. The rat toxicity prediction showed that among the cannabinoids, THCV had the lowest LD50 concentration in rat oral and IV.
conclusionOverall, in silico predictions of the three cannabinoid compounds revealed that they are good candidates for oral drug formulation. Among the three cannabinoids, THCV is an excellent anticancer aspirant for future chemotherapy with the most favorable results in drug-likeness and ADMET analysis, pharmacological properties evaluation, and cytotoxicity assessment results. Further study on bioevaluation of compounds is needed to elucidate their potential pharmacological activities.
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.