ArticleHarm reduction journal2024
Activity-based detection of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists in plant materials.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2024. 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.
- Leveraging machine learning for selective cannabinoid ligand discovery: methods, challenges, and opportunities.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2026Review
- Fast and reliable in vitro activity-based detection of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists in e-liquids.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Waxy- or Putty-Like Materials as a Novel Drug Preparation for Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists: Detection in Prisons and In Vitro Cannabinoid Receptor Activity.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Article
- Nitazene test strips: a laboratory evaluation.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince late 2019, fortification of 'regular' cannabis plant material with synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) has become a notable phenomenon on the drug market. As many SCRAs pose a higher health risk than genuine cannabis, recognizing SCRA-adulterated cannabis is important from a harm reduction perspective. However, this is not always an easy task as adulterated cannabis may only be distinguished from genuine cannabis by dedicated, often expensive and time-consuming analytical techniques. In addition, the dynamic nature of the SCRA market renders identification of fortified samples a challenging task. Therefore, we established and applied an in vitro cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB
methodsThe assay principle relies on the functional complementation of a split-nanoluciferase following recruitment of β-arrestin 2 to activated CB
resultsThe bioassay successfully detected all samples of a set (n = 24) of analytically confirmed authentic Spice products, additionally providing relevant information on the 'strength' of a preparation and whether different samples may have originated from separate batches or possibly the same production batch. Finally, the methodology was applied to assess the occurrence of SCRA adulteration in a large set (n = 252) of herbal materials collected at an international dance festival. This did not reveal any positives, i.e. there were no samples that yielded a relevant CB
conclusionIn summary, we established SCRA screening of herbal materials as a new application for the activity-based CB
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.