From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Endogenous and dietary sources[edit]

The article lists cocoa beans, sea urchin roe, and chocolate as being endogenous, but the Cannabinoids article makes a distinction between natural (herbal and classical) cannabinoids and endogenous, which that article describes as "naturally produced in the bodies of animals". Assuming that one of the articles is correct, the other article needs to be cleaned up. Earthsound 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up (this article). Cotard 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this section needed? Because the claim of anandamide in chocolate is controversial and the amount in sea urchin roe is low, is it necessary to include this information in the article? Being that we don't know how likely it is that ingestion of anandamide will appreciably increase the availability in the body, does this information matter? -- Tea with toast (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


While browsing around for info on Anandamide, I found an article at which contains the same text as this article, here. I perused the history of Wikipedia's version, and have concluded that recipeland has copied its article from here, without even bothering to cite.

I'm not familiar with what to do in this situation. Does Wikipedia allow this verbatim copying? If not, what is the standard course of action?

Soelmese 01:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes this is allowed. Flying Hamster 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to the "Runner's High"?[edit]

I originally found out about anandamide while doing research into the sensation known as the runner's high. It's the sensation runners get get after exerting themselves for quite a while. I really don't know much about the sensation (I'm only just starting to research it), but I think it warrants a mention in the article as this is apparently the most common way for the chemical to be released. Thoughts? (FossaFerox 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I've never heared of this - can you remember the source?Endocannibinoid receptors are extremely common, so it could well be true that it's a way for anandamide to be released, although anandamide isn't the only endocannibinoid. Cotard 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of this. I believe it is entirely possible as the only other explanation for 'runners high' is endorphins, which cannot break the blood brain barrier and the only place for them to interact with the brain is from the hypothalamus. I believe it's way more likely that a chemical that does break the blood brain barrier would cause runners high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankcortex (talkcontribs) 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


What does it do? I know people love to write these chemical-technical articles, but can we at least have a 'anandamine has x effect on humans' comment in the first paragraph, please? Njál 00:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anandamine is not a drug. Flying Hamster 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So consuming it has no effect ? 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anandamide is the "runner's high", not endorphins[edit]

According to this study, Anandamide levels were higher for people who exercised than for those who remained sedentary, and could account for the "runner's high" that some athletes get, especially now that endorphins are known not to cause this.

--Moeburn 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The connection to the "runners high" is highly speculative and has not been addressed by the study. Cacycle 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens if you eat it[edit]

What happens if you eat it?

  • It gets metabolized so quickly by FAAH that it doesn't last long enough to activate cannabinoid receptors. I actually tried this once, to see if it would taste spicy like capsaicin as both compounds are supposed to activate TRPV1 receptors but it didn't... Roadnottaken 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, because of its rapid inactivation by the ubiquitous FAAH, the high-profile findings that trace amounts of anandamide can be detected in things like chocolate are not really taken seriously by anyone in the endocannabinoid community. That its there is not disputed, but that it finds its way to cannabinoid centers in your brain before being hydrolyzed by FAAH is ridiculous. Roadnottaken 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you make a FAAH resistant version like amphetamine is a MAO resistant phenethylamine?

There IS a metabolically stable version called methanandamide which has effects pretty similar to THC, I think. FYI - amphetamine is actually NOT a MAO-resistant phenethylamine, it is an inhibitor of monoamine transporters and therefore raises synaptic levels of dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. Roadnottaken 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Would a form with out the O= on the first carbon work, because it would no longer be a fatty acid amide, FAAH wouldn't destroy it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the =O would probably deactivate the coumpound, because this oxygen is crucial for hydrogen bonding, and other active coumpounds all have the =O oxygen attached (all though this may be because the body has no easy way of synthesizing long unsaturated alcohols). Also, as aformentioned, methanandamide is more metabolically stable, resulting in characteristic cannibinoid behavioral changes in rabits for three hours or longer. (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No Anandamide in Cocoa[edit]

It seems like the detection of anandamide in chocolate by di Tomaso et al (Brain cannabinoids in chocolate. Nature 1996; 382: 677–8) was due to contaminations, as another study didn't find anandamide in chocolate (GC Willi, A Berger, V Di Marzo, T Bisogno, L De. Lipids in Neural Function: Modulation of Behavior by Oral Administration of Endocannabinoids Found in Foods. Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Clin Perform Programme, 2001), and also not in raw, fermented or roasted cocoa beans. Icek 19:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the material on cocoa from the articles now. Icek 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I hoped that editors would actually read this - but the erroneous statement about anandamide in chocolate has been added again. As it (the presence of anandamide in chocolate) is implied by another cited article, I wrote a short explanation into the Wikipedia article. Icek (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the proper citation for the study that failed to find anandamide in chocolate? If you actually follow the citations from this page, it gets you nowhere. First of all, the citation in the article is a secondary source (a book) "Turn on and tune in." That book itself merely states that "studies failed to confirm the presence of anandamide in chocolate" without citing any primary research. Robotrib (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The section about the presence of anandamide in chocolate should, in my opinion, remain. The "other study" mentioned by Icek (i.e. Willi et al, 2001) is actually an abstract submitted to a conference that was NOT peer-reviewed. The original article, in the prestigious journal Nature (i.e. di Tomaso et al, 1996), has been cited 9 times and as recently as 2010 without being contradicted. Polyatail (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


How is anandamine related to anandamide? Both terms are used in the same media reports and the distinction is not clear. --jwalling (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anandamide is the correct term. Term anandamine is incorrect and should mean amine of anandamide, N-arachidonylethanolamine. However its other name N-arachidonoylethanolamine (not N-arachidonoylethanolamide or N-arachidonylethanolamide as often wrongly named in the literature) is correct (like N-acetylethanolamine not N-acetylethanolamide).--Tanevala (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This an amide. From the amine page "Compounds with the nitrogen atom next to a carbonyl of the structure R-C(=O)NR2 are called amides". I know that one of the papers by Sugiura's group called it "N-arachidonoylethanolamine (anandamide)" but it is wrong. Not even one of the many pubchem synonyms calls it an amine. I'm reluctant to allow such a wrong synonym in the infobox, and it certainly should not replace arachidonoylethanolamide. Perhaps we could add arachidonoylethanolamine and put "(incorrect)" after it? Xasodfuih (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Naturally anandamide is amide, not amine, but in the name N-arachidonoylethanolamine arachidonoyl is the acyl part, which already contain the carbonyl so. amide functionality. Therefore it should be named as amine as all N-acylethanolamines, like N-acetylethanolamine which is actually amide ( N-acetylethanolamide is incorrect). I know that N-arachidonoylethanolamide is widely used in the literature and it is established name used in pubchem and by chemical suppliers. However, N-arachidonoylethanolamine is more widely used and accepted name by the most of the well known cannabinoid reseachers like B. Cravatt, D. Boger, V. Di Marzo, C. Fowler, M. Maccarrone, to name a few. If you do google search, you will find 3 440 hits for arachidonoylethanolamide and 4 560 hits for arachidonoylethanolamine. --Tanevala (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You've convinced me. Also, on google scholar the -amine exceeds the -amide by a factor of 8 or so. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The name is again changed to uncorrect arachidonoylethanolamide, although more widely used and correct name is N-arachidonoylethanolamine as previously discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanevala (talkcontribs) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Is anandamide a full agonist, or a partial agonist of cannabinoid receptors? Also, does anyone know its affinity compared to that of THC?Fireemblem555 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Anandamide is a partial agonist, but so is THC. 2-AG is a full-agonist, as are several of the synthetic agonists. Measurements of binding affinity for anandamide and THC vary pretty widely in the literature, but they're both probably in the 10-100nM range. See McPartland, J.M., et al., Br. J. Pharmacol. 2007 for a pretty comprehensive literature survey of binding-affinity measurements made by various labs. Roadnottaken (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anandamide biosynthesis and metabolism[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Brain may produce its own antipsychotic drug[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anandamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)