Talk:Endocannabinoid system

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


deleted a faux-science "history and background" section that was not supported by any fact and was nonsense

as a biochemistry undergrad with only one course in neuroscience, I find the rest of this article to be a wonderful introduction to the subject, not too technical in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

12/6/2011 Edits[edit]

In summary, these pages on endocannabinoid receptors were not lacking attention before my edits, but had rather received too much attention from people who just did not know what they were talking about. I have simplified, clarified, and expounded where appropriate with the intention of creating a more cohesive and through product. The extent of these edits are subtle, but were based on eight research pages that I read dealing with the topics I addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyliea (talkcontribs) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


Since no one is doing this, I'll go ahead and take this project. This is going to be fun.

- Winter Light



Would anyone be willing to make a picture for this article? I am downright confused at the legal mumbo-jumbo just to utilize an illustrative picture from Nature or Science. If would anyone would be willing to do this, please write a message here so we can swap emails. I can send you some nice (copyrighted, unfortunately) photographs plus some nifty (least I think so!) additions I'd like to see. (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this articles needs images (along with a lot of other needed work). I know that legal issues surrounding image use are daunting, so let me know your ideas, and I'll see if I can help. If you become a registered user on wikipedia, we can talk more about things and possibly exchange emails through that method. (I do not advise posting your email on sites like this. I've heard it can lead to a ton of spam mail.) If you have more questions about wikipedia and its policies in general, talk to me on my user talk page (click on the brown symbol after my name. It means "talk") --Tea with toast (話) 05:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The intro is all wrong.[edit]

Ok, does anyone actually want to talk about the article? The intro is all wrong. You can't release neuromodulators. That doesn't even exist. What was wrong with the original version that its been replaced with faux scientific terms?

Winter Light (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

what's wrong with it? more specifically, i mean. Why can't you release a neuromodulator (altho i agree the phrasing is a little awkward)? are there any other 'faux scientific terms' you have issue with? IMHO, the old intro was bad because it just described a bunch of things that were maybe regulated by the ECS without actually describing what the ECS consists of. Roadnottaken (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ceekaye 13:57, 28 May 2012 (EST) I stumbled onto this article after hearing the word for the first time. My reason for pursuing the meaning was to understand the connection between the common understanding of marijuana intoxication and the naturally occurring systems such as opiate receptors. Although I am educated in college level chemistry, biology and physics, I found the beginning of the article immediately daunting. It was as though I began reading something that was highly comprehensive yet required more than I could remember. I do not use cannabis in any form and tried it only a few times many years ago. It would be helpful and appreciated, I think, to make a comparison to what this system is as it relates to other more familiar and understandable biochemical reactions. This would at least answer more immediate questions that a reader might have, rather than being hit immediately with advanced biochemistry. I believe that an article written for a broader audience could be very popular and informative. No need to "dumb-down" the well written technical details; there is certainly an audience for them as well.

EDIT BY READER: Can we not dumb this article down? If you don't understand the "sciency" stuff just ignore it and read what pertains to your drug habit. I am a medical student using this page to study obesity related to endocannabinoids and would appreciate it if all the "technical jargon" was left in so that I can understand endocannabinoids on a real, deep level, as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Then read a book! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have recently viewed a number of documentaries on the subject-- of which one in particular did a very good job of explaining the endocannabinoid system, specifically highlighting the effects of the many naturally-occuring chemicals within the cannibis plant on the endocannabinoid system of humans [and animals]. Most controversial is the so-far undisputible evidence that the primary psychoactive chemical Delta-9 THC has been proven to reverse cancer. Other news about the plant includes its direct and positive efficacy in regulating mood, appetite, and eliminating free-radicals in the body. Fabulous news for the public, and not so-fabulous news for the FDA or big PhARMA... If anyone has interest in discussions or would like to have links to the references (which i found online and am happy to share) please email me ceekaye_1 at yahoo dot com. Ceekaye (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)ceekaye

Response3: Anyone expecting that dumbing-down complex neurochemical topic such as endocannabinoids is going to do any good is wrong. It would equal to pretending that anyone can learn neurosurgery for example. There are many other articles that contain science (math) 100x complicated than this simple endocannabinoid system and I didn't complain even when I really needed the math to work for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree: this does not need dumbing down. I understood 95% of the contents of this article through an understandings of neuroscience essentially self-taugh from some Stanford lectures I found on YouTube. Anyone with a legitimate desire to understand this subject and this article can do so through freely and publicly available resources, even through the hyperlinks contained in this wiki.

I understand there is probably a significant vested interest among recreational consumers of exocanabanoids to dig for facts that validate their use of such substances, but I would further suggest that dumbing down a very well written and not at all technical article such as this, for the sake of such interests, would be a terrible, terrible idea. Hayaku (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis references[edit]

Cannabis constituents are really very interesting and laid the foundation for an entirely new receptor class. I am not sure though if the original papers here really imply that smoked or inhaled cannabis is more beneficial. Endogenous and exogenous agonists had this effect (to control spasticity and mp in mice). Also, the very early, medicinal use of cannabis and products thereof, as far as historical records go, was usually not in the smoked form. So we need to change this also to be accurate. (Osterluzei (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

2 part lead paragraph?[edit]

The lead paragraph is technical. I do not want to remove any of the technical content from this article. But I would like to have a short paragraph at the beginning to help the non-technical reader.

As a start to creating an agreed paragraph: Is it accurate to say that endocannabinoids are hormones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead paragraph is too technical. I don't know if endocannabinoids are hormones, but please feel free to add a short paragraph at the beginning - as long as you also insert references. Lova Falk talk 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Apoptotic Properties[edit]

Can someone please create a section with information regarding the apoptotic properties of the endocannabinoid system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Autism link to insufficient endocannabinoid production[edit]

Here is a link in layman's terms "Researchers at Stanford University say that the debilitating effects of autism are primarily caused by a gene mutation that blocks the body’s natural production of cannabinoids, called endocannabinoids, and hinders the way those molecules communicate with the brain."

Here is the PubMed Abstract on what I am talking about

There is other research articles out there too but I am too lazy to grab them right now. But essentially it's saying research is suggesting that Autism is caused by lack of the body producing endocannabinoids.

So maybe someone that sees this that's more technically inclined to add a section on to this page on wikipedia?

Perhaps I will do it myself with enough time if someone does not do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another study that provides evidence, without directly quoting autism.
Acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and their combination on facial emotion recognition
As you may be aware, autistic people struggle with recognising facial expressions.
Here is another link that might provide more sources:
I'd love to see a section added on autism, with appropriate references to studies and their findings. (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"Most relevant receptors"[edit]

A recent deletion removed form the Lede "The two most relevant receptors for cannabinoids are the CB1 and CB2 receptors." with How are they the most relevant? What about GPR55 and other newly-discovered cannabinoid receptors? *.

Nature has: "The CB1 cannabinoid receptor, the main molecular target of endocannabinoids and cannabis active components, is the most abundant G protein-coupled receptor in the mammalian brain."

Would this be an acceptable replacement for now, until we have a good source for newly discovered cannabinoids? petrarchan47คุ 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this * source supports the claim so I'll re-add it pending new evidence/RS. petrarchan47คุ 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That source does not support the statement that CB1 and CB2 are the most relevant, as it is talking about the main molecular targets of cannabis, not other cannabinoids, nor the receptors themselves. Craigcrawford1988 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I would say the nature link, of CB1 being the most abundant, and the main target of cannabis and endocannabinoids, to be an ideal source. Something along the lines of "The CB1 receptor is the most abundant receptor in the mammalian brain, and is the main molecular target of endocannabinoids and the main active cannabinoids of cannabis." Craigcrawford1988 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with your changes. I'll keep digging for references to support what we know about the ECS so we can expand this. It's such a new subject, which may be why it's a challenge to find good, recent references. petrarchan47คุ 18:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Need for non-technical presentation[edit]

Just some notes to help in rewriting for WP's lay audience, per article tag.

PMC 3442177" the endogenous cannabinoid system was discovered two decades ago."
"Cannabis-based medications exert their effects mainly through the activation of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2)"
"It was only in 1964 that (-)-trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, dronabinol), the principal active ingredient of cannabis, was stereochemically defined (8). This, followed by the discovery of the body’s own cannabinoid system with specific receptors and endogenous ligands, marked the beginning of intensive research into the function of the endocannabinoid system and the clinical relevance of cannabis-based medications"
"To date, two endogenous cannabinoid receptors have been identified." (2012) [See this section for details on CB1 and CB2] petrarchan47คุ 03:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endocannabinoid system. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)