Tetrahydrocannabivarin-d5 (CRM)
(Synonyms: THCV-d5, Δ9-THCV-d5) 目录号 : GC49554
A Certified Reference Material
Cas No.:498542-85-1
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Tetrahydrocannabivarin-d5 (CRM) is intended for use as an internal standard for the quantification of tetrahydrocannabivarin by GC- or LC-MS. Tetrahydrocannabivarin is categorized as a phytocannabinoid.1 Tetrahydrocannabivarin is regulated as a Schedule I compound in the United States. Tetrahydrocannabivarin-d5 (CRM) is provided as a DEA exempt preparation. This product is intended for research and forensic applications.
1.Pertwee, R.G.The diverse CB1 and CB2 receptor pharmacology of three plant cannabinoids: δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarinBr. J. Pharmacol.153(2)199-215(2008)
| Cas No. | 498542-85-1 | SDF | Download SDF |
| 别名 | THCV-d5, Δ9-THCV-d5 | ||
| Canonical SMILES | CC1=C[C@@]2([H])C3=C(C=C(CC([2H])([2H])C([2H])([2H])[2H])C=C3O)OC(C)(C)[C@]2([H])CC1 | ||
| 分子式 | C19H21D5O2 | 分子量 | 291.4 |
| 溶解度 | N/A | 储存条件 | -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 3.4317 mL | 17.1585 mL | 34.3171 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.6863 mL | 3.4317 mL | 6.8634 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.3432 mL | 1.7159 mL | 3.4317 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
The Community Resiliency Model® to promote nurse well-being
Nurs Outlook 2020 May-Jun;68(3):324-336.PMID:31894015DOI:10.1016/j.outlook.2019.11.002.
Background: Rising rates of secondary traumatic stress and burnout among nurses signal a crisis in healthcare. There is a lack of evidence regarding effective interventions to improve nurse well-being and resiliency. Purpose: This study used a randomized controlled trial parallel design to test the effectiveness of a 3-hour Community Resiliency Model® (CRM) training, a novel set of sensory awareness techniques to improve emotional balance. Methods: Registered nurses in two urban tertiary-care hospitals were invited to participate, which entailed attending a single 3-hour "Nurse Wellness and Well-being" class; 196 nurses consented and were randomized into the CRM intervention or nutrition education control group to determine if the CRM group would demonstrate improvement in well-being and resiliency, secondary traumatic stress, burnout, and physical symptoms. Findings: Pre/post data were analyzed for 40 CRM and 37 nutrition group members. Moderate-to-large effect sizes were demonstrated in the CRM group for improved well-being, resiliency, secondary traumatic stress, and physical symptoms. Participants reported using CRM techniques for self-stabilization during stressful work events. Discussion: CRM shows promise as a brief resiliency training for hospital-based nurses.
Effect of Ten Weeks of Creatine Monohydrate Plus HMB Supplementation on Athletic Performance Tests in Elite Male Endurance Athletes
Nutrients 2020 Jan 10;12(1):193.PMID:31936727DOI:10.3390/nu12010193.
Creatine monohydrate (CRM) and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) are common ergogenic aids in the field of sports and are frequently used in an isolated way. However, there are a few studies that have investigated the effect of combining both supplements on different variables related to performance, with controversial results. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and the degree of potentiation of 10 weeks of CRM plus HMB supplementation on sports performance, which was measured by an incremental test to exhaustion in elite male traditional rowers. In this placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, 10-week study, participants (n = 28) were randomized to a placebo group (PLG; n = 7), CRM group (0.04 g/kg/day of CRM; n = 7), HMB group (3 g/day of HMB; n = 7) and CrM-HMB group (0.04 g/kg/day of CRM plus 3 g/day of HMB; n = 7). Before and after 10 weeks of different treatments, an incremental test was performed on a rowing ergometer to calculate the power that each rower obtained at the anaerobic threshold (WAT), and at 4 mmol (W4) and 8 mmol (W8) of blood lactate concentration. There were no significant differences in WAT and W4 among groups or in body composition. However, it was observed that the aerobic power achieved at W8 was significantly higher in the CrM-HMB group than in the PLG, CRM and HMB groups (p < 0.001; η2p = 0.766). Likewise, a synergistic effect of combined supplementation was found for the sum of the two supplements separately at WAT (CrM-HMBG = 403.19% vs. CrMG+HMBG = 337.52%), W4 (CrM-HMBG = 2736.17% vs. CrMG+HMBG = 1705.32%) and W8 (CrM-HMBG = 1293.4% vs. CrMG+HMBG = 877.56%). In summary, CRM plus HMB supplementation over 10 weeks showed a synergistic effect on aerobic power (measured as WAT, W4, and W8) during an incremental test but had no influence muscle mass.
Bioavailability, Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Status of Creatine and Related Compounds: A Critical Review
Nutrients 2022 Feb 28;14(5):1035.PMID:35268011DOI:10.3390/nu14051035.
In 2011, we published a paper providing an overview about the bioavailability, efficacy, and regulatory status of creatine monohydrate (CRM), as well as other "novel forms" of creatine that were being marketed at the time. This paper concluded that no other purported form of creatine had been shown to be a more effective source of creatine than CRM, and that CRM was recognized by international regulatory authorities as safe for use in dietary supplements. Moreover, that most purported "forms" of creatine that were being marketed at the time were either less bioavailable, less effective, more expensive, and/or not sufficiently studied in terms of safety and/or efficacy. We also provided examples of several "forms" of creatine that were being marketed that were not bioavailable sources of creatine or less effective than CRM in comparative effectiveness trials. We had hoped that this paper would encourage supplement manufacturers to use CRM in dietary supplements given the overwhelming efficacy and safety profile. Alternatively, encourage them to conduct research to show their purported "form" of creatine was a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine before making unsubstantiated claims of greater efficacy and/or safety than CRM. Unfortunately, unsupported misrepresentations about the effectiveness and safety of various "forms" of creatine have continued. The purpose of this critical review is to: (1) provide an overview of the physiochemical properties, bioavailability, and safety of CRM; (2) describe the data needed to substantiate claims that a "novel form" of creatine is a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine; (3) examine whether other marketed sources of creatine are more effective sources of creatine than CRM; (4) provide an update about the regulatory status of CRM and other purported sources of creatine sold as dietary supplements; and (5) provide guidance regarding the type of research needed to validate that a purported "new form" of creatine is a bioavailable, effective and safe source of creatine for dietary supplements. Based on this analysis, we categorized forms of creatine that are being sold as dietary supplements as either having strong, some, or no evidence of bioavailability and safety. As will be seen, CRM continues to be the only source of creatine that has substantial evidence to support bioavailability, efficacy, and safety. Additionally, CRM is the source of creatine recommended explicitly by professional societies and organizations and approved for use in global markets as a dietary ingredient or food additive.
The Paradoxical Effect of Creatine Monohydrate on Muscle Damage Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Sports Med 2022 Jul;52(7):1623-1645.PMID:35218552DOI:10.1007/s40279-022-01640-z.
Background: Several studies have examined the effect of creatine monohydrate (CRM) on indirect muscle damage markers and muscle performance, although pooled data from several studies indicate that the benefits of CRM on recovery dynamics are limited. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis determined whether the ergogenic effects of CRM ameliorated markers of muscle damage and performance following muscle-damaging exercises. Methods: In total, 23 studies were included, consisting of 240 participants in the CRM group (age 23.9 ± 10.4 years, height 178 ± 5 cm, body mass 76.9 ± 7.6 kg, females 10.4%) and 229 participants in the placebo group (age 23.7 ± 8.5 years, height 177 ± 5 cm, body mass 77.0 ± 6.6 kg, females 10.0%). These studies were rated as fair to excellent following the PEDro scale. The outcome measures were compared between the CRM and placebo groups at 24-36 h and 48-90 h following muscle-damaging exercises, using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and associated p-values via forest plots. Furthermore, sub-group analyses were conducted by separating studies into those that examined the effects of CRM as an acute training response (i.e., after one muscle-damaging exercise bout) and those that examined the chronic training response (i.e., examining the acute response after the last training session following several weeks of training). Results: According to the meta-analysis, the CRM group exhibited significantly lower indirect muscle damage markers (i.e., creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and/or myoglobin) at 48-90 h post-exercise for the acute training response (SMD - 1.09; p = 0.03). However, indirect muscle damage markers were significantly greater in the CRM group at 24 h post-exercise (SMD 0.95; p = 0.04) for the chronic training response. Although not significant, a large difference in indirect muscle damage markers was also found at 48 h post-exercise (SMD 1.24) for the chronic training response. The CRM group also showed lower inflammation for the acute training response at 24-36 h post-exercise and 48-90 h post-exercise with a large effect size (SMD - 1.38 ≤ d ≤ - 1.79). Similarly, the oxidative stress markers were lower for the acute training response in the CRM group at 24-36 h post-exercise and 90 h post-exercise, with a large effect size (SMD - 1.37 and - 1.36, respectively). For delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), the measures were lower for the CRM group at 24 h post-exercise with a moderate effect size (SMD - 0.66) as an acute training response. However, the inter-group differences for inflammation, oxidative stress, and DOMS were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated a paradoxical effect of CRM supplementation post-exercise, where CRM appears to minimise exercise-induced muscle damage as an acute training response, although this trend is reversed as a chronic training response. Thus, CRM may be effective in reducing the level of exercise-induced muscle damage following a single bout of strenuous exercises, although training-induced stress could be exacerbated following long-term supplementation of CRM. Although long-term usage of CRM is known to enhance training adaptations, whether the increased level of exercise-induced muscle damage as a chronic training response may provide potential mechanisms to enhance chronic training adaptations with CRM supplementation remains to be confirmed.
Does the Margin Matter in Esophageal Cancer
Dig Surg 2018;35(3):196-203.PMID:28697493DOI:10.1159/000478669.
Background: The prognostic impact of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in resected esophageal cancer (EC) is controversial discussed. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) provide 2 different definitions of CRM involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical significance of CRM involvement on patients' survival following esophagectomy due to EC. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, and Google scholar were searched for studies analyzing the clinical impact of CRM in EC. Summary: A total of 28 studies analyzed the prognostic effect of a positive CRM in EC. A wide range of CRM involvement (8.6-83.1%) was reported. Both available meta-analyses found a significant association between a positive CRM and patients' survival irrespective of RCP (OR 2.52 [95% CI 1.96-3.25; p < 0.001]) or CAP (OR 4.02 [95% CI 2.25-7.20; p < 0.001]) criteria. The influence of neoadjuvant therapy on the CRM remains unclear. Key Messages: CRM involvement is a useful parameter for EC patients' prognosis. The application of CAP criteria should be preferred since patients with a poor prognosis can be identified more sufficiently. Neoadjuvant therapy and en bloc transthoracic esophagectomy show favorable results for achievement of negative CRM.