Cannabis Chemovar Nomenclature Misrepresents Chemical and Genetic Diversity; Survey of Variations in Chemical Profiles and Genetic Markers in Nevada Medical Cannabis Samples

Introduction: Medical cannabis patients receive clinical benefits from the secondary metabolites of the plant, which contain a variety of cannabinoids and terpenoids in combinations that can be used to classify the chemovars. State-regulated medical cannabis programs rely on breeder-reported “strain” names both within diversion control systems and to describe the medical cannabis products that are sold to patients in medical cannabis dispensaries. In state-regulated medical cannabis programs, there is no conventional nomenclature system that correlates the breeder-reported names with their profiles of active ingredients, and these “strain” names are invalid as they refer to chemical differences properly referred to as to chemovars. Materials and Methods: To determine the actual levels of chemical diversity represented in 2662 samples of Cannabis flower collected between January 2016 and June of 2017 in Nevada, chemical profile data were measured from these samples by a state-qualified third-party testing laboratory. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to define clusters in data sets representing both cannabinoids and terpenoids, cannabinoids only, or terpenoids only. Results: The PCA of the terpenoid only data set revealed three well-defined clusters. All three terpenoids only data clusters had high tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase, but the terpene profiles listed in reverse-order of abundance best defined these chemovars. The three chemovars in Nevada were labeled with 396 breeder-reported sample names, which overestimate the diversity and do not inform patients regarding chemical properties. Representative DNA samples were taken from each chemovar to determine whether the genetic diversity was greater than the chemical diversity. The limited genotyping experiment was based on DNA sequence polymorphisms. The genetic analysis revealed twelve distinct genetic clades, which still does not account for the entirety of the 396 reported sample names. The finite genotypes did not correlate with the chemotypes determined for the samples. This suggests that either the DNA-markers used were too narrowly restricted for factual separation or that environmental factors contributed more significantly to the chemical profiles of cannabis than genetics. Conclusion: The three chemovars and twelve genotypes reflect low medical diversity on the market in Nevada during its “medical use only” phase. Furthermore, the 396 breeder-reported sample names within this set imply a false sense of diversity of products in Nevada dispensaries.