Tag Archives: replicate

Tissue Culture Cultivation Can Transform the Way We Grow Cannabis

By Max Jones, Dasya Petranova
1 Comment

The cannabis industry is approaching a crossroads. While cultivators must ensure they are getting the greatest yield per square foot, an increasingly competitive landscape and sophisticated consumer means growers must also balance the need for volume with quality, consistent and award-winning cannabis strains.

Tissue culture propagation represents a significant leap forward in cannabis cultivation, ultimately benefiting both the grower and the consumer. The proprietary technology behind our sterilization and storage process results in the isolation of premium cannabis genetics in a clean, contaminant-free environment. Since our inception, we’ve been focused on setting a higher standard in medical (and one day adult use) cannabis by growing craft cannabis on a commercial scale through utilization of this cutting-edge cultivation technique. When taken in total, Maitri boasts access to a library of 243 unique cannabis strains, one of the largest collections in the U.S.

Trouble with Traditional Cultivation

Pathogens, insects and cross contamination all threaten the viability and value of cannabis plants. In many ways, current cannabis cultivation techniques compound these issues by promoting grams per square foot above all else and packing plants into warehouse sized grows where issues can quickly spread.

In these close quarters, pests can swiftly move from plant to plant, and even from generation to generation when propagating from clones or growing in close quarters. Similarly, pathogens can leap between susceptible plants, damaging or killing plants and cutting into a cultivator’s bottom line.

Hemp tissue culture samples

Of particular concern is hop latent viroid. Originally identified in hops, a genetic relative of cannabis, this infectious RNA virus has torn through the cannabis industry, endangering genetics, causing sickly plants and reducing yields. Plants cloned using traditional methods from an infected mother are vulnerable to the disease, making hop latent viroid a generational issue.

Minimizing or even eliminating these threats helps to protect the genetic integrity of cannabis strains and ensures they can be enjoyed for years to come. That is where the sterilization stage in tissue culture cultivation stands out.

Like cloning, tissue culture propagation offers faster time to maturity than growing from seed, allowing for a quicker turnaround to maximize utility of space, without overcrowding grow rooms. However, it also boasts a clean, disease-free environment that allows plants to thrive.

Tissue Culture Cultivation

Tissue culture cultivation allows for viable plant tissue to be isolated in a controlled, sterilized environment. Flowering plants can then be grown from these stored genetics, allowing for standardization of quality strains that are free of contamination and disease from the very beginning. Tissue culture cultivation also takes up less room than traditional cloning, freeing up valuable square footage.

A large tissue culture facility run in the Sacramento area that produces millions of nut and fruit trees clones a year.

This propagation process begins with plants grown to just before flowering and harvested for their branch tips. These branch tips undergo a sterilization process to remove any environmental contamination. This living plant material (known as explants) gets fully screened and tested for potential contaminants.

If it passes, the sample is stabilized and becomes part of the Maitri genetic library for future cultivation. If any contamination is discovered, the plant is selected for meristem isolation, an intensive isolation technique at the near cellular level.

Once sterilized and verified to be clean, the samples — often just an inch tall — are isolated into individual test tubes in our proprietary nutrient-rich medium for storage indefinitely. The cuttings are held in these ideal conditions until tapped for cultivation. This process allows Maitri to maintain an extensive library of clean, disease-free cannabis genetics ready to be grown.

Benefits for Medical Cannabis Patients

Tissue culture creates exact genetic replicas of the source plant

One of the chief benefits of tissue culture propagation is that it creates exact genetic replicas of the source plant. This allows growers like Maitri to standardize cannabis plants, and thus the cannabis experience. That means patients can expect the same characteristics from Maitri grown strains every time, including effects, potency and even taste and smell. Keeping reliable, top quality strains in steady rotation ensures patients have access to the medicine they need.

Preserving Plant Genetics

Beyond the benefits that tissue culture cultivation provides for the patient, this approach to testing, storing and growing cannabis plants also goes a long way towards protecting cannabis genetics into the future.

Cannabis strains are constantly under assault from pests and disease, potentially destroying the genetics that make these strains so special. Over-breeding and a dwindling demand for heirloom strains also threatens the loss of some individual plant genetics. Having a collection of genetics readily available means we can quickly cultivate strains to best meet consumer demand. Additionally, maintaining a rich seed bank that features both legacy and boutique strains allows us to have options for future tissue culture cultivation or for future new strain development.

Advancing Cannabis Research

Due to federal prohibition, researching cannabis, especially at the university level, can be extremely difficult. Additionally, the cannabis material that researchers have access to is largely considered to be subpar and wildly inconsistent, placing another barrier to researching the physiological effects of the plant. Clean, safe and uniform cannabis is a necessity to generate reliable research data. Utilizing tissue culture cultivation is a smart way to ensure researchers have access to the resources they need to drive our understanding of the cannabis plant.

The Importance of Smart Cannabis Packaging

By John Shearman
No Comments

Regardless of their size, all consumer package brands spend a significant amount of money and resources on packaging to attract consumers’ attention. We are all very visually oriented and gravitate to items that pique our interests. Cannabis brands are no exception when it comes to branding their products. Packaging plays a big part in carrying their brand forward and standing out on the dispensary shelves. When I was in Las Vegas at a CBD tradeshow in early 2020, I visited a dispensary, and it was beautiful. I remember commenting to a colleague that was with me how spectacular the product packaging was in the glass cases. One had unique artwork on each different product they offered, and it was indeed art. Yes, I did purchase this one that pulled me in.

The cannabis industry in the United States presents a challenge to brands because there is no overall federal guidance for packaging. Each state is controlling the cannabis legislation and, with it, the packaging guidelines. So multi-state operators (MSOs) have to manage each state as a separate entity and abide by the packaging regulations, which is not very efficient and adds a cost burden. As the industry matures and becomes federally legal across the country, packaging regulations will be easier to implement.

Louis Vuitton bags are one of the many goods that are commonly counterfeited
Image: UK Home Office, Flickr

Let’s take a look at counterfeit products across all product categories. There is a significant global problem with counterfeits, as articulated by the below statistics.

The total global trade in fakes is estimated at around $4.5 trillion. 

Fake luxury merchandise accounts for 60% to 70% of that amount, ahead of pharmaceuticals, entertainment products and representing perhaps a quarter of the estimated $1.2 trillion total trade in luxury goods.

Digital plays a big role in this and perhaps 40% of the sales in luxury fakes take place online.

Customs and Border Patrol confiscated $1.3 billion worth of counterfeit goods in the U.S. for Fiscal Year 2020. (The value of 2020’s seizures are actually down compared to the $1.5 billion worth of counterfeit goods seized by CBP in 2019).

Unfortunately, the figures above are concerning, and the cannabis industry will face the same counterfeit issues that will add to these stats in the future. What can be done to help fight the problem and alleviate the pain for cannabis brands? Smart technology.

The trend towards “smart technology” varies by sector, but the underlying concept involves building levels of technology systems designed to impede or limit the highly sophisticated counterfeiter from replicating or replacing products. These levels typically include a forensic level control on the product, digital systems to track the material and customer facing systems to articulate the underlying value to the consumer.

Building these levels of smart technology into cannabis-products and packaging allows consumers to authenticate real versus fake, and in the case often in cannabis, legal versus illegal. Molecular technology is one forensic level of control option that can be used as a unique identifier for product authentication. Each brand would get its unique identifier to apply to the raw materials that make up its product, such as oil or an isolate. Then a sample can be tested at the origin point and subsequent nodes in the supply chain using a remote testing device. All the digital data is captured in a secure cloud database for traceability and transparency to the end consumer, to show them the authenticity of the product they are consuming. The same molecular technology can be applied to the ink or varnish for packaging and labels. A great application to help combat counterfeits and product diversion across the globe.

Counterfeiters can create near duplicate versions of the original

Another engaging platform is called StrainSecure by TruTrace Technologies. Their SAAS platform allows cannabis manufacturers to track all their product batches and SKUs tied to a blockchain. It also facilitates the interaction between the manufacturer and third-party testing facilities to conduct product testing and reporting. The data is captured within the platform, and with easy access dashboard views, it provides the insights to authenticate products at any time.

A company out of Australia called Laava is producing a product called Smart Fingerprints. It’s the next evolution of QR codes. The Smart Fingerprints can be applied to each package, providing a unique identifier that consumers can read with a mobile phone application. The consumer is provided with information concerning the product’s authenticity and any additional information the brand wants to share with the user. Smart Fingerprints are a great example of customer engagement at the point of activity that is secure.

The above three solutions show the availability of advanced technologies the cannabis industry can implement on its packaging and products to ensure authentic and safe products are sold to consumers. It provides consumers with vital information and insights about products so they can make informed buying decisions. There is no one silver bullet solution that provides all the answers. As with every high value product, counterfeiters will work to create near duplicate versions of the original until it becomes unsustainable to do so. It will take a technology ecosystem to seamlessly connect and provide actuate and timely information between supply chain partners and ultimately the end consumer. As the US works to separate the legal from illegal production for both the adult use and medical supply of cannabis, the looming challenge will be on protecting and communicating authenticity, packaging will be the first step in this.

Soapbox

Confront Poor Medicinal Cannabis Policies to Save Lives

By Dr. Jordan Zager
No Comments

For me, the opioid epidemic was never a theoretical crisis. The mounting lives lost to overdoses weren’t just numbers in news reports to me, but names. A high school lab partner, little league teammates, a cook at my first restaurant job and others in my hometown were lost to the epidemic. By the time I graduated high school, seven people in my life died due to complications arising from opioid use.

What’s not lost on me now, after earning my PhD in plant biochemistry and founding a startup focused on bringing consistency and scientific credibility to the cannabis industry, is how a stigma around medicinal cannabis seems like such a contributing factor in their deaths.

Cannabis, although fully illegal in only eight U.S. states, still qualifies as a Schedule 1 drug on the federal level, legally equivalent to LSD or heroin. Crystal methamphetamine and cocaine as Schedule 2 drugs have lower penalties and even have federally approved medical applications. This is where we’ve failed as a broader scientific community.

The reason is this: Medicinal cannabis produced from the same genetic replicates, but grown in separate locations, or even different seasons, will possess different bioactive compounds. In short, their effect on patients will be different depending on the various bioactive compounds produced by the plant. Prescription medications do not come with that major caveat.

Dr. Jordan Zager, CEO and co-founder of Dewey Scientific

There’s a quality assurance problem, compounded by a lack of science that’s been shackled by the criminalization of cannabis since 1937.

We do know that the primary benefits of cannabis are three-fold: First, there’s pain management, as 28 well conducted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have documented that cannabinoid agents are effective analgesics for chronic pain. Second, while potentially psychologically addictive, so people may desire the “high” produced by cannabis, THC is not chemically addictive and does not create a biological desire for the drug, much like the craving induced by the absence of, say, cocaine or heroin has on regular users. And finally, patients cannot overdose.

As a scientific community, there are three things we need to start doing today to change the narrative around medicinal cannabis and help bring this safer alternative therapy to more people. We need to provide a larger body of evidence about the benefits. We need to drive increased consistency in cannabis products themselves. And we need to confront stigmas rooted in misinformation. The sooner we can succeed here, the sooner we can hope for a day when we see fewer devastating opioid overdoses and deaths.

I am driven by a vision for a future when people can have access to safe, trusted and consistent cannabis for their medical and recreational uses, and we as a society are able to fully realize the therapeutic benefits of this amazing plant. As scientists, my colleagues and I are committed to doing our part to bring the credibility and advancements that will help this vision become a reality.

Using tools rooted in science–including functional genomics and secondary metabolite pathway expression profiling–cultivators can learn to fully “know” the plants they grow and hone in on producing the same bioactive compounds and in the same ratios that show medicinal promise. Cultivators can learn the genetic effect that their facility has on their genetics and why those genetics lead to a different chemical profile when grown elsewhere. Together, we can identify the driving factors of what makes a variety help with whatever ailment you are trying to treat.

I’m buoyed by data that shows states that have legalized and provided access to recreational cannabis have between 20% and 35% fewer reported opioid deaths, and lower rates of opioid prescriptions. But more needs to be done. I plan to become a more vocal voice, advocate for sound science, consistency in medical cannabis and better access to natural plant-based medicines without the stigma of yesteryear.

The time has come for our policy makers to step up. We cannot afford to just be observers when the cost of remaining on the sideline is measured in lives.

Dr. Ed Askew
From The Lab

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 3

By Dr. Edward F. Askew
No Comments
Dr. Ed Askew

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 

In the last two articles, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) paperwork wall used if a grower, processor or dispensary (user/client) questioned a laboratory result and the conflicts of interest that exist in laboratory culture. Now I will discuss the second line of defense that a laboratory will present to the user in the paperwork wall: Quality Control (QC) results.

Do not be discouraged by the analytical jargon of the next few articles. I suggest that you go immediately to the conclusions to get the meat of this article and then read the rest of it to set you on the path to see the forest for the trees.

QC in a laboratory consists of a series of samples run by the laboratory to determine the accuracy and precision of a specific batch of samples. So, to start off, let’s look at the definitions of accuracy and precision.QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

According to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater:

Accuracy: estimate of how close a measured value is to the true value; includes expressions for bias and precision.

Precision: a measure of the degree of agreement among replicate analyses of a sample.

A reputable laboratory will measure the Accuracy and Precision of QC samples in a batch of user samples and record these values in both the analytical test report issued to the user and in control charts kept by the laboratory. These control charts can be reviewed by the user if they are requested by the user. These control charts record:

Accuracy (means) chart: The accuracy chart for QC samples (e.g., LRB, CCV, LFBs, LFMs, and surrogates) is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements of the analyte of interest.

Precision (range) chart: The precision chart also is constructed from the average and standard deviation of a specified number of measurements (e.g., %RSD or RPD) for replicate of duplicate analyses of the analyte of interest.

Now, let’s look at what should be run in a sample batch for cannabis analyses. The typical cannabis sample would have analyses for cannabinoids, terpenes, microbiological, organic compounds, pesticides and heavy metals.

Each compound listed above would require a specific validated analytical method for the type of matrix being analyzed. Examples of specific matrixes are:

  • Cannabis buds, leaves, oil
  • Edibles, such as Chocolates, Baked Goods, Gummies, Candies and Lozenges, etc.
  • Vaping liquids
  • Tinctures
  • Topicals, such as lotions, creams, etc.

Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.

Also, both ISO 17025-2005 and ISO 17025-2017 require the use of a validated method.

ISO 17025-2005: When it is necessary to use methods not covered by standard methods, these shall be subject to agreement with the customer and shall include a clear specification of the customer’s requirements and the purpose of the test and/or calibration. The method developed shall have been validated appropriately before use.

ISO 17025-2017: The laboratory shall validate non-standard methods, laboratory-developed methods and standard methods used outside their intended scope or otherwise modified. The validation shall be as extensive as is necessary to meet the needs of the given application or field of application.

Validation procedures can be found in a diverse number of analytical chemistry associations (such as AOACand ASTM) but the State of California has directed users and laboratories to the FDA manual “Guidelines for the Validation of Chemical Methods for the FDA FVM Program, 2nd Edition, 2015”

The laboratory must have on file for user review the following minimum results in an analytical statistical report validating their method:

  • accuracy,
  • limit of quantitation,
  • ruggedness,
  • precision,The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts.
  • linearity (or other calibration model),
  • confirmation of identity
  • selectivity,
  • range,
  • spike recovery.
  • limit of detection,
  • measurement uncertainty,

The interpretation of an analytical statistical report will be discussed in detail in the next article. Once the validated method has been selected for the specific matrix, then a sample batch is prepared for analysis.

Sample Batch: A sample batch is defined as a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of twenty (20) analytical samples run during a normal analyst’s daily shift. A LRB, LFB, LFM, LFMD, and CCV will be run with each sample batch. Failure of any QC sample in sample batch will require a corrective action and may require the sample batch to be reanalyzed. The definitions of the specific QC samples are described later.

The typical sample batch would be set as:

  • Instrument Start Up
  • Calibration zero
  • Calibration Standards, Quadratic
  • LRB
  • LFB
  • Sample used for LFM/LFMD
  • LFM
  • LFMD
  • Samples (First half of batch)
  • CCV
  • Samples (Second half of batch)
  • CCV

The QC samples are defined as:

Calibration Blank: A volume of reagent water acidified with the same acid matrix as in the calibration standards. The calibration blank is a zero standard and is used to calibrate the ammonia analyzer

Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV): A calibration standard, which is analyzed periodically to verify the accuracy of the existing calibration for those analytes.

Calibration Standard: A solution prepared from the dilution of stock standard solutions. These solutions are used to calibrate the instrument response with respect to analyte concentration

Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): An aliquot of reagent water or other blank matrix to which known quantities of the method analytes and all the preservation compounds are added. The LFB is processed and analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the methodology is in control, and whether the laboratory is capable of making accurate and precise measurements.

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix/Duplicate (LFM/LFMD) also called Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD): An aliquot of an environmental sample to which known quantities of ammonia is added in the laboratory. The LFM is analyzed exactly like a sample, and its purpose is to determine whether the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results. The background concentrations of the analytes in the sample matrix must be determined in a separate aliquot and the measured values in the LFM corrected for background concentrations (Section 9.1.3).Laboratories must validate their methods.

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB): A volume of reagent water or other blank matrix that is processed exactly as a sample including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents and reagents, sample preservatives, surrogates and internal standards that are used in the extraction and analysis batches. The LRB is used to determine if the method analytes or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus.

Once a sample batch is completed, then some of the QC results are provided in the user’s analytical report and all of the QC results should be recorded in the control charts identified in the accuracy and precision section above.

But having created a batch and performing QC sample analyses, the validity of the user’s analytical results is still not guaranteed. Key conclusion points to consider are:

  1. Laboratories must validate their methods.
  2. Running QC analyses does not guarantee that the user’s specific sample in the batch was analyzed correctly.
  3. QC Charts can provide a detailed overview of laboratory performance in a well-run laboratory.

The user must look beyond the QC data provided in their analytical report or laboratory control charts. Areas to look at will be covered in the next few articles in this series.