• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Research The Cactus Analysis Thread

Research done by (or for) the DMT-Nexus community
Migrated topic.
Nice work! Thanks for sharing

Can you link the mentioned thread please?

Also, is it possible to have sources in the last column (whether this thread or publications or whatever)?

Will be nice to keep expanding this table with our own tests, from other underground researchers, and from publications. I suspect you are familiar with K Trout's books on cacti?
 
endlessness said:
Nice work! Thanks for sharing

Can you link the mentioned thread please?

Also, is it possible to have sources in the last column (whether this thread or publications or whatever)?

Will be nice to keep expanding this table with our own tests, from other underground researchers, and from publications. I suspect you are familiar with K Trout's books on cacti?
Click to expand...


graph of alkaloid content of named Trichocereus clones and anecdotal potency reports. - The Ethnobotanical Garden - Shroomery Message Board

the numbers came from a study mentioned in trouts notes. the last three rows are from the 14 taxa paper, trout has a collection of previous studies and their results but as far as i know the cuttings they used cept the ones i added were all random cuts cep juuls,ogunbode and the kk plant

6/24/2017, updated graph again in other thread, includes sources of numbers and a few rewordings and corrections.

836472940-graph_updated_61317.png
 
Thanks a lot!

Could you share this as an excel file?

Im thinking it would be interesting to make another row with the with the average values of "no-name" cuttings content based on trout's book..

Or even each of those different analysis we can find in literature of unnamed clones, each getting one row, having like a big excel file with all the data of other analysis too and maybe add columns for other variables if we can find out (country of growth, fertilized or not, date of harvest etc )

I can start working on that too if you can share this first table, maybe I can make something on github or google drive or whatever and share it so others can edit.
 
endlessness said:
Thanks a lot!

Could you share this as an excel file?

Im thinking it would be interesting to make another row with the with the average values of "no-name" cuttings content based on trout's book..

Or even each of those different analysis we can find in literature of unnamed clones, each getting one row, having like a big excel file with all the data of other analysis too and maybe add columns for other variables if we can find out (country of growth, fertilized or not, date of harvest etc )

I can start working on that too if you can share this first table, maybe I can make something on github or google drive or whatever and share it so others can edit.
Click to expand...





When I first started adding stuff to the graph I did toy around with adding the other no name data but it piled up so quick and made the number categories so bloated and unwieldly I ended up just focusing on the named clones. How would the numbers be formatted or presented without it ballooning the graph into a lot of white noise? My problem was I couldn't figure out how to best present the data, each no name as its own category like the named clones? Grouped based on species with a range, an average or list bulk list the result numbers from lowest to highest? I definitely think an all encompassing chart should be created with all potency data just for the sake of getting a better understanding of the species and its relationship to mescaline but it has its own set of issues that may skew the numbers or complicate the graph for people looking for a quick answer, just like now how many of those species aren't actually the species its categorized as I'm sure a lot of that was cuzcoensis throwing the data per species out the window, with the named clone list the species doesn't really matter too much since its identifying known cuts based on content.

So I think two graphs should be created and maintained, one that contains all data and all relevant information to help study the genus as a whole for those who want to do in-depth research on species and location and a second graph used as a quick reference by those who are more focused on obtaining a known clone based on potential alkaloid content. Although I guess if the graph was re done though excel and everything was assigned values one could just sort my mescaline % and go down the list until they get a name

www.dropbox.com

cactus graph 6252017.rtf

Shared with Dropbox
www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
 
One way we could do is make two sheets in an excel file, so one sheet has all the results from each single test named and unnamed (and any "extra" info we might have on each test), and another where its more summed up and you see the named clones results only, plus one single row with the average of all the unnamed clones.
 
iv been reading though trout's cactus chemistry by species trying to add the data to the chart, but its extremely unclear were one plant ends and another plant begins, the way its set up makes it seem like under brigessi there are 2 plants since there are two bold categories but its actually 4 plants, each indicated by a researcher and date, but under the pachanoi part its even worst its formatted the same but the way its worded makes it seem like multiple people have contributed to a single cutting like it will give a name and date then say 95% water and leave it like that, above they showed that indicates a separate plant when they were talking about brigesii but under pachanoi that data doesn’t seem to make sense unless there talking about the same plant.
 
endlessness said:
Try the san pedro book, might be easier to get the info:


Starts around page54 for bridgesii, 114 for pedros, 197 for peruvianus
Click to expand...

its a tad bit better, however most of the info is literaly just copy and pasted from the Cactus Chemistry by Species book to the point that they didnt even reformat it so its just the same block paragraph.

most of the info that's in both of trout's books was included as a summarized graph in the 14 taxa paper, but they lack the more in-depth info about weights and other alkaloids found. so when I have time I might just use the 14 taxa paper to enter the bulk info and again when I have time go though and try to teas out the extra numbers and alkaloid info from the Cactus Chemistry by Species book. although I keep putting it off because every time I look at the info I'm reminded that there's a lot of cuts to catalog and many are dubious in their actual species listing which is kind of the whole point of graphing the broader species to begin with.
Just from looking at trout's numbers and the number in this thread its seems like the answer for species is get bridgesii, maybe some pachanoi but avoid puruvianus as so far seems like more often then not its either super weak or most likely not actually puruvianus and its just cuzcoesis.
 
Hello everyone!

This is fantastic work. Thanks a lot for conducting it :)

Please do not take me wrong. I do not want to make your work look bad but I would like to propose some ways to make it more useful and perhaps to maximise the learnings.

1.) ron69's tek is great but you should not carry out the cleaning with MEK for your studies. It will greatly reduce secondary and tertiary amines. To detect them still, you will need to overload your tlc and this is causing other problems.

2.) PLEASE list the rf values (for the used solvent) like in this example. In this way it will be possible to identify chemicals later on. Say someone figures out what some spot actually is, you end up with a table of rf values for the chemicals in the cactus.

3.) Please consider paying the extra money when sending stuff to Energy Control and let them send you the raw data. You may not be able to read it but I can do it for you and then the unknown components will not longer be. This is particularly important as tlc + uv light can only detect aromatic chemicals but LC-MS will give you all the glory. This might answer the question why bridgesii is speedy and PC is not. It could be a non-aromatic molecule. Or the molecule is removed by your MEK wash - which I do not think.

4.) Minor things to consider:
- Free base the extracts before putting them on the TLC. This could improve the separation.
- Run a tlc on what remains from the MEK washes. This should have a high concentration of stuff that interests you.

Keep up the great work!
 
Hey Dr Seltsam!

I actually have not been doing the MEK wash in the interest of getting a total alkaloid type extract.

Energy Control has been sending the raw data. I will PM it to you!

I agree that I should be doing RF values, but there have not really been any other spots on my plates, as maybe you can see in the pictures. Sometimes there is some gooey spots but they do not react to ehrlich reagent so I have been assuming that they are just plant goo & not alkaloids.
 
I will try freebasing the extract & running that to see if it makes a difference! Thanks for the tips!
 
So here is the mass spec data. I used to know how to interpret these things but it is tricky & I am out of practice.

endlessness said:
Yeah the major peak is mescaline.

Im sending you the other peaks.. So I talked to the head chemist and he corrected me on something, the later peaks are not fatty acids, that's simply baseline noise. He sent me a file with no substance, just baseline, so you can see:


So when you look at the other spectra, you have to remove all the peaks you see in the above pic and then you'll have the real spectra. So here they are:

#1:J505-Trichocereus
Unknown peaks


#J5350-Dlimonene-NPS

#J5350-HCL

#4-T.Werdermannus
unknown peak

#5: T.lumberjackius
unknown peak

#6.T.Macrogonus.R50004

#7.T.Pacheroi-LER



So if you want to make that easy to understand, you'd have to sort of photoshop out the baseline mass spectra ..
Click to expand...
 
urtica said:
I will try freebasing the extract & running that to see if it makes a difference! Thanks for the tips!
Click to expand...

Having thought about it one more time I am not sure if that advice was good :D What kind of solvent are you using for tlc? At the other thread I got the impression that ammonia is present in the solvent mixture. If that is true, the ammonia will turn the salts into freebase as ammonia is a stronger base than the primary amine of the drugs you are testing.


Thanks for the spectra :) I'll have a look into them!
 
The solvent is methanol & ammonia.

& I realize that I did MEK wash the first 2 extracts, but I stopped after that. It did not seem to do much to my extracts.
 
Did EC tell you what kind of ionisation/MS they use?

Edit: they use a esquire6000 which employs an electron spray ionisation (ESI) technique. This is why the fragmentations patterns made no sense to me in the first place :D I'll have to read more about ESI to make sense of these spectra.
 
Here we go: To start with read the tutorial here. It will give you a good entry point for the interpretation of the spectra.

The mescaline part is simple:

You have the M+H peak at 212 m/z an the main fragments:

Mescaline - NH3 at 195 m/z
Mescaline - H3C-NH3 at 180 m/z
Mescaline - H3C-CH2-NH3 at 165 m/z

Then we have the unknown compound in that has the main peak at 164.9 m/z that is present in J505, T.Werdermannus, and T.lumberjackius. My first guess was Hordeine with a mass of 165.2, which looked promising. Then I remembered that electron spray ionisation produces M+H which would be 166.2. I also found a spectrum of Hordeine as comparison here.

There are some things that I find very strange about this spectrum.
- The J505 gives a very clean spectrum, the rest has a lot of noise.
- The difference between the M+H and the next peak is just 15 m/z. As the leaving fragment should be neutral, I am not getting what this could be? H2O = 18, NH3=17, CH4=18
- The peak at 133 indicate that H3C-NH3 left, which would make our chemical a primary or secondary amine.
- The peak at 105 would indicate that a fragment of 59,9 was lost - which not not quite TMA - which would have 59 u.

Someone lese has an idea about this?
 
Thank you for diggin into this! I will watch that tutorial & try to figure it out myself.

I am also planning on being in touch with K Trout soon & will try to get him to chime in.

Somebody also guessed hordenine for that peak & second guessed it...

What does the DMPEA peak look like? I know that one is common in the cacti. (Edit: DMPEA molecular mass = 179.219)
 
So the idea I have is to make a list of the secondary cactus alkaloids. Then we start a crowdfunding and if we gather enough we can get a nexus chemist (mindlusion) to synthesize those compounds. Then we can use them as reference standards and check out what those compounds look like in EC's LC-MS method, as well as testing them with TLC/reagents for the home chemists to have as a reference information.

How does that sound?

I gotta see if The Traveler will be onboard with that crowdfunding but I suspect he will, considering those will be legal compounds being synthesized for the community and will def increase our knowledge on these plants.
 

Similar threads

vlad665
Substance testing Qualitative analysis of citrus reticulata leaves via pyrolytic organoleptic testing
Replies
5
Views
162
vlad665
vlad665
The Traveler
Nectar Spectra Labs - Substance Analysis Service
Replies
3
Views
256
endlessness
endlessness
endlessness
Analysis of synthetic DMT and its impurities, and analysis of re-x
Replies
13
Views
2K
Loveall
Loveall
CacFella
Psychotria loniceroides AKA hairy psychotria containing DMT?
Replies
3
Views
732
modern
M
V
Paper chromatography, tryptamine quantification using caffeine as reference and ninhydrin alternatives?
Replies
7
Views
369
modern
M
Back
Top Bottom