Cannabis strains are numerous, and worldwide breeders are always creating new ones. The list is ever-expanding. While consumers love the treasure hunt of finding new varieties, some historic breeders are left wondering if their lifelong work is protected from copying or theft. Other creations have intellectual property (IP) rights. The issue with securing these rights had been rooted in not being able to prove what strain a person has, federal illegality did not help either.

RELATED: ‘Junk science’: flawed testing leads to overturned cannabis convictions

Reggie Gaudino, director of the Cannabis Research Institute, believes that has changed–and he has a patent backing it up. It is possible to prove whether someone has the strain that they claim, provided the original variety has been mapped.

This patent covers methodology that organizes cannabis genetics into groups based on terpene composition. The goal is to help patients and practitioners understand the impact, potential medical application, and ideal breeding partners for specific varieties.

He explained the work and its applications in conversations with GreenState.

“I created the methodology because I was tired of doctors saying they don’t know enough about cannabis,” Gaudino said.” There are ways to identify if something has the same chemical profile. We have shown that you can identify varieties that had the name changed to make it sell because the chemical profile was so perfectly overlaid on something tested previously with a different name.”

Cannabis genetics and chemical profiles

A cannabis chemical profile shows how much THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids are in a plant or oil. It may also map esters, flavonoids, terpenes, and more. Terpenes are oils in common plants like chamomile, lavender, and rosemary.

They are responsible for much of the scent and flavor of cannabis flowers, and possibly the effects too. Weed terpenes are far more complex than those found in garden variety flora, sometimes clocking over 40 terpenes in a profile.

This complexity is a gift for those mapping the weed genome. Weed names have been switched and altered for generations, often to the detriment of patients. Gaudino clocked this on the back end for years.

Two varieties labeled as different will have almost matching chemical profiles, this indicates they are actually the same. The opposite is also prominent. People sometimes also claim to have a specific variety, but it does not match previous chemical assays of the strain.

These chemical readouts serve as a scientific nameplate for cannabis chemovars, a way to prove a plant is what the brand claims it is. Those who understand the long history of weed strains will know how useful this tool could be, and how much work there is to be done.

A culture of sharing leads to opacity

The cannabis industry has thrived underground for generations due to legality. This has kept growers safer, but it also concealed histories of iconic lineages like Fire OG. Within this a culture of sharing seeds and clones thrived. Farmers and hobbyists traded weed genetics just like gardeners share fascinating tomato and squash breeds.

Like all enterprises, good and bad actors emerged in American weed, and some operators took advantage of strain name opacity. A Southern California delivery often changed 2010’s designer OG varieties based on whatever Marvel movie was in theaters.

The result is a Gordian knot of cannabis names, with the duplicates as bountiful as the dupes. The patented system could uncover buried knowledge, but first, scientists need a vast body of cannabis chemovar data. Unfortunately, weed history does not side with science.

Sure, sharing genetics was a beloved practice in the underground days, but things have become more cloak and dagger since the dawn of the green rush. A lack of intellectual property protections compounds the confusion.

Cannabis IP for weed breeding

There are a handful of ways to protect cannabis chemovars as intellectual property in U.S. courts. Utility patents protect products and any methods or unique materials used to create them. A Plant Patent may also apply for asexually produced, non-tuber plants to protect genotypes (a.k.a. genetics).

The last option for the plants themselves is the Plant Variety Protection Act, which is available for sexually produced plants (hemp included) with a seed deposit.

Other breeders, like the minds behind the Biscotti strain lineage, trademark the name rather than the product. Trademarking the name may stop competitors from marketing off of their work.

There are science-backed tools for understanding weed genetics. All that is left to do is get the breeders on board. However, that is easier said than done due to previously violated trust.

RELATED: Does the perfect joint exist? Science says…

Getting growers on board to submit genetic data

When California legalized adult use, entrepreneurs, big biz players, and legacy operators had grand plans. One was Phylos Bioscience, a biotechnology company that promised to bring clarity to the weed strain world.

They released an open-source visual forum of cannabis genetics called the Galaxy. Online visitors could interact with the immense map, moving through genetic lineages and reading names. Growers and breeders willingly sent in their plant matter to be genetically sequenced for free as part of the community project. They were thrilled to have science now backing years of breeding work.

Excitement faded as the biotech firm announced its own breeding program after collecting around 3,000 genetic samples. Growers recoiled, worried that the Big Pharma-backed company was about to take generations of underground work and sell it to the highest bidder.

Founder Mowgli Holmes told Wired that was not the case, that they were trying to further understand data by breeding the phenotypes to pair with genotypes. Despite this explanation, this experience left lasting distrust in the weed world that remains today.

State grant seeks to understand cannabis agriculture

Efforts from the Origins Council and United Core Alliance hope to renew trust among breeders and cultivators in California with the launch of a Legacy Cannabis Genetics study. Academic researchers, scientists, and community-based organizations are banding together on the California Department of Cannabis Control-funded agriculture study.

The oral history track will capture the big picture stories before they are lost to time, while PhD Eleanor Kuntz, CEO of LeafWorks Inc. will spearhead the genetics and botanical piece.

LeafWorks sells a product that authenticates cannabis strain DNA in various ways, and will be using that methodology in part while working on the grant project.

“LeafWorks will be doing some general sequencing to understand diversity. Not all plants will be sequenced, it will be just a subset that the community deems representative,” Kuntz told GreenState.

RELATED: Why can’t you dream on weed?

The focus with this project is in cataloging California cannabis diversity. Kuntz hopes to gather botanical pressings and some genetic sequencing from 100 plants in each region. Canndor Herbarium will record all of the data as part of the observation-based study of California cannabis.

This work may build a bridge of good faith over the Phylos-shaped chasm Phylos between geneticists and legacy cultivators.

Kuntz explained how plant vouchers and, less so, sequencing data, will be used, “to define cultivars, to understand genetic diversity; how much there is and how it is distributed among and between communities. This is classic population genetics — how we look at diversity in plants overall.”

The population genetics piece lays a geographic map over the detailed sequencing data work Gaudino is engaged in. When it comes to the consumer, they are most interested in proving that weed is what brands say it is, and all of these efforts will meet at that end.

The science behind cannabis genetics

The general public is not clear on whether science can prove what they are smoking. A user commented on GreenState article share, “We don’t have established chemical compositions for what constitutes a specific chemovar … we need to establish a framework for what makes up a specific strain, so it’s patentable.”

Another user replied in-thread, “I believe Phylos tried that, and it didn’t work out well for them.”

While many found Phylos’s practices questionable, the science behind the genomics work was not. Techniciant can match and verify cannabis against a specific chemovar with the proper testing methods on clean, calibrated machines. Common plants may have three, five, or six terpenes, but cannabis will have quite a lot more.

Gaudino explained that these compounds are the key to knowing what you are smoking, “It’s impossible for three completely genetically distinct varieties to have the same terpene profile over 40 terpenes.”

Terpene compositions are a strain thumbprint, providing a map to prove if two plants are genetically identical or not.

A cannabis variety represents the potentials of an unpopped seed. Once planted and rooted into a growing environment, the plant becomes a chemovar.

Terpenes are a language the chemovar uses to communicate with its environment. If a bug is munching its leaves, the plant may develop a terp that the insect can not stomach to deter snacking. The changes made by these environmental factors would not alter the chemical analysis enough to look like a different variety, though.

Gaudino explained that it would likely show that stress in a way that coincides with its genetic potentiality.

“One thing that you never see in cannabis is confused plants. If the response elicited under those environmental conditions needs sedative terpenes, because that causes lethargy to the insects, and that will stop them from predating,” he said. “Then, all of those terpenes fall in line. You don’t see a predominant terpene that’s energetic and a bunch of sedatives mixed. Cannabis is not confused.”

“Cannabis is not confused”

Genetics (genotype) plus environment equals phenotype. The same cannabis grown in different environments may result in varying terpene composition. These variations create a higher or lower saturation of terpenes found in that plant. The presence of previously undocumented terpene, or one missing one, indicates that the strain is genetically different than what it claims.

Terpenes alone may be able to map out the complex strain names making up American weed today. Gaudino is most interested in using these maps to further medical applications of the cannabis plant. The methodology includes a potentially viable tool for healthcare workers.

“What we did is create this classification system where you actually take the oil profile, and you apply medical weighting. It goes through a mathematical algorithm, and it spits out where that particular batch of cannabis lands in an abundance and therapeutic score,” Gaudino said. “That allows somebody to not rely on a name and more on the actual oil, which is what the medicine is.”

The geneticist does not claim this lab work is easy. Accurately testing for minor cannabinoids like beta-ocimene is not simple, but it is possible. Gaudino recorded the methodology and offered it free. He just asks that chemists not deviate from his instructions. Check for bad science in the profile results by mapping terpene ratios.

For example, beta-caryophyllene and alpha-humulene always occur at a 2.5-3.5 to one ratio. If results come in different, it indicates an operator error. He hopes this work leads to more understanding, acceptance, and application of medical cannabis in Western medicine.

Cannabis genetics and the common consumer

Terpenes lie at the heart of untangling the world of cannabis genetics and possibly medical applications, too. As more chemical analysts lock in methodology to uncover the terpene composition, how people value the plant may change drastically. Think less emphasis on THC and more on the cornucopia of compounds that weed has to offer.

Unfortunately for consumers, unless they start demanding mandatory terpene testing from cannabis brands, this will remain an inconsistent practice, unavailable to the masses. Before the culture can reach a point where people are confident in a chemovar, the industry must grapple with the mess of strain names, varieties, and phenotypes in the way.