European Neuropsychopharmacology (2015) 25, 12011224

www.elsevier.com/locate/euroneuro

Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling

in the human brain? A systematic review
of evidence to date
Musa Basser Samia,b, Eugenii A. Rabinerc,d,
Sagnik Bhattacharyyab,n

a
Kent and Medway Partnership, NHS Trust, UK
b
Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience,
King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK
c
Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience,
King's College London, UK
d
Imanova, Centre for Imaging Sciences, London, UK

Received 20 October 2014; received in revised form 23 February 2015; accepted 22 March 2015

KEYWORDS Abstract
Cannabis; A signicant body of epidemiological evidence has linked psychotic symptoms with both acute and
Dopamine; chronic use of cannabis. Precisely how these effects of THC are mediated at the neurochemical level
Dopamine receptor; is unclear. While abnormalities in multiple pathways may lead to schizophrenia, an abnormality in
Neurotransmitter; dopamine neurotransmission is considered to be the nal common abnormality. One would thus
Human;
expect cannabis use to be associated with dopamine signaling alterations. This is the rst systematic
Review
review of all studies, both observational as well as experimental, examining the acute as well as
chronic effect of cannabis or its main psychoactive ingredient, THC, on the dopamine system in man.
We aimed to review all studies conducted in man, with any reported neurochemical outcomes related
to the dopamine system after cannabis, cannabinoid or endocannabinoid administration or use. We
identied 25 studies reporting outcomes on over 568 participants, of which 244 participants belonged
to the cannabis/cannabinoid exposure group. In man, there is as yet little direct evidence to suggest
that cannabis use affects acute striatal dopamine release or affects chronic dopamine receptor status
in healthy human volunteers. However some work has suggested that acute cannabis exposure
increases dopamine release in striatal and pre-frontal areas in those genetically predisposed for, or at
clinical high risk of psychosis. Furthermore, recent studies are suggesting that chronic cannabis use
blunts dopamine synthesis and dopamine release capacity. Further well-designed studies are required
to denitively delineate the effects of cannabis use on the dopaminergic system in man.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 848 0955.
E-mail address: sagnik.2.bhattacharyya@kcl.ac.uk (S. Bhattacharyya).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2015.03.011
0924-977X/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.
1202
1. Introduction
Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug of use worldwide,
with use rates of 3.9% across cultures, accounting for 180.6
million users, 13.1 million of whom are dependent on the drug
(Degenhardt et al., 2013; United Nations Ofce on Drugs and
Crime, 2013). A signicant body of epidemiological evidence
has consistently linked psychotic symptoms with both acute and
chronic use of cannabis (Andrasson et al., 1987; Moore et al.,
2007; Schimmelmann et al., 2011). Cannabis use has also been
implicated in the approximate doubling of the risk of develop-
ment of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia in regular
cannabis users (Arseneault et al., 2004; Davis et al., 2013;
Moore et al., 2007) and an increase in rates of relapse of
schizophrenia in those patients with comorbid cannabis use,
up to three-quarters of whom may be using the drug
(Schimmelmann et al., 2011; Zammit et al., 2008). Under
experimental conditions, a single dose of its main psychoactive
ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), can result in
the acute induction of transient psychotic symptoms in man
similar to that seen under the inuence of cannabis, and these
acute effects have been linked to its effects on prefrontal,
medial temporal and striatal function (Bhattacharyya et al.,
2009, 2012a, 2012b; DSouza et al., 2008, 2004).
Precisely how these effects of THC are mediated at the
neurochemical level is unclear. While abnormalities in multiple
pathways may lead to schizophrenia, an abnormality in dopa-
mine neurotransmission, particularly in striatal regions, is
considered to be the nal common abnormality that may
explain some of the prominent symptoms of the disorder,
especially psychotic symptoms (Davis et al., 1991; Howes and
Kapur, 2009; Snyder, 1976). Consequently one would expect
cannabis use, an environmental risk factor with strong links to
psychosis, to be associated with dopamine signaling alterations.
In animal models, THC has been shown to increase dopamine
neuron ring rates in the ventral tegmental area in a cannabi-
noid 1 (CB1) receptor mediated mechanism (Cheer et al., 2000;
French et al., 1997). Administration of THC also leads to an
accumulation of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens which can
be inhibited by CB1 and opioid receptor antagonists as well as
the axonal blocking agent Tetrodotoxin (TTX) (Cheer et al.,
2004; Chen et al., 1990; Tanda et al., 1997). THC administration
has also been associated with increase in striatal dopamine
levels with microdialysis, estimated as being of the order of 25
100% increase (Chen et al., 1990; Gardner, 2005; Ginovart
et al., 2012; Tanda and Goldberg, 2003; Tanda et al., 1997).
Taken together, it appears that THC acts upon CB1 receptor in
the ventral tegmental area to evoke burst ring leading to
dopamine increases in striatal areas and the nucleus accumbens
(Kuepper et al., 2010; Lupica et al., 2004). CB1 receptor
mediated modulation of dopamine levels in the pre-frontal
cortex has also been demonstrated (Pistis et al., 2001).
However, since schizophrenia is a uniquely human disease,
delineation in man of the neurochemical mechanisms that may
underlie the increase in risk of developing schizophrenia
associated with cannabis use is imperative to precisely under-
stand and accurately model disease pathogenesis. Although,
there have now been a number of studies investigating the
effect of exogenous cannabinoids on dopamine signaling in
man, the results of these studies are as varied as the different
outcome measures, including central and peripheral markers,
M.B. Sami et al.
that have been used. The purpose of this review is to synthesize
following a systematic literature search all available evidence
from human studies that have investigated the acute and
chronic effects of cannabis and THC on the dopaminergic
system.
1.1. Objectives
This review was conducted in order to review systematically
the literature for the effect of cannabis and cannabinoids on
the dopaminergic system in humans. We aimed to review all
studies conducted in man, both interventional and observa-
tional, employing both retrospective and prospective meth-
odologies with any reported neurochemical outcomes rela-
ted to the dopamine system after cannabis, cannabinoid or
endocannabinoid administration or use.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria for studies were: (1) human studies, (2) investigat-
ing the acute and long-term effects of cannabinoid administration,
(3) measuring molecular markers related to dopaminergic neuro-
transmission including (a) biomarkers in peripheral blood,
(b) in vivo (imaging) or (c) post mortem brain tissue.
Exclusion criteria were (1) studies where cannabinoid administra-
tion was not the intervention or exposure of interest and (2) studies
where neurochemical outcomes were not directly reported upon.
2.2. Search strategy
A nal search was undertaken on the 18 July 2014. The search terms
used were: (Cannabidiol or cannabinoid or cannabis or CBD or THC
or hashish or marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol or endocannabi-
noid) and (dopan or dopamine or PHNO or raclopride or fallypride or
iodobenzamide or IBZM or FMT or PE21 or CIT or NNC112 or
SCH23390 or D1 or D2 or D3 or DAT or AADC or MAO) Search was
undertaken in Medline, EMBASE, and PsychInfo using OvidSP plat-
form ltering for human studies. All studies published in any
language up to July 2014 and indexed in the above databases were
included. Further searches, using the same search terms were
undertaken on the Cochrane Clinical Trials Database and the TRIP
Medical database (www.tripdatabase.com/). All identied relevant
studies, reviews and conference abstracts were hand-searched for
any additional relevant references.
2.3. Data extraction
Demographic and methodological variables and outcome data for
studies identied were extracted into a spreadsheet. Primary outcomes
of interest were central or peripheral neurochemical markers pertaining
to the dopaminergic system. These were compared between interven-
tional/exposed cohorts and non-exposed control groups. Studies were
grouped based on study design (acute vs. chronic effect) and type of
dopamine measure investigated into (a) peripheral markers of dopa-
mine release, (b) post-mortem and in-vitro studies, (c) case reports,
(d) in vivo acute imaging studies and (e) in vivo imaging studies in
chronic users.
2.4. Risk of bias
Risk of bias and quality assessment of the methodologically
heterogeneous group of individual studies (Table 1) reviewed here
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain 1203

Table 1 Identied papers.

Study Type of study Region of interest Site of dopamine pathway

Messiha and Soskin (1973) Peripheral markers Peripheral Peripheral measures

Markianos and Stefanis Peripheral markers Peripheral Peripheral measures
(1982)
Markianos and Vakis, Peripheral markers Peripheral Peripheral measures
(1984)
Musselmann et al. (1994) Peripheral markers Peripheral Peripheral measures
Bowers and Kantrowitz Peripheral markers Peripheral Peripheral measures
(2007)
Dean et al. (2003) Post-mortem and in-vitro Striatum (caudate) (1) Dopamine synthesis capacity; (2) Synaptic
studies Clearance
Steffens et al. (2004) Post-mortem and in-vitro Neocortex Dopamine Release
studies
Voruganti et al. (2001) Case report Striatum D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Rominger et al. (2013) Case report Whole brain D2/3 Receptor
Bossong et al. (2009) Acute imaging studies Striatum D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Stokes et al. (2009) Acute imaging studies Frontal cortex D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Stokes et al. (2010) Acute imaging studies Striatum D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Barkus et al. (2011) Acute imaging studies Striatum D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Kuepper et al. (2013) Acute imaging studies Striatum D2/3 Receptor -intrasynaptic dopamine
release acutely
Sevy et al. (2008) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor
users
Safont et al. (2011) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor
users
Stokes et al. (2012) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor
users
Albrecht et al. (2013) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor
users
Urban et al. (2012) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor +Dopamine Release
users intrasynaptically
Mizrahi et al. (2013) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum Dopamine release intrasynaptically
users
Mizrahi et al. (2014) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum Dopamine release intrasynaptically
users
Leroy et al. (2012) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum, midbrain, Synaptic clearance
users thalamus
Bloomeld et al. (2014a, Imaging studies in chronic Striatum Dopamine synthesis capacity
2014b) users
Volkow et al. (2014) Imaging studies in chronic Striatum D2/3 Receptor +Dopamine Release
users intrasynaptically

required a suitably inclusive and exible approach. For this 3. Results

purpose, an adapted set of criteria by Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) guidance (West et al., 2002) amended 3.1. Study selection
as appropriate for interventional and observational trials were used
(see Tables 2B7B).
Risk of systematic bias across studies was further identied by In total 2796 records were identied, of which 2044
assessing all papers for possible confounding with tobacco and other remained when duplicates were removed. All abstracts of
substance misuse in cannabis users. the records were screened against the inclusion and
1204
exclusion criteria. A nal list of 25 studies was identied for
systematic analysis in this review (see Figure 1). Cumula-
tively, these studies reported outcomes on over 568 parti-
cipants (sample size was not available for one paper
(Steffens et al., 2004)) of which 244 participants belonged
to the cannabis/cannabinoid exposure group.
Characteristics of included studies is reported in
Tables 2A7A. Methodological quality of studies included
is reported in Tables 2B7B. Studies included investiga-
ted different aspects of the dopamine signaling pathway
(Figure 2) in response to cannabis or THC exposure. These
include (1) peripheral blood biomarkers; (2) effect of
cannabinoids on dopamine release striatal and cortical;
(3) effect of cannabinoids on dopamine synthesis; and
(4) effect of cannabinoids on dopamine receptor and
transporter density. A brief synopsis of the key ndings is
reported below.
3.2. Peripheral dopamine markers in response to
cannabis use:
Five studies have addressed this area (see Tables 2A and 2B)
2 studies each investigated metabolites of dopamine in
urine (Markianos and Vakis, 1984; Messiha and Soskin, 1973)
and plasma (Bowers and Kantrowitz, 2007; Markianos and
Figure 1 Systematic review ow diagram.
M.B. Sami et al.
Stefanis, 1982), while another investigated this in cere-
brospinal uid (CSF) (Musselmann et al., 1994).
Messiha and Soskin (1973) conducted the rst study in
humans investigating the urinary excretion of biogenic
amines in 6 healthy individuals who smoked cannabis at
both higher and lower concentrations (2.24 mg THC vs.
0.8 mg THC). Urinary excretion of dopamine and its meta-
bolites (3MT, HVA, DOPAC) were non-signicantly decreased
at the higher dose at 2 h by 3354% and by 5 h by 1536%.
Markianos and Stefanis, (1982) in a similarly sized study
(n =6) undertook a use-deprivation-use trial of 6 long-term
cannabis users over 4 days. They showed sustained increas-
ing prolactin over the 3-day withdrawal period (30%), which
reverted to baseline after smoking cannabis, suggesting
sustained dopaminergic changes in the withdrawal state
that returned to baseline with re-use. Markianos and Vakis,
(1984) further studied 5 healthy volunteers who smoked
cannabis on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart. Comparison of
overnight urinary excretion of dopamine metabolites
revealed a 49% increase in HVA urinary concentration after
smoking cannabis as compared to not smoking cannabis
indicating a signicant dopamine release following expo-
sure. Taken together, these studies provided some early
evidence for alteration in dopamine measures after canna-
bis exposure in man although the direction of association
was not clear. However these studies were considerably
 Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
Table 2A Characteristics of studies of peripheral dopamine markers in cannabis use.

Study Duration n Sample Dopamine Methodology Intervention/ Control Cannabis Healthy Other group Results
chemical Exposure group controls
measures

Messiha and 5 hours 6 Urine Dopamine, Cross-over. 2.24 mg THC 0.8 mg THC 6 6 N/A Decrease dopamine
Soskin participants DOPAC, Levels taken and 0.3 mg and markers 15-54%. No
(1974) HVA, 3-MT baseline, Cannabidiol 0.016 mg signicant difference
2 and 5 h Cannabidiol
and
0.016 mg
Cannabinal
Markianos 4 days 6 Plasma Prolactin Use- D1: CBS use, No control 6 0 N/A Increasing prolactin over
and participants withdrawal- D2-4 the 3 day withdrawal
Stefanis use trial abstinence, period (30%) reverted to
(1982) D4 CBSre- use baseline after re-use
(p = 0.01)
Markianos Overnight 5 Urine HVA Crossover, Cannabis oil No control 5 5 N/A 49% increase HVA
and Vakis urine participants urine smoked with concentration in CBS
(1984) collection collection tobacco group (p = 0.001)
11PM-8AM single use
Musselmann N/A 116 total, CSF HVA post-hoc CBS test +ve CBS test -ve 19 97 N/A Increase of 3.7% HVA levels
et al. 19 CBS analysis of in CBS group. Not
(1994) screen CSF levels signicant (p=0.15).
positive
Bowers and First 37 Plasma HVA Comparison CBS test +ve CBS test -ve Cannabis N/A First Episode FEP + Cannabis group
Kantro- morning participants of Plasma group: First Psychosis elevated HVA levels than
witz after levels taken Episode without FEPnoCannabis group
(2007) admission morning Psychosis Cannabis use (64%,p = 0.001) and non-
after with (n= 15), non- psychotic admissions
inpatient Cannabis psychotic (159%, p = 0.001).
admission use (n =5) admissions
(n= 17)

1205
 1206
Table 2B Methodological quality of studies of peripheral dopamine markers in cannabis use. (Source: adapted from West et al., 2002.)

Study Comparability of Subjects Randomization Blinding (for Exposure or Adequate control Outcome Statistical Excluded/ Funding or
(for interventional intervention state measurement analyisis adjustment sponsorship
interventional trials only) for tobacco
trials only) confounding?

Messiha and Yes. Crossover subject effects No No Cannabis / Use of Dopamine, t-test, Not Not
Soskin minimized smoked. controls. Not true DOPAC, HVA correlated discussed discussed
(1973) placebo means
Markianos No control group No No Cannabis No control group Prolactin Paired t- No Not
and smoked test, discussed
Stefanis use- means
(1982) withdrawal-
use
Markianos Crossover subject effects No No Cannabis / Use of Urine HVA Paired No Not
and Vakis minimized smoked with controls. Not true t-test, discussed
(1984) tobacco placebo means
Musselmann Demonstrated in baseline N/A N/A / Test CSF HVA Matched Not Not
et al. analysis (observational) (observational) positive. paried t- discussed discussed
(1994) Frequency/ tests
quantity of
CBS use
unclear
Bowers and / Demonstrated in baseline N/A N/A / / Adequate Plasma HVA Not Not
Kantro- analysis.No difference between (observational) (observational) Documented psychotic controls. Student's t discussed discussed
witz psychotic and non-psychotic CBS use. Not clear if non- tests
(2007) groups. Age difference between Frequency/ psychotic
non-psychotic controls and quantity of admissions were
exposure group. CBS use not using cannabis.
unclear

THC tetrahydrocannabinol; CBS cannabis; FEP rst episode psychosis; DOPAC 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (dopamine metabolite); HVA homovanillic acid (dopamine metabolite);
CSF cerebrospinal uid.

M.B. Sami et al.

 Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
Table 3A Characteristics of studies of post-mortem and in-vitro studies of dopamine markers in cannabis use.

Study Duration n Sample Dopamine Methodology Intervention/ Control Cannabis Healthy Other group Results
chemical Exposure group controls
measures

Dean N/A 28 post- Caudate [3H]Mazidol Case control: Postmortem Postmortem 9 Cannabis test N/A 19 cannabis No signicant
et al. mortems 14 for DAT; Comparison CBS levels +ve CBS levels positive (5 test negative difference between
(2003) schizophrenics, Tyrosine of DAT and TH ve schizophrenia, (9 CBS users and non-
14 controls Hydroxylase levels 4 non schizophrenia, users
schizophrenia) 10 non
schizophrenia)
Steffens N/A Unknown Neocortex [3H] Preclinical Administration Rat N/A N/A N/A CB1 Agonist/
et al. and Dopamine experimental of CB1 agonist/ neocortex Antagonist
(2004) amygdyla release trial antagonist and depressed/
amygdyla enhanced [3H]-
Dopamine release
in human tisue but
not in rat

Table 3B Methodological quality of studies of peripheral dopamine markers in cannabis use. (Source: adapted from West et al., 2002.)

Study Comparability of subjects Randomisation Blinding (for Exposure or Adequate Outcome Statistical Excluded/adjustment for Funding or
(for interventional intervention control measurement analyisis tobacco confounding? sponsorship
interventional trials only)
trials only)

Dean Age and Sex matched. N/A N/A / Test ANOVA, No Declared
et al. No signicant differences (observational) (observational) positive. post-hoc
(2003) in age, post mortem Frequency/ Bonfoeronni
interval, brain pH. quantity of CBS correction
use unclear
Steffens N/A N/A preclinical N/A preclinical Rat [3H] Students Preclinical experimental Not
et al. experimental experimental tissue Dopamine t-test of with CB1 agonist/ discussed
(2004) release mean antagonist. No tobacco
confounding possible

CBS cannabis; TH tyrosine hydroxylase; DAT dopamine active transporter; CB1 cannabinoid receptor Type 1; ANOVA analysis of varience; N/A not applicable.

1207
1208
Figure 2 Neuro-chemical outcomes measured in human studies of cannabinoid effects on the dopamine system. HVA: homovanillic
acid; DOPAC: 3,4-dihydoxyphenylactetic acid; 3-MT: 3-methoxytyramine; D2/3R: dopamine 2/3 receptor; BBB: bloodBrain Barrier
(number of trials, n = number of participants).
limited by very small sample sizes, lack of appropriate
strategies with regard to blinding and control conditions.
Furthermore, studies did not control for concomitant
tobacco use, which has been linked to dopamine release
(Faure et al., 2014).
Musselmann et al. (1994) undertook a post-hoc analysis
examining the CSF of healthy controls (n = 116), a subset of
whom (n= 19) tested positive for cannabinoid use on urine
toxicology screen. A marginal and non-signicant increase
of 3.7% in the level of dopamine metabolite HVA in those
healthy individuals who tested positive for cannabis on urine
testing relative to those that did not was reported. How-
ever, it is difcult to draw rm conclusions from this as the
precise temporal relationship of cannabis exposure in rela-
tion to the sampling of CSF in those that tested positive was
not available. This is especially important as the change in
dopamine may be an acute effect and hence change in
dopamine metabolites may not be detectable in CSF beyond
the acute period, while urine may still continue to test
positive for cannabis exposure for over 2 months (Huestis,
2007).
Bowers and Kantrowitz (2007) investigated plasma HVA
levels in 3 groups of hospital admissions: 5 patients with
First Episode Psychosis (FEP) with a positive urine drugs
screen for cannabis at inpatient admission, 15 FEP patients
with a negative urinary drug screen and 17 patients without
a psychotic disorder diagnosis with a negative urinary drug
screen. The cannabis-positive FEP patient group had sig-
nicantly elevated HVA levels compared to the FEP patients
who did not test positive for cannabis (64%, po0.001) as
well as the non-psychotic admissions (159%, po0.001).
M.B. Sami et al.
These results, which replicate those of Markianos and
Vakis (1984), suggest a state of hyperdopaminergia asso-
ciated with cannabis exposure even relative to non-cannabis
using psychotic controls. However, the major limitations are
the modest sample size and characterization of cannabis
exposure only on the basis of urine screening. While, urine
drug screen validates recent exposure, it does not inform
about the amount and frequency of use.
3.3. Effect of cannabinoids on dopamine release
3.3.1. Striatal dopamine release
Acute dopamine release may be assayed by measuring
change in D2/3 binding of specic radioligands following
cannabinoid challenge; with the change in specic binding
being an index of changes in extracellular dopamine. After
an initial case report suggested 20% reduction of striatal
dopamine D2/3 receptor following cannabis exposure in a
single subject (Voruganti et al., 2001), three studies have
investigated the effect of THC challenge on striatal release
using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
cross-over design in healthy controls (n = 31) (Barkus
et al., 2011; Bossong et al., 2009; Stokes et al., 2009)
(see Tables 4A and 4B). At the level of the whole striatum all
three studies showed no signicant differences in total D2/3
receptor uptake following THC challenge in the striatum.
However, when looking at striatal subdivisions, Bossong
et al. (2009) reported a modest (3.43.9%) but signicant
reduction in binding in the ventral striatum and preco-
missural dorsal putamen. However, this nding was not
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain 1209

Table 4A Characteristics of imaging studies of acute thc challenge on dopaminergic function.

Study Tracer Population n Methodology THC Results

challenge

Bossong [11C] Healthy Volunteers. Mild CBS 7 Randomized, 8 mg Whole Striatum no signicant
et al. Raclopride use at least 1 year. Urine test double blinded, Inhaled difference.
(2009) ve study day cross over Ventral Striatum -3.5% BPND
p = 0.029 Precommisural Dorsal
Putamen 4% p = 0.042
Stokes [11C] Healthy Volunteers 13 Randomized, 10 mg Whole Striatum and striatal
et al., Raclopride double blinded, oral subdivisions no signicant
(2009, cross over difference between groups
2010) Use 420 CBS (mean =8127671) No striatal correlations between
COMT Val/Met status and D2R
binding.
No Mental Illness No substance Decreased BPND in frontal
dependence regions of 30.650.1% of THC
group vs. placebo
COMT Val/Met signicant
correlation with genotype and
Raclopride uptake in the left
superior frontal gyrus
Barkus [123]IBZM Healthy Male volunteers 11 Randomized, 2.5 mg IV No signicant difference from
et al. Age 26.374.2 double blinded, placebo in stimulating dopamine
(2011) No drug (except nicotine) cross over release from striatum
dependence
Urine free sample study day
Previous use of CBS
Kuepper [18F] 9 healthy cannabis users; 24 Single blinded to 8 mg THC induced signicant striatal
et al. Fallypride 8 patients with psychotic placebo and Inhaled displacement of Fallypride in
(2013) disorder; 7 unrelated rst conducted in a both patients (13.2) and
degree relatives of persons with sham randomized relatives (12.6) but not in
psychosis design controls (2.3)

replicated by Stokes et al. (2009) using a similar region of
interest (ROI) approach. Consequently, the results of these
human studies are in contrast to the fairly robust evidence
from animal studies that suggest striatal dopaminergic
modulation by THC (Chen et al., 1990; Gardner, 2005;
Ginovart et al., 2012; Tanda and Goldberg, 2003; Tanda
et al., 1997).
While generally well-designed, these results need to be
considered in light of certain limitations: all of these studies
investigated modest-sized samples and differing methods of
administration (Stokes et al.: oral; Bossong et al.: inhala-
tion) associated with considerable inter-individual variation
in bio-availability in the brain. Oral THC bioavailability may
be as little as 1020%, whereas bioavailability of inhaled
THC varies between 2% and 56% (Huestis, 2007). Further-
more, both the studies that reported negative results
(Barkus et al., 2011; Stokes et al., 2009) studied chronic
cannabis users who were more likely to have a blunted
response to the effects of THC as well as lower baseline
dopamine levels (DSouza et al., 2008).
Kuepper et al. (2013) examined striatal dopamine release
in response to THC in 3 groups of individuals with varying
genetic predisposition to psychosis: healthy controls (n= 9),
untreated patients with psychosis (n= 8) and unrelated rst-
degree relatives of individuals with a psychotic disorder
(n = 7). THC induced signicant striatal displacement of the
high afnity D2/3receptor radioligand [18F]fallypride indicat-
ing dopamine release in both patients and relatives but not
in controls. These results indicate that THC may have
different effects on striatal dopamine release that may be
contingent upon genetic pre-disposition to psychotic dis-
orders. Use of a single-blinded and sham-randomized design
limits the conclusions that one may draw from this study.
Four studies investigated the capacity for striatal dopa-
mine release in cannabis users versus healthy controls
(Mizrahi et al., 2014, 2013; Urban et al., 2012; Volkow
et al., 2014) using an approach that did not involve THC
administration (see Tables 5A and 5B). Urban et al. (2012)
(n = 32) used amphetamine challenge to determine this in 16
cannabis users and 16 healthy controls, to nd no signicant
difference in [11C]raclopride binding between the groups.
However, they found a signicant correlation between
younger age of onset of cannabis use associated with
smaller dopamine release in the associative striatum. This
may suggest a possible blunting of the responsiveness of the
dopaminergic system related to previous exposure. This
study suffered from a high dropout rate, with 32 cannabis
users initially recruited, as more severe users could not
tolerate the abstinence required of study conditions. This
may have thus excluded those with more signicant blunting
1210 M.B. Sami et al.

Table 4B Methodological quality of studies of imaging studies of acute thc challenge on dopaminergic function.

Study Dened Rando- Blinding Inter- Ade- Out- Statisti- Drop- Exclu- Funding
Study misa- vention quate come cal out rate ded/ or
popula- tion control mea- analyi- speci- adjust- spon-
tion sure- sis ed? ment sorship
ment for
tobacco
con-
found-
ing?

Bossong THC BPND 2/9 No

et al., Healthy Double chal- Placebo striatal ANOVA, (22%) tobacco Declared
2009 Volun- lenge post-hoc con-
teers Paired t founding
test with
THC
Stokes THC BPND Paired Not No
et al., Healthy Double chal- Placebo striatal t test speci- tobacco Declared
2009 Volun- lenge ed con-
teers founding
with
THC
Stokes THC BPND Not No
et al. Healthy Double chal- Placebo frontal Repe- speci- tobacco Declared
(2010) Volun- lenge ated ed con-
teers mea- founding
sures with
ANOVA THC
Barkus THC Paired 2/11 No
et al., Healthy Double chal- Placebo [123I]- t test (18%) tobacco Declared
2011 Volun- lenge IBZM con-
teers Subtrac- founding
tion with
Index THC
Kuepper / THC BPND Linear 6/30 No
et al. Psycho- Pseudo- Single chal- Placebo striatal regres- (20%) tobacco Declared
(2013) tic rando- lenge sion con-
patients misation model founding
vs. rst with
degree THC
relatives
vs.
healthy
cannabis
users

THC tetrahydrocannabinol; CBS cannabis; PET positron Emission Tomography; BPND binding potential non-displaceable; COMT
catechol-O-methyltransferase; Val/Met valine/methionine; [123I]-IBZM iodobenzamide; 18F-fallypride 18-uoro-fallypride;
ANOVA analysis of variance

of dopamine release capacity. Volkow et al. (2014) investi-
gated 24 cannabis-users and 24 healthy controls using [11C]
raclopride with a methylphenidate challenge. They similarly
found no signicant group difference in baseline D2/3 levels
or BPND after administration of methylphenidate. However
they found methylphenidate challenge resulted in signi-
cantly larger decrease in the distribution volume of [11C]
raclopride in controls than cannabis users across the whole
brain, which held on region of interest (ROI) analysis for
the striatum and cerebellum. These ndings indicate that
signicant care should be taken in the interpretation of PET
data as indicating changes in dopamine release, due to
changes in vascular resistance, and hence potential changes
in regional blood ow in cannabis users (Herning et al.,
2005).
Mizrahi et al. (2013) examined dopamine release in
chronic cannabis users, using the [11C]PHNO D2/3 receptor
radiotracer and studied them in a control state using a
sensorimotor control task and in a stress state using the
Montreal Imaging Stress Task. There was no signicant
 Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
Table 5A Characteristics of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on dopaminergic release.

Study Tracer Study aim Population n Cannabis use Controls Results

Urban et al. [11C]Raclopride 1. D2/3 Receptor 16 cannabis 32 Use at least 16 Healthy 1. D2/3R
(2012) Availability in users. 5 times/week. Controls displacement
chronic CBS use Need to abstain after
2. Dopamine for CBS to Amphetamine
release in become negative Challenge (DA
chronic CBS users in urine release): no
in response to signicant
amphetamine difference. 2.
challenge Signicant + ve
association
between DA
release and
earlier age of
cannabis use
onset R= 0.567,
p= 0.03.
Mizrahi et al. [11C]PHNO Dopamine 13 cannabis 25 Use at least 12 Healthy 1. In both tasks
(2013) release in users. 3 times/week Controls D2/3R binding
chronic CBS users was increased in
in response to CBS group (12-
stress task 14%). 2. No
signicant
change in
displacement of
radioligand by
Stress Task 3.
Duration of CBS
use associated
with stress
induced
displacement in
Limbic striatum.
4. No correlation
between age of
onset and DA
release.
Mizrahi et al. [11C]PHNO Dopamine 12 cannabis users 24 Use at least 12 non-CBS users 1. No signicant
(2014) release in with CHR 3 times/week with CHR difference
patients with between tasks in
clinical high risk control task. 2.

1211
(CHR) with and Stress task
 1212
Table 5A (continued )

Study Tracer Study aim Population n Cannabis use Controls Results

without chronic elicited increase

CBS use in in BPND
response to CHRnoCBS group
stress task and decrease in
BPND CHR-CBS
group 3.
Signicant
differences in all
regions of
striatum and
whole striatum
(p = 0.001)
Volkow et al. [11C]Raclopride 1. D2/3 Receptor 24 cannabis 48 DSM IV Cannabis 24 Healthy 1. D2/3R
(2014) Availability in users. use/dependence. Controls displacement
chronic CBS use Mean use measured via
2. Dopamine 4.8 joints/day BPND after
release in (73), mean methylphenidate
chronic CBS users years of use 10.5 Challenge (DA
in response to (72). Last use 1 release): No
methylphenidate 7 d prior to scan Signicant
challenge Difference across
whole striatum.
2.
Methylphenidate
has signicantly
larger decrease
of distribution
volume of
Raclopride in
controls than
cannabis users
across brain,
striatum and
cerebellum

M.B. Sami et al.

 Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
Table 5B Methodological quality of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on dopamine release.

Study Dened study Comparability of subjects Adequate exposure Control Outcome Statistical Excluded/ Funding or
population measurement analyisis adjustment sponsorship
for tobacco
confounding?

Urban et al. Current / Demographic characteristics matched. DSM IV criteria BPND Two- No Declared
(2012) chronic Information not available on other conrmed by PRISM IV Striatum and group t
cannabis users recreational drug use in cannabis group and interview. Bi-weekly BPND test
briey healthy controls cannabis testing to Striatum
abstinant conrm brief abstinance
Mizrahi et al. Current / Demographic characteristics matched. Use of SCID BPND Paired No Declared
(2013) chronic Other recreational drug use in cannabis questionnaire and Striatum t-test
cannabis users group information not availiable in healthy Marijuana Craving
controls Questionnaire
Mizrahi et al. Patients / Demographic characteristics matched. Use of SCID BPND Paired t- Undertook Declared
(2014) with clinical More tobacco smokers in CBS group. Other questionnaire and Striatum test analysis with
high risk, with recreational drug use in cannabis group Marijuana Craving and without
and without information not availiable in healthy Questionnaire. Use of SIPS tobacco
CBS use controls to establish CHR status smokers
Volkow et al. Current / Demographic characteristics matched. DSM IV criteria BPND Yes CO used Declared
(2014) chronic Signicant difference in tobacco usage, but conrmed by 2 clinician Striatum, Factorial as covariate
cannabis users this was corrected. Other active ussage of interview using semi- BPND striatum repeated
drugs excluded via urine sampling structred instrument and distribution ANOVA
volume (DV)

D2/3R dopamine 2/3 receptor; CBS cannabis; PET positron emission tomography; PHNO (+)-4-propyl-9-hydroxynaphthoxazine; 18F-DOPA L-6-uoro 3,4-dihyroxyphenylalanine; DSM
IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV; PRISM IV Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders IV; SCID Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV;
BPND binding potential non-displaceable; BPND change in binding potential non-displaceable; ANCOVA- Analysis of covarience; CHR: clinical high risk; COPS criteria of prodromal
syndromes.

1213
1214
difference between the chronic cannabis users and healthy
controls in terms of percentage of displacement of the
radiotracer bound to D2/3 receptors (which indicates dopa-
mine release). However, as a result of exposure to stress,
the authors found that D2/3receptor binding measured
during the control sensorimotor task condition was 12
14% higher in the cannabis user group compared to the
healthy volunteers. Mizrahi et al. (2014) further investi-
gated stress-induced dopamine release using identical para-
digms and radioligand in patients with clinical high-risk of
psychosis with and without cannabis use. Of the 12 cannabis
users 11 were dependent on cannabis and all smoked
cannabis at least 3 times a week. They found that the
stress task resulted in a decrease in BPND in cannabis non-
users, while in the cannabis users BPND increased during the
stress task. Signicant differences between cannabis and
non-users were found for the whole striatum as well as the
associative, limbic and sensorimotor subregions. The same
pattern of results remained on excluding tobacco smokers
from analysis. These results are difcult to interpret in the
context of changes in dopamine release, as they would
imply a reduction in dopamine release in cannabis using
patients, rather than just blunting of the response. Changes
in regional blood ow in cannabis users may go some way to
inform on the results in cannabis users, but overall the most
consistent interpretation of these results is that cannabis
use does not increase the sensitivity of the dopamine system
response to stressful stimuli.
3.3.2. Cortical dopamine release
In comparison to the studies on striatal dopamine release,
comparatively fewer have investigated dopamine release in
cortical areas (particularly the pre-frontal cortex). Steffens
et al. (2004) investigated neocortex and amygdala in vitro,
comparing human and rat neuronal tissue for the effects of
CB1 stimulation on dopamine release. In human neocortex,
direct agonism of CB1 by administration of CP55,940
depressed [3H]-dopamine release in a concentration-
dependent fashion. Similarly AM251 (CB1receptor inhibitor)
enhanced [3H]-dopamine release. Notably, in the rat neo-
cortex administration of CP55,940 and AM251 did not
inuence [3H]-dopamine release. Furthermore, in the pre-
sence of the axonal blocker tetrodotoxin (TTX): K + evoked
[3H]-dopamine release was inhibited in human tissue but not
in rat tissue. These results suggest that presence of CB1
receptors in human neocortical dopaminergic nerve term-
inals inuences dopamine release. The authors inferred a
tonic effect of endocannabinoids on CB1 receptors in human
neocortex resulting in the inhibition of dopamine release.
In a post-hoc analysis of the imaging data obtained in
their earlier study, Stokes et al. (2010) examined changes in
frontal and temporal [11C]raclopride binding following THC
challenge. They demonstrated decreased [11C]raclopride
binding in the right middle frontal gyrus, left superior
frontal gyrus and left superior temporal gyrus with
decreased BPND of 30.650.1% following THC administration
relative to the placebo condition, which were maintained
when adjusted for blood ow measures and were greater
than the testretest variability (18.323.7%) for this mea-
sure. Stokes et al. also demonstrated variation in corti-
cal dopamine binding with Catechol-O-methyltransferase
M.B. Sami et al.
(COMT) Val108/158Met status. COMT acts primarily in the
synaptic cleft in cortical regions to degrade dopamine to its
metabolites and has been proposed as a candidate gene for
schizophrenia (Williams et al., 2007). In the study homo-
zygotes for the COMT val allele at this locus (n =6) had the
largest decreases in D2/3 receptor binding (7087%), fol-
lowed by heterozygotes (2756%) with the lowest decreases
being observed in the met homozygotes ( 10% to 36%).
These reached signicance in the left superior frontal gyrus
(p= 0.02) (Stokes et al., 2010). This contrasts with the
ndings in the striatum (Stokes et al., 2009) where no
signicant correlation was found. Overall, caution should be
applied when interpreting the changes in [11C]raclopride
binding in the frontal cortex as the effects of change in
dopamine release. The baseline BPND of [11C]raclopride in
the cortex is low ( 0.3), making measurements in this
area vulnerable to confounding methodological effects (e.g.
changes in blood ow, minor differences in non-displaceable
binding between cortex and cerebellum, etc).
3.4. Effect of cannabinoids on dopamine synthesis
capacity
One study investigated 28 post-mortem brain specimens, 14
with diagnosed and treated schizophrenia and 14 without
schizophrenia (Dean et al., 2003). Nine participants across
both groups had THC present in blood sampled at autopsy.
There was no signicant difference in tyrosine hyroxylase
levels in the caudate nucleus between cannabis users and
non-users. A major limitation in addition to the modest
sample size in this study was lack of information about the
quantity or frequency of cannabis use in the cannabis-
positive subjects tested at autopsy. All that could be
assumed was use within 2 weeks of death.
Bloomeld et al. (2014a) used [18F]DOPA scans to study
19 regular cannabis users (10 dependent, 9 abusers) who
experienced psychotic symptoms when they consumed
cannabis versus 19 age and sex-matched controls. They
found dopamine synthesis capacity to be signicantly
reduced in the whole striatum in response to chronic
cannabis use. This reduction reached signicance in the
associative and limbic striatum that remained when adjust-
ing for other drugs of use including nicotine. A greater level
of use was also signicantly associated with reduction in
dopamine synthesis capacity (shorter time to smoke an
eighth (standard measure of cannabis) r = 0.77,
po0.01). These ndings may suggest that cannabis use is
associated with blunted dopamine synthesis capacity in
those users sensitive to the psychotomimetic effects of
cannabis (Bloomeld et al., 2014a).
The same group further examined the association of
dopamine synthesis capacity with the Apathy Evaluation
Scale (AES) in 14 of the above participants who engaged in
heavy cannabis users (Bloomeld et al., 2014b). In this
group of young (average age 20.4) mostly male (13 out of
14) regular cannabis users smoking on at least a weekly basis
for 4.9 years, there was signicant inverse correlation
between dopamine synthesis capacity as measured using
[18F]DOPA PET scan and apathy. Although this cross-
sectional study does not itself establish a causal relation-
ship, taken together these two studies from Bloomeld and
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
colleagues suggest that a blunting of striatal dopamine
synthesis capacity from chronic cannabis use may result in
apathy, a key feature of the amotivational syndrome that
has long been associated with cannabis use (Musty and
Kaback, 1995; Paule, 2005).
3.5. Effect of cannabinoids on dopamine receptor
density:
3.5.1. D2/3 receptor availability
All 6 studies investigating striatal D2/3receptor density
reported no difference between cannabis users and
matched controls (Albrecht et al., 2013; Safont et al.,
2011; Sevy et al., 2008; Stokes et al., 2012; Urban et al.,
2012; Volkow et al., 2014) (see Tables 7A and 7B). Two of
these studies (Albrecht et al., 2013; Safont et al., 2011)
included cannabis users who were still using at the time of
taking part in the studies. In three other studies, cannabis
users had remained abstinent from cannabis for varying
duration ranging from about 2 to 4 weeks (as estimated
based on rst negative urine sample) (Urban et al., 2012)
through to 3 (Sevy et al., 2008) and 18 months (Stokes
et al., 2012). Although one study reported a signicant
difference between cannabis-using patients with rst epi-
sode psychosis and non-psychotic healthy controls, there
was no difference between rst episode psychosis patients
who used cannabis and those who did not (Safont et al.,
2011). Another study reported a signicant negative corre-
lation with use of cannabis as measured by self-report and
urine cannabis levels and striatal [11C]raclopride BPND, but
no group difference between cannabis and non-cannabis
users overall (Albrecht et al., 2013).
3.5.2. DAT receptor availability
The post-mortem study by Dean et al. (2003), discussed
above, found no difference between cannabis users and
non-users for dopamine active transporter (DAT) levels as
measured by [3H]mazindol binding at the caudate. This
outcome suffers from the same limitations of possible Type
II error and lack of information on frequency and quantity of
cannabis use. A further study investigated 38 participants
including 11 non-smokers, 14 tobacco smokers, and 13
mixed cannabis-dependent and tobacco smokers using
[11C]PE21 PET scans to determine DAT availability as a
measure of dopamine synaptic clearance capacity (Leroy
et al., 2012). They reported decreased DAT density in
tobacco smokers and cannabis and tobacco smokers in
ventral, dorsal striatum, midbrain, middle cingulate and
thalamus (1530%) versus healthy controls. There was
slightly decreased striatal DAT density in mixed cannabis
and tobacco users relative to tobacco users only, but this did
not reach statistical signicance. Lack of a group of pure
cannabis smokers makes it unclear to what extent the
reported dopaminergic changes are related to cannabis
use, as opposed to being an effect of tobacco use alone.
3.6. Dopaminergic changes in the cannabis
withdrawal state
A single case study involving a high potency synthetic
cannabinoid (Rominger et al., 2013), measuring D2/3
1215
receptor availability using [18F]fallypride indicated dysre-
gulation in the early, symptomatic withdrawal state; with
normalization of dopaminergic state after symptoms have
abated as against three normal controls. This is in accor-
dance with the results of Markianos and Stefanis (1982),
which additionally suggest normalization of peripheral
levels with reinstatement. However, there is no evidence
of continued D2/3 receptor alterations in those who remain
abstinent beyond the rst week as demonstrated in
repeated studies discussed above (Sevy et al., 2008;
Stokes et al., 2012; Urban et al., 2012).
3.7. Risk of systematic bias across all studies
Of the 23 studies which were evaluated for methodological
quality, 12/23 (52%) did not attempt to adjust or exclude
tobacco or other substance use when evaluating cannabi-
noid exposed groups versus control. In a further study, Leroy
and colleagues (Leroy et al., 2012) studied three groups,
cannabis and tobacco smokers, tobacco smokers alone and
non-smokers, but this did not allow for identication of the
effects of cannabis alone but this did not allow for
identication of effects of cannabis alone. Consequently
the majority of studies did not control for tobacco or other
substance misuse as a confounding variable.
Studies of peripheral markers were overall noted to be
weaker in methodological quality than acute imaging and
chronic imaging studies. This is likely because imaging
studies are of a later period where more robust metho-
dological criteria and design have been employed, with
the use of adequate controls, ensuring adequate exposure
and using randomization and blinding techniques more
prevalent.
4. Discussion
This is the rst systematic review of all studies, both
observational as well as experimental, examining the acute
as well as chronic effect of cannabis or its main psychoac-
tive ingredient, THC, on the dopamine system in man. One
previous review suggested dopamine transmission altera-
tions in cannabis use relying on largely animal models
(Kuepper et al., 2010). A further previous selective review
critically examined the imaging ndings in humans
(Ghazzaoui and Abi-Dargham, 2014) and was more sceptical
of associations but did not draw on alternate lines of
evidence and did not include more recent work
(Bloomeld et al., 2014a, 2014b; Mizrahi et al., 2014;
Volkow et al., 2014). Another recent review has critically
examined epidemiological, genetic and neurobiological
approaches, concluding that there is a probable causal
association between cannabis use and psychosis, but the
evidence for dopaminergic involvement is less consistent
(Van Winkel and Kuepper, 2014).
Cannabis use has now been established as increasing the
risk of onset and relapse of psychotic disorders such as
schizophrenia as well as bringing forward the age of onset in
vulnerable individuals (Gonzlez-Pinto et al., 2008; Moore
et al., 2007; Zammit et al., 2008). Dopaminergic changes
are by now well established in schizophrenia (Howes and
Kapur, 2009; Howes et al., 2012), however dopaminergic
1216 M.B. Sami et al.

Table 6A Characteristics of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on dopamine synthesis capacity.

Study Tracer study aim Population n Cannabis use Controls Results

Bloomeld [18F]- Dopamine 19 regular 38 Current at least weekly 19 1. Uptake signicantly

et al. DOPA synthesis cannabis users users: 10 dependent, healthy reduced in cannabis users
(2014a) capacity in who experience 9 abusers controls relative to whole
chronic CBS psychotic striatum. This reduction
users symptoms when reached signicance in
consume cannabis associative and limbic
striatum. 2 Greater level
of use also signicantly
associated with lower
uptake 3 Dependent users
are signicantly more
likely than nondependent
abusers of CBS to have
lower uptake
Bloomeld [18F]- Dopamine 14 regular 14 Current at least weekly Own 1. Signicant inverse
et al. DOPA synthesis cannabis users users for 41 year. controls relationship between
(2014b) capacity in who experience Average use of cannabis striatal dopamine
chronic CBS psychotic 28.1 g/month, average at synthesis and apathy
users symptoms when least weekly use for score. 2. This holds true
correlation consume cannabis 4.9 years for whole striatum
with AES (p= 0.015) and associative
striatum (p= 0.006)

Table 6B Methodological quality of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on dopamine synthesis capacity.

Study Dened Comparability of Adequate Control Outcome Statistical Excluded/ Funding or

study subjects exposure measurement analyisis adjustment sponsorship
population for tobacco
confounding?

Bloomeld Current / Met DSM Kicer Adjusted Declared

et al. chronic Demographic IV criteria. Striatum Independent for nicotine
(2014a) cannabis characteristics Positive samples t and
users who matched. change of test substance
experience Signicant Psychotic misuse. No
psychotic increased States effect on
symptoms tobacco use in Inventory results
on use cannabis group score after
compared to smoking CBS
healthy controls
Bloomeld Current / 19 regular No Kicer Spearman's Not stated Declared
et al. chronic Demographic cannabis Striatum rho
(2014b) cannabis characteristics users who
users who matched. experience
experience Signicant psychotic
psychotic increased symptoms
symptoms tobacco use in when
on use cannabis group consume
compared to cannabis
healthy controls

D2/3R dopamine 2/3 Receptor; CBS cannabis; PET positron emission tomography; PHNO (+)-4-propyl-9-hydroxynaphthoxazine;
18F-DOPA L-6-uoro 3,4-dihyroxyphenylalanine; DSM IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV; PRISM IV
Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders IV; SCID Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV; AES Apathy
Evaluation Scale.
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain 1217

Table 7A Characteristics of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on receptor density.

Study Tracer Study aim Population n Cannabis use Controls Results

Sevy [11C] D2/3 Receptor Previously 12 3 months since last use 6 healthy No signicant difference
et al. Raclopride Availability in chronic Cannabis (n =6) controls between groups for D2/
(2008) CBS use dependent 3R binding
Safont [123I]IBZM D2/3 Receptor 14 First 55 Use 3 units/day for last 23 FEP no 1. No Signicant
et al. SPECT Availability in chronic Episode 3 months (n =14) CBS; 18 Difference between FEP
(2011) CBS use Psychosis healthy +CBS and FEPnoCBS. 2.
(FEP) controls Signicant Difference
+Cannabis between FEP+ CBS and
users HC (no FEP no CBS)
(untreated)
Stokes [11C] D2/3 Receptor 10 ex- 20 450 times in lifetime. 10 No signicant difference
et al. Raclopride Availability in chronic cannabis Average 18 months Healthy in striatal uptake
(2012) CBS use smokers since abstinence Controls between CBS and HC.
(n=10)
Albrecht [11C] D2/3 Receptor 10 male 18 At least 1 joint/week 8 male 1. No signicant group
et al. Raclopride Availability in chronic cannabis over last 1/12 and +ve healthy difference between any
(2013) CBS use users. urine toxicology. controls striatal region between
Average last use 20.6 CBS users vs HC. 2. In
hours prior to scan CBS group: BPND has
negative signicant
correlation with use of
CBS (po0.01).
Urban [11C] 1. D2/3 Receptor 16 cannabis 32 Use at least 5 times/ 16 1. Baseline D2/3R
et al. Raclopride Availability in chronic users. week. Need to abstain Healthy availability: No
(2012) CBS use 2. Dopamine for CBS to become Controls signicant difference.
release in chronic CBS negative in urine
users in response to
amphetamine challenge
Volkow [11C] 1. D2/3 Receptor 24 cannabis 48 DSM IV Cannabis use/ 24 1. Baseline D2/3R
et al. Raclopride Availability in chronic users. dependence. Mean use Healthy availability: No
(2014) CBS use 2. Dopamine 4.8 joints/day (73), Controls signicant difference
release in chronic CBS mean years of use 10.5 across whole striatum 2.
users in response to (72). Last use 1-7 d Lower D2/3R
methylphenidate prior to scan availability in
challenge marijuana users in
ventral striatum
(uncorrected), not
signicant when
corrected
Leroy [11C]PE21 DAT Availability in 13 mixed 38 Cannabis dependent 14 1. Decreased DAT
et al. chronic CBS users cannabis mean 4.8 joints/day tobacco density in tobacco
(2012) and smokers, smokers and cannabis
tobacco 11 non- and tobacco smokers in
smokers smokers ventral, dorsal
striatum, midbrain,
middle cingulate and
thalamus (15-30%)
versus healthy controls
2. No signicant
difference between
tobacco and cannabis
smokers

changes have been less well documented in response to inhibits dopamine uptake (Banerjee et al., 1975; Poddar and
acute as well as longer term cannabinoid use in man. Dewey, 1980) and increases mesolimbic dopamine activity
Preclinical research suggests that acute THC administration (Chen et al., 1990; French et al., 1997) in animals. Chronic
increases central dopamine synthesis (Bloom et al., 1978), THC use has been demonstrated to increase D2/3 receptor
 1218
Table 7B Methodological quality of imaging studies of effect of chronic cannabis use on receptor density.

Study Dened Comparability of subjects Adequate exposure Control Outcome Statistical Excluded/adjustment for Funding or
study measurement analyisis tobacco confounding? sponsorship
population

Sevy Chronic / Demographic characteristics DSM IV cannabis BPND Two- No Declared

et al. cannabis matched. Signicant increased tobacco dependence, use of SCID Striatum sample t-test
(2008) users now use in cannabis group compared to and CASI-A. Random
abstinant healthy controls urine toxicology to
conrm abstinance
Safont Current / CBS groups similar in gender and Use of self-report and / S/F Ratio One way No Declared
et al. chronic in psychotic syx to non CBS users urinary screening test frontal ANCOVA
(2011) cannabis demonstrated in baseline analysis, binding may
users groups differed in age also be altered
in CBS use
Stokes Chronic / Demographic characteristics Based on CEQ3 or self- BPND MANOVA Adjusted for nicotine, Declared
et al. cannabis matched. Signicant increased report of frequency of Striatum alcohol and substance
(2012) users now recreational drug use in cannabis group use misuse. No effect on results
abstinant compared to healthy controls
Albrecht Current Demonstrated in baseline analysis Met DSM IV criteria. BPND No Declared
et al. chronic Screened using SCID and Striatum Independent
(2013) cannabis urine testing t-test
users
Urban Current / Demographic characteristics DSM IV criteria BPND Two-group No Declared
et al. chronic matched. Information not available on conrmed by PRISM IV Striatum and t test
(2012) cannabis other recreational drug use in cannabis interview. Bi-weekly BPND
users group and healthy controls cannabis testing to Striatum
briey conrm brief abstinance
abstinant
Volkow Current / Demographic characteristics DSM IV criteria BPND Factorial Yes CO used as covariate Declared
et al. chronic matched. Signicant difference in conrmed by 2 clinician Striatum, repeated
(2014) cannabis tobacco usage, but this was corrected. interview using semi- BPND ANOVA
users Other active ussage of drugs excluded structred instrument Striatum and
via urine sampling Distribution
Volume (DV)
Leroy Mixed Not enough detail given to determine Use of DSM IV nicotene BPND ANCOVA / Compared mixed Declared
et al. tobacco and and cannabis Striatum tobacco and cannabis users
(2012) cannabis dependence criteria to tobacco users. Unable to
users determine changes due to

M.B. Sami et al.

cannabis only

D2/3R dopamine 2/3 receptor; FDG-PET uorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; [123I]IBZM SPECT iodobenzamide single photon emission; CBS cannabis computed
tomography; HC healthy controls; DSM IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV; SCID Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IV; CASI-I Comprehensive Addiction
Severity Index; CEQ3 Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire. ANCOVA Analysis of covarience; MANOVA Multivariate anlysis of varience; PRISM IV Psychiatric Research Interview for
Substance and Mental Disorders IV; BPND Binding potential non-displaceable; BPND change in binding potential non-displaceable
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
availability in the nucleus accumbens and striatal areas with
reduction in dopamine synthesis in the midbrain in rodents
(Ginovart et al., 2012). Although these studies have been
illustrative, this review demonstrates important differences
in the effects of cannabis and THC on central dopaminergic
neurotransmission in humans, highlighting perhaps not just
the complexities in replicating the pharmacological effects
of a drug in a different species with a different distribution
of the target CB1 receptor and efcacy of the drug at this
target (Gifford et al., 1997; Kathmann et al., 1999; Pertwee
and Ross, 2002; Schlicker et al., 1997) but also the lesser
degree of experimental control in human studies and hence
greater amount of noise in the data compared to those
carried out in animals. Overall, this may suggest that while
cannabis administration has denite effects on dopamine in
preclinical models, the effects in human are less clear-cut.
While some limited clinical evidence indicates possible
interactions between the cannabinoid and dopaminergic
systems, this effect is very likely to be modest and hence
perhaps at the margins of detection sensitivity of current
measurement techniques in man. These are discussed in
more detail below.
4.1. Peripheral markers
Taken together, the 5 studies identied in this area show
conicting results, which tend towards showing weak evi-
dence that cannabis use affects peripheral dopamine mea-
sures. While the largest study (Musselmann et al., 1994) is
not supportive, it was not specically designed for this
purpose with resulting methodological limitations. The
direction of association is not clear although two studies
(Bowers and Kantrowitz, 2007; Markianos and Vakis, 1984)
report signicant increase in peripheral dopamine levels in
response to cannabis. A further study suggests alterations in
the withdrawal state, which is relieved by re-use (Markianos
and Stefanis, 1982). However work in this area is by limited
by small sample sizes, inadequate controls, heterogeneity
of methods and failure to adjust for tobacco use as a
confounding factor. Consequently larger trials of peripheral
dopamine markers, designed for purpose, of THC or canna-
binoid challenge without concurrent tobacco administra-
tion, are required in order to further our understanding in
this area.
4.2. Post mortem/in-vitro studies
There is a paucity of work in this area with only 2 studies
identied. The work of Steffens et al. (2004) suggests a
hypo-dopaminergic state in the neocortex in important sites
such as the pre-frontal cortex from cannabis use. Further-
more, this work demonstrates an important difference
between human and rat neocortex, with human dopaminer-
gic response inhibited by cannabinoid stimulation but no
similar inhibition seen in the rat tissue. Previous studies
have demonstrated contrasting results with different animal
species. One study found no co-localization of CB1 and D1/2
receptors in the neocortex in C57BL/6 laboratory mice,
whereas other studies (Pistis et al., 2002, 2001) found THC
and the synthetic cannabinoid WIN55,212-2 modulate pre-
frontal dopamine release in SpragueDawley rats. It is
1219
possible that this may be accounted for by inter-species
variation, which has confounded our understanding of the
effect of cannabis use on dopaminergic signaling (Pertwee
and Ross, 2002). Further human studies are required to
replicate the results of Steffens et al. (2004) and to also
investigate effects in subcortical areas such as striatum and
other relevant sites of interest to generate a working model
in man.
4.3. Acute neuroimaging studies
Evidence from animal studies has previously suggested that
THC administration is associated with increase in striatal
dopamine levels (Chen et al., 1990; Gardner, 2005; Ginovart
et al., 2012; Tanda and Goldberg, 2003; Tanda et al., 1997).
One would expect THC to behave like amphetamine,
another psychotomimetic substance, which demonstrates
between 5% and 25% decreased striatal D2/3receptor binding
depending on tracer used (Drevets et al., 2001; Ginovart
et al., 2006; Leyton et al., 2002; Munro et al., 2006;
Narendran et al., 2010; Oswald et al., 2005; Shotbolt
et al., 2012). However the pre-clinical results have failed
to nd replication in robust human studies of THC challenge
in healthy volunteers (Barkus et al., 2011; Bossong et al.,
2009; Stokes et al., 2010). However, this does not necessa-
rily exclude dopaminergic signal alterations by THC. It has
been argued that the effect-size is modest and less detect-
able in humans, with a demonstrated ratio of 40:1 between
increase in dopamine and reductions in raclopride (Breier
et al., 1997; Laruelle et al., 1997). Consequently, increases
in dopamine level following THC challenge of the order of
25100% as determined by animal studies cited above would
correspond to a reduction in raclopride binding of 0.62.5%
in human studies, which falls below the lower threshold for
detection at the sample sizes employed in the human
studies to date.
The work of Kuepper et al. (2013) and Stokes et al. (2010)
does however suggest that genetic variability in dopaminer-
gic response to THC may also partly explain the inconsis-
tency in results between preclinical research and human
studies. Importance of genetic differences in mediating
variable response to THC is also consistent with evidence
suggesting the role of genes regulating central dopaminergic
neurotransmission in mediating variability in the acute
(Bhattacharyya et al., 2014, 2012a, 2012b) and longer-
term effects (Di Forti et al., 2012; Van Winkel, 2011) of
cannabis on behavior and some of its neural underpinnings
(Bhattacharyya et al., 2014, 2012a, 2012b). In particular,
Bhattacharyya et al. (2012a, 2012b) demonstrated that
individuals with a risk variant linked to higher synaptic
dopamine levels (Heinz et al., 2000) of the gene coding for
the dopamine transporter (DAT1), involved in clearing
dopamine from subcortical synapses (Bannon et al., 2001)
experienced a stronger effect of THC on neural activation in
the striatum (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012a, 2012b), a proxy
measure that may be linked to local dopamine change in a
key dopaminergic area of the brain. Similarly the study by
Stokes et al. (2010) showing variation in dopamine release
in frontal cortex based on COMT Val108/158Met status is
signicant as in the striatum extracellular dopamine is
primarily under the control of the DAT, while in the
1220
prefrontal cortex COMT may have a much more important
role. This suggests that genetic predisposition may play a
role in identifying individuals who have increased dopami-
nergic release in the prefrontal cortex in response to
cannabinoids. There is a thus a need for further studies
that takes into account genotype status and dopaminergic
acute release to further understand these mechanisms.
4.4. Dopaminergic changes in chronic cannabis
users
Similar to the results of acute challenge studies, discussed
above, 6 studies show no difference in D2/3 receptor
availability to PET ligands between cannabis and non-
cannabis users in striatal dopamine uptake.
Dopamine release in chronic cannabis users has also been
an area of considerable interest. Three studies have demon-
strated no difference between cannabis users and healthy
controls using conventional measures (striatal BPND)
(Mizrahi et al., 2013; Urban et al., 2012; Volkow et al.,
2014). Volkow et al. (2014), measured distribution volume
of raclopride, and noted signicant differences between
groups following methylphenidate induced dopamine
release throughout the brain, even in areas where dopamine
release cannot affect the binding of D2/3 PET ligands. Thus
interpretation of these studies in chronic cannabis abusers
should be done with caution, considering the possible
inuence of methodological confounders such as alterations
in regional cerebral blood ow, or changes in the brain and
plasma free fractions of the radioligand. This conclusion is
supported by the results of a further study which suggests
signicant differences to a challenge eliciting dopamine
release between cannabis users with clinical high risk of
psychosis and to non-cannabis users with clinical high risk
(Mizrahi et al., 2014). In this study we again see changes in
PET ligand binding ([11C]PHNO in this case) in cannabis
users, that are difcult to reconcile with the direct effects
of dopamine release. Further studies are required to
investigate these issues.
Very little work has been done on (1) dopamine synaptic
clearance capacity measured via DAT and (2) pre-synaptic
dopamine synthesis in cannabis users. Dean et al. (2003)
showed no changes in DAT levels between cannabis users
and non-users in their modestly sized post mortem study of
schizophrenics and age and sex matched controls. However
no denite conclusions can be drawn from this study, as
there is a marked paucity of information regarding fre-
quency, use and adjustment for confounders such as alter-
nate substance misuse, from a single plasma test at autopsy.
The work of Bloomeld et al. (2014a) show dopamine
synthesis capacity, measured via [18F]-DOPA, is reduced in
response to chronic cannabis use, in a group where other
substance dependence other than cannabis and tobacco has
been excluded, and this may thus represent an adaptive
change. This may add to suggestions of a blunting of
dopaminergic system in response to drug use (DSouza
et al., 2008). Suggestions of clinical sequalae are supported
by cross-sectional analysis which shows decreased dopamine
synthesis capacity in cannabis users to be correlated with
apathy (Bloomeld et al., 2014b).
M.B. Sami et al.
Leroy et al. (2012) found decreased DAT density in
cannabis and tobacco users as opposed to non-users.
Although DAT clears dopamine intrasynaptically and we
may expect decreased DAT to suggest increased dopamine
intrasynaptically, DAT density maybe a marker for dopami-
nergic neurons. The authors suggest that since DAT is
regulated according to dopamine homeostasis these results
are more consistent with decreased basal dopamine levels
in response to chronic consumption. This would be consis-
tent with the results of Bloomeld et al. (2014a). However
this may be explained by tobacco use, rather than cannabis
use, as tobacco intake was not adjusted for. Furthermore if
nicotine/tobacco dependence affects dopaminergic path-
ways in the striatum, as has also been suggested in the post-
hoc analysis of nicotine users by Stokes et al. (2012), this
may suggest that such changes are markers of drug depen-
dency rather than an adaptive response of the dopaminergic
system to chronically raised dopamine levels as a result of
regular cannabis use. Hence, further studies of both dopa-
mine synthesis and clearance capacity are required, adjust-
ing for tobacco and nicotine use.
4.5. Limitations
We have attempted a comprehensive review of the human
literature on the direct effect of cannabinoids on the
dopaminergic system. Nonetheless we do judge this work
to have some limitations. Firstly, there is the risk of
publication bias. We have attempted to minimize this by
using an extensive search strategy, including conference
abstracts, using multiple databases, and avoiding date and
language restrictions.
Secondly, there is a relative paucity of human studies in
this eld. This has also meant that there is a variable
methodological quality of the data, particularly with earlier
studies of peripheral markers being less robust, while PET
data is sensitive to various methodological caveats which
should be considered carefully in the biological interpreta-
tion of the data. Further, suitably designed studies in this
area are required to be able to more denitively ascertain
ndings.
Thirdly, as has been identied above, there is a risk of
systematic bias with 12/23 studies failing to adjust for
tobacco or other substance misuse. Although we have
focused more specically on tobacco misuse as a marker
for methodological rigor, our ndings equally apply to other
substances of abuse. Tobacco, alcohol, opiates and amphe-
tamines are known to increase dopamine levels in areas of
the mesolimbic system, particularly the ventral striatum
and nucleus accumbens which may confound results of
cannabis studies (Pierce and Kumaresan, 2006). Tobacco
use specically is highly co-prevalent with cannabis and may
confound results. In addition to co-morbid tobacco and
cannabis misuse, combined use in practices such as mul-
ling are particularly prevalent in Europe and need to be
accounted for carefully in future studies (Blanger et al.,
2011). Consequently, future studies should acknowledge and
seek to minimize this effect.
Fourthly, our paper only examined direct neurochemical
outcomes of dopamine markers in response to cannabinoid
use. Indirect evidence, of studies where proxy measures
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
linked to dopamine were reported, such as (1) effect of
dopaminergic genotypes on cannabis consumption or depen-
dence (Baransel Isir et al., 2008; Vaske et al., 2013) or
psychotic response to cannabis (Bhattacharyya et al., 2009,
2012a, 2012b; DSouza et al., 2005, 2004; Henquet et al.,
2006); (2) the effect of the antipsychotic D2 recep-
tor antagonists on cannabis consumption or craving
(Machielsen et al., 2012; Van Nimwegen et al., 2008) or
psychotic features (DSouza et al., 2005; Kleinloog et al.,
2012; Liem-Moolenaar et al., 2010); and (3) effect of
cannabis on neural activation in dopamine-rich areas such
as striatum and midbrain (Bhattacharyya et al., 2009,
2012a, 2012b) were not considered for the purposes of this
review. A review of such studies would not provide direct
evidence for a cannabinoid-dopamine model but would
nevertheless provide important supporting evidence. How-
ever, such a review was beyond the scope of this
manuscript.
5. Conclusion
Despite reasonably consistent animal studies, in man, there
is as yet little evidence to suggest that cannabis use affects
acute striatal dopamine release or affects chronic dopamine
receptor status in healthy human volunteers. However some
work has suggested that there is increased dopaminergic
release acutely in striatal and pre-frontal areas in those
genetically predisposed or at clinical high risk of psychosis.
Furthermore, recent studies are suggesting that chronic
cannabis use blunts dopamine synthesis and dopamine
release capacity. This work requires further replication.
Consequently, further well-designed studies using a variety
of methodologies are required to denitively delineate the
effects of cannabis use on the dopaminergic system in man.
Role of funding source
The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study;
collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data;
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to
submit the manuscript for publication.
Contributors
Musa Sami and Sagnik Bhattacharrya conceived the study design and
undertook the literature review. Musa Sami prepared the rst draft.
Eugenii Rabiner and Sagnik Bhattacharrya reviewed the manuscript
and offered suggestions. All authors approved the nal manuscript.
Conict of interest
Sagnik Bhattacharyya has received support from the NIHR (NIHR
Clinician Scientist Award; NIHR CS-11-001) and the UK MRC (MR/
J012149/1) and from the NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research
Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and
King's College London. The views expressed are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of
Health.
The authors have no other potential conict of interest to
disclose.
1221
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the help of Adam Blackwell, Emma Ramstead and
Karen Stringer, librarians at East Surrey Hospital.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.euroneuro.2015.03.011.
References
Albrecht, D.S., Skosnik, P.D., Vollmer, J.M., Brumbaugh, M.S.,
Perry, K.M., Mock, B.H., Zheng, Q.H., Federici, L.A., Patton,
E.A., Herring, C.M., Yoder, K.K., 2013. Striatal D2/D3 receptor
availability is inversely correlated with cannabis consumption in
chronic marijuana users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 128, 5257. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.07.016.
Andrasson, S., Allebeck, P., Engstrm, A., Rydberg, U., 1987.
Cannabis and schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish
conscripts. Lancet 2, 14831486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(87)92620-1.
Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J., Murray, R.M., 2004. Causal
association between cannabis andpsychosis: examinationof the
evidence. Br. J. Psychiatry 184, 110117 10.1192/bjp.184.2.110.
Banerjee, S.P., Snyder, S.H., Mechoulam, R., 1975. Cannabinoids:
inuence on neurotransmitter uptake in rat brain synaptosomes.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 194, 7481.
Bannon, M.J., Michelhaugh, S.K., Wang, J., Sacchetti, P., 2001. The
human dopamine transporter gene: gene organization, tran-
scriptional regulation, and potential involvement in neuropsy-
chiatric disorders. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 11, 449455.
Baransel Isir, A.B., Oguzkan, S., Nacak, M., Gorucu, S., Dulger, H.E.,
Arslan, A., 2008. The catechol-O-methyl transferase Val158Met
polymorphism and susceptibility to cannabis dependence. Am. J.
Forensic Med. Pathol. Off. Publ. Natl. Assoc. Med. Exam 29,
320322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAF.0b013e3181847e56.
Barkus, E., Morrison, P.D., Vuletic, D., Dickson, J.C., Ell, P.J.,
Pilowsky, L.S., Brenneisen, R., Holt, D.W., Powell, J., Kapur, S.,
Murray, R.M., 2011. Does intravenous 9-tetrahydrocannabinol
increase dopamine release? A SPET study. J. Psychopharmacol
25, 14621468 10.1177/0269881110382465.
Blanger, R.E., Akre, C., Kuntsche, E., Gmel, G., Suris, J.C., 2011.
Adding tobacco to cannabisits frequency and likely implica-
tions. Nicotine Tob. Res. 13, 746750. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/ntr/ntr043.
Bhattacharyya, S., Atakan, Z., Martin-Santos, R., Crippa, J. a,
Kambeitz, J., Prata, D., Williams, S., Brammer, M., Collier, D. a,
McGuire, P.K., 2012a. Preliminary report of biological basis of
sensitivity to the effects of cannabis on psychosis: AKT1 and
DAT1 genotype modulates the effects of -9-
tetrahydrocannabinol on midbrain and striatal function. Mol.
Psychiatry 17, 11521155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
mp.2011.187.
Bhattacharyya, S., Crippa, J.A., Allen, P., Martin-Santos, R.,
Borgwardt, S., Fusar-Poli, P., Rubia, K., Kambeitz, J., OCarroll,
C., Seal, M.L., Giampietro, V., Brammer, M., Zuardi, A.W.,
Atakan, Z., McGuire, P.K., 2012b. Induction of psychosis by 9-
tetrahydrocannabinol reects modulation of prefrontal and
striatal function during attentional salience processing. Arch.
Gen. Psychiatry 69, 2736 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.161.
Bhattacharyya, S., Fusar-Poli, P., Borgwardt, S., Martin-Santos, R.,
Nosarti, C., OCarroll, C., Allen, P., Seal, M.L., Fletcher, P.C.,
Crippa, J.A., Giampietro, V., Mechelli, A., Atakan, Z.,
1222
McGuire, P., 2009. Modulation of mediotemporal and ventros-
triatal function in humans by Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol: a
neural basis for the effects of Cannabis sativa on learning and
psychosis. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 66, 442451. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.17.
Bhattacharyya, S., Iyegbe, C., Atakan, Z., Martin-Santos, R.,
Crippa, J. a, Xu, X., Williams, S., Brammer, M., Rubia, K.,
Prata, D., Collier, McGuire, 2014. Protein kinase B (AKT1)
genotype mediates sensitivity to cannabis-induced impairments
in psychomotor control. Psychol. Med 44, 33153328 10.1017/
S0033291714000920.
Bloom, A.S., Johnson, K.M., Dewey, W.L., 1978. The effects of
cannabinoids on body temperature and brain catecholamine
synthesis. Res. Commun. Chem. Pathol. Pharmacol. 20, 5157.
Bloomeld, M.A.P., Morgan, C.J.A., Egerton, A., Kapur, S.,
Curran, H.V., Howes, O.D., 2014a. Dopaminergic function in
cannabis users and its relationship to cannabis-induced psycho-
tic symptoms. Biol. Psychiatry 75, 470478. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.05.027.
Bloomeld, M.A.P., Morgan, C.J.A., Kapur, S., Curran, H.V.,
Howes, O.D., 2014b. The link between dopamine function and
apathy in cannabis users: an [18F]-DOPA PET imaging study.
Psychopharmacology 231, 22512259. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s00213-014-3523-4.
Bossong, M.G., van Berckel, B.N.M., Boellaard, R., Zuurman, L.,
Schuit, R.C., Windhorst, A.D., van Gerven, J.M.A., Ramsey, N.F.,
Lammertsma, A.A., Kahn, R.S., 2009. Delta 9-tetrah-
ydrocannabinol induces dopamine release in the human stria-
tum. Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 759766. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/npp.2008.138.
Bowers, M.B., Kantrowitz, J.T., 2007. Elevated plasma dopamine
metabolites in cannabis psychosis. Am. J. Psychiatry. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07010217.
Breier, A., Su, T.P., Saunders, R., Carson, R.E., Kolachana, B.S., de
Bartolomeis, A., Weinberger, D.R., Weisenfeld, N., Malhotra,
A.K., Eckelman, W.C., Pickar, D, 1997. Schizophrenia is asso-
ciated with elevated amphetamine-induced synaptic dopamine
concentrations: evidence from a novel positron emission tomo-
graphy method. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 25692574. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.6.2569.
Cheer, J.F., Marsden, C.A., Kendall, D.A., Mason, R., 2000. Lack of
response suppression follows repeated ventral tegmental can-
nabinoid administration: an in vitro electrophysiological study.
Neuroscience 99, 661667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
4522(00)00241-4.
Cheer, J.F., Wassum, K.M., Heien, M.L.A. V, Phillips, P.E.M.,
Wightman, R.M., 2004. Cannabinoids enhance subsecond dopa-
mine release in the nucleus accumbens of awake rats. J.
Neurosci. 24, 43934400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUR-
OSCI.0529-04.2004.
Chen, J., Paredes, W., Li, J., Smith, D., Lowinson, J., Gardner,
E.L., 1990. 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol produces naloxone-
blockable enhancement of presynaptic basal dopamine efux
in nucleus accumbens of conscious, freely-moving rats as
measured by intracerebral microdialysis. Psychopharmacology
102, 156162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02245916.
DSouza, D.C., Abi-Saab, W.M., Madonick, S., Forselius-Bielen, K.,
Doersch, A., Braley, G., Gueorguieva, R., Cooper, T.B., Krystal,
J.H., 2005. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophre-
nia: implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction. Biol.
Psychiatry 57, 594608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biopsych.2004.12.006.
DSouza, D.C., Perry, E., MacDougall, L., Ammerman, Y., Cooper, T.,
Wu, Y.-T., Braley, G., Gueorguieva, R., Krystal, J.H., 2004.
The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psy-
chosis. Neuropsychopharmacol.: Off. Publ. Am. Coll. Neuropsycho-
pharmacol.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300496.
M.B. Sami et al.
DSouza, D.C., Ranganathan, M., Braley, G., Gueorguieva, R.,
Zimolo, Z., Cooper, T., Perry, E., Krystal, J., 2008. Blunted
psychotomimetic and amnestic effects of delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol in frequent users of cannabis. Neuropsy-
chopharmacology 33, 25052516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.
npp.1301643.
Davis, G.P., Compton, M.T., Wang, S., Levin, F.R., Blanco, C., 2013.
Association between cannabis use, psychosis, and schizotypal
personality disorder: ndings from the National Epidemiologic
Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Schizophr. Res. 151,
197202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.10.018.
Davis, K.L., Kahn, R.S., Ko, G., Davidson, M., 1991. Dopamine in
schizophrenia: a review and reconceptualization. Am. J. Psy-
chiatry 148, 14741486 doi:1681750.
Dean, B., Bradbury, R., Copolov, D.L., 2003. Cannabis-sensitive
dopaminergic markers in postmortem central nervous system:
changes in schizophrenia. Biol. Psychiatry 53, 585592. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01545-7.
Degenhardt, L., Ferrari, A.J., Calabria, B., Hall, W.D., Norman,
R.E., McGrath, J., Flaxman, A.D., Engell, R.E., Freedman, G.D.,
Whiteford, H.A., Vos, T., 2013. The global epidemiology and
contribution of cannabis use and dependence to the global
burden of disease: results from the GBD 2010 study. PLoS One 8.
10.1371/journal.pone.0076635.
Di Forti, M., Iyegbe, C., Sallis, H., Kolliakou, A., Falcone, M.A.,
Paparelli, A., Sirianni, M., La Cascia, C., Stilo, S.A., Marques,
T.R., Handley, R., Mondelli, V., Dazzan, P., Pariante, C., David,
A.S., Morgan, C., Powell, J., Murray, R.M., 2012. Conrmation
that the AKT1 (rs2494732) genotype inuences the risk of
psychosis in cannabis users. Biol. Psychiatry 72, 811816. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.06.020.
Drevets, W.C., Gautier, C., Price, J.C., Kupfer, D.J., Kinahan, P.E.,
Grace, A.A., Price, J.L., Mathis, C.A., 2001. Amphetamine-
induced dopamine release in human ventral striatum correlates
with euphoria. Biol. Psychiatry 49, 8196. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01038-6.
Faure, P., Tolu, S., Valverde, S., Naud, J., 2014. Role of nicotinic
acetylcholine receptors in regulating dopamine neuron activity.
Neuroscience. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuroscience.2014.05.040.
French, E.D., Dillon, K., Wu, X., 1997. Cannabinoids excite dopa-
mine neurons in the ventral tegmentum and substantia nigra.
Neuroreport 8, 649652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001756-
199702100-00014.
Gardner, E.L., 2005. Endocannabinoid signaling system and brain
reward: emphasis on dopamine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.,
263284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2005.01.032.
Ghazzaoui, R., Abi-Dargham, A., 2014. Imaging dopamine transmis-
sion parameters in cannabis dependence. Prog. Neuro-
Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 52, 2832. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2013.10.013.
Gifford, A.N., Samiian, L., Gatley, S.J., Ashby, C.R., 1997. Exam-
ination of the effect of the cannabinoid receptor agonist, CP
55,940, on electrically evoked transmitter release from rat brain
slices. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 324, 187192.
Ginovart, N., Galineau, L., Willeit, M., Mizrahi, R., Bloomeld,
P.M., Seeman, P., Houle, S., Kapur, S., Wilson, A.A., 2006.
Binding characteristics and sensitivity to endogenous dopamine
of [11C]-(+)-PHNO, a new agonist radiotracer for imaging the
high-afnity state of D2 receptors in vivo using positron emission
tomography. J. Neurochem. 97, 10891103. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03840.x.
Ginovart, N., Tournier, B.B., Moulin-Sallanon, M., Steimer, T.,
Ibanez, V., Millet, P., 2012. Chronic 9-tetrahydrocannabinol
exposure induces a sensitization of dopamine D2/3 receptors in
the mesoaccumbens and nigrostriatal systems. Neuropsycho-
pharmacology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2012.91.
Does cannabis affect dopaminergic signaling in the human brain
Gonzlez-Pinto, A., Vega, P., Ibez, B., Mosquera, F., Barbeito, S.,
Gutirrez, M., Aza, Ruiz De, Ruiz, S., Vieta, E., I., 2008. Impact
of cannabis and other drugs on age at onset of psychosis. J. Clin.
Psychiatry 69, 12101216. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.
v69n0802.
Heinz, A., Goldman, D., Jones, D.W., Palmour, R., Hommer, D.,
Gorey, J.G., Lee, K.S., Linnoila, M., Weinberger, D.R., 2000.
Genotype inuences in vivo dopamine transporter availability in
human striatum. Neuropsychopharmacology 22, 133139. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(99)00099-8.
Henquet, C., Rosa, A., Krabbendam, L., Papiol, S., Fanans, L.,
Drukker, M., Ramaekers, J.G., van Os, J., 2006. An experimental
study of catechol-o-methyltransferase Val158Met moderation of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced effects on psychosis and
cognition. Neuropsychopharmacology 31, 27482757. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301197.
Herning, R.I., Better, W.E., Tate, K., Cadet, J.L, 2005. Cerebro-
vascular perfusion in marijuana users during a month of mon-
itored abstinence. Neurology 64, 488493. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1212/WNL.65.7.1145.
Howes, O.D., Kambeitz, J., Kim, E., Stahl, D., Slifstein, M., Abi-
Dargham, A., Kapur, S., 2012. The nature of dopamine dysfunc-
tion in schizophrenia and what this means for treatment. Arch.
Gen. Psychiatry 69, 776786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archgenpsychiatry.2012.169.
Howes, O.D., Kapur, S., 2009. The dopamine hypothesis of schizo-
phrenia: version IIIthe nal common pathway. Schizophr. Bull.
35, 549562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp006.
Huestis, M.A., 2007. Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. Chem.
Biodivers.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200790152.
Kathmann, M., Bauer, U., Schlicker, E., 1999. CB1 receptor density
and CB1 receptor-mediated functional effects in rat hippocam-
pus are decreased by an intracerebroventricularly administered
antisense oligodeoxynucleotide. Naunyn. Schmiedebergs. Arch.
Pharmacol. 360, 421427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s002109900091.
Kleinloog, D., Liem-Moolenaar, M., Jacobs, G., Klaassen, E.,
de Kam, M., Hijman, R., van Gerven, J, 2012. Does olanzapine
inhibit the psychomimetic effects of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol? J.
Psychopharmacol.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269881112446534.
Kuepper, R., Ceccarini, J., Lataster, J., van Os, J., van Kroonen-
burgh, M., van Gerven, J.M.A., Marcelis, M., van Laere, K.,
Henquet, C., 2013. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced dopa-
mine release as a function of psychosis risk: 18f-fallypride
positron emission tomography study. PLoS One, 8. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070378.
Kuepper, R., Morrison, P.D., van Os, J., Murray, R.M., Kenis, G.,
Henquet, C., 2010. Does dopamine mediate the psychosis-
inducing effects of cannabis? A review and integration of ndings
across disciplines. Schizophr. Res.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
schres.2010.05.031.
Laruelle, M., DSouza, C.D., Baldwin, R.M., Abi-Dargham, A.,
Kanes, S.J., Fingado, C.L., Seibyl, J.P., Zoghbi, S.S.,
Bowers, M.B., Jatlow, P., Charney, D.S., Innis, R.B., 1997.
Imaging D2 receptor occupancy by endogenous dopamine in
humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 17, 162174. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0893-133X(97)00043-2.
Leroy, C., Karila, L., Martinot, J.L., Lukasiewicz, M., Duchesnay, E.,
Comtat, C., Doll, F., Benyamina, A., Artiges, E., Ribeiro, M.J.,
Reynaud, M., Trichard, C., 2012. Striatal and extrastriatal
dopamine transporter in cannabis and tobacco addiction: a
high-resolution PET study. Addict. Biol. 17, 981990. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2011.00356.x.
Leyton, M., Boileau, I., Benkelfat, C., Diksic, M., Baker, G.,
Dagher, A., 2002. Amphetamine-induced increases in extracel-
lular dopamine, drug wanting, and novelty seeking: a PET/[11C]
raclopride study in healthy men. Neuropsychopharmacology 27,
10271035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(02)00366-4.
1223
Liem-Moolenaar, M., te Beek, E.T., de Kam, M.L., Franson, K.L.,
Kahn, R.S., Hijman, R., Touw, D., van Gerven, J.M.A., 2010.
Central nervous system effects of haloperidol on THC in healthy
male volunteers. J. Psychopharmacol. 24, 16971708. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269881109358200.
Lupica, C.R., Riegel, A.C., Hoffman, A.F., 2004. Marijuana and
cannabinoid regulation of brain reward circuits. Br. J. Pharma-
col. 143, 227234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0705931.
Machielsen, M., Beduin, A.S., Dekker, N., Kahn, R.S., Linszen, D.H.,
van Os, J., Wiersma, D., Bruggeman, R., Cahn, W., de Haan, L.,
Krabbendam, L., Myin-Germeys, I., 2012. Differences in craving
for cannabis between schizophrenia patients using risperidone,
olanzapine or clozapine, J. Psychopharmacol.. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0269881111408957.
Markianos, M., Stefanis, C., 1982. Effects of acute cannabis use and
short-term deprivation on plasma prolactin and dopamine-beta-
hydroxylase in long-term users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 9,
251255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-8716(82)90050-3.
Markianos, M., Vakis, A., 1984. Effects of acute cannabis use on
urinary neurotransmitter metabolites and cyclic nucleotides in
man. Drug Alcohol Depend. 14, 175178. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0376-8716(84)90042-5.
Messiha, F.S., Soskin, R.A., 1973. Effect of cannabis sativa adminis-
tered by smoking on biogenic amine excretion in man. Res.
Commun. Chem. Pathol. Pharmacol. 6, 325328.
Mizrahi, R., Kenk, M., Suridjan, I., Boileau, I., George, T.P.,
McKenzie, K., Wilson, A. a, Houle, S., Rusjan, P., 2014. Stress-
Induced dopamine response in subjects at clinical high risk for
schizophrenia with and without concurrent cannabis use. Neu-
ropsychopharmacology 39, 14791489. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/npp.2013.347.
Mizrahi, R., Suridjan, I., Kenk, M., George, T.P., Wilson, A.,
Houle, S., Rusjan, P., 2013. Dopamine response to psychosocial
stress in chronic cannabis users: a PET study with [11C]-7PHNO.
Neuropsychopharmacology 38, 673682. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/npp.2012.232.
Moore, T.H.M., Zammit, S., Lingford-Hughes, A., Barnes, T.R.E.,
Jones, P.B., Burke, M., Lewis, G., 2007. Cannabis use and risk of
psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic
review. Lancet 370, 319328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(07)61162-3.
Munro, C.A., McCaul, M.E., Wong, D.F., Oswald, L.M., Zhou, Y.,
Brasic, J., Kuwabara, H., Kumar, A., Alexander, M., Ye, W.,
Wand, G.S., 2006. Sex differences in striatal dopamine release
in healthy adults. Biol. Psychiatry 59, 966974. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.01.008.
Musselmann, D.L., Haden, C., Caudle, J., Kalin, N.H., Lewine,
R.R.J., Risch, S.C., 1994. Cerebrospinal uid study of cannabi-
noid users and normal control subjects. Psychiatry Res. 52,
103105.
Musty, R.E., Kaback, L., 1995. Relationships between motivation
and depression in chronic marijuana users. Life Sci., 21512158.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-3205(95)00202-H.
Narendran, R., Mason, N.S., Laymon, C.M., Lopresti, B.J., Velas-
quez, N.D., May, M.A., Kendro, S., Martinez, D., Mathis, C.A.,
Frankle, W.G., 2010. A comparative evaluation of the dopamine
D(2/3) agonist radiotracer [11C](-)-N-propyl-norapomorphine
and antagonist [11C]raclopride to measure amphetamine-
induced dopamine release in the human striatum. J. Pharmacol.
Exp. Ther. 333, 533539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/
jpet.109.163501.
Oswald, L.M., Wong, D.F., McCaul, M., Zhou, Y., Kuwabara, H.,
Choi, L., Brasic, J., Wand, G.S., 2005. Relationships among
ventral striatal dopamine release, cortisol secretion, and sub-
jective responses to amphetamine. Neuropsychopharmacol.:
Off. Publ. Am. Coll. Neuropsychopharmacol.. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300667.
1224
Paule, M.G., 2005. Chronic drug exposures during development in
nonhuman primates: models of brain dysfunction in humans.
Front. Biosci. 10, 22402249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2741/1693.
Pertwee, R.G., Ross, R.a, 2002. Cannabinoid receptors and their
ligands. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids 66, 101121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/plef.2001.0341.
Pierce, R.C., Kumaresan, V., 2006. The mesolimbic dopamine
system: the nal common pathway for the reinforcing effect
of drugs of abuse? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.016.
Pistis, M., Muntoni, A.L., Pillolla, G., Gessa, G.L., 2002. Cannabi-
noids inhibit excitatory inputs to neurons in the shell of the
nucleus accumbens: an in vivo electrophysiological study. Eur. J.
Neurosci. 15, 17951802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-
9568.2002.02019.x.
Pistis, M., Porcu, G., Melis, M., Diana, M., Gessa, G.L., 2001. Effects
of cannabinoids on prefrontal neuronal responses to ventral
tegmental area stimulation. Eur. J. Neurosci. 14, 96102. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816X.2001.01612.x.
Poddar, M.K., Dewey, W.L., 1980. Effects of cannabinoids on
catecholamine uptake and release in hypothalamic and striatal
synaptosomes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 214, 6367.
Rominger, A., Cumming, P., Xiong, G., Koller, G., Frster, S., Zwergal,
A., Karamatskos, E., Bartenstein, P., La Fougre, C., Pogarell, O.,
2013. Effects of acute detoxication of the herbal blend Spice
Gold on dopamine D2/3 receptor availability: a [18F]fallypride
PET study. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 23, 16061610. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2013.01.009.
Safont, G., Corripio, I., Escart, M.J., Portella, M.J., Prez, V.,
Ferrer, M., Camacho, V., Sauras, R.B., Alonso, A., Grasa, E.M.,
Arranz, B., San, L., Dueas, R., Carri, I., lvarez, E., 2011.
Cannabis use and striatal D2 receptor density in untreated rst-
episode psychosis: an in vivo SPECT study. Schizophr. Res. 129,
169171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2011.03.012.
Schimmelmann, B.G., Conus, P., Cotton, S.M., Kupferschmid, S.,
Karow, A., Schultze-Lutter, F., McGorry, P.D., Lambert, M.,
2011. Cannabis use disorder and age at onset of psychosisa
study in rst-episode patients. Schizophr. Res. 129, 5256. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2011.03.023.
Schlicker, E., Timm, J., Zentner, J., Gthert, M., 1997. Cannabi-
noid CB1 receptor-mediated inhibition of noradrenaline release
in the human and guinea-pig hippocampus. Naunyn. Schmiede-
bergs. Arch. Pharmacol. 356, 583589. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/PL00005093.
Sevy, S., Smith, G.S., Ma, Y., Dhawan, V., Chaly, T., Kingsley, P.B.,
Kumra, S., Abdelmessih, S., Eidelberg, D., 2008. Cerebral
glucose metabolism and D2/D3 receptor availability in young
adults with cannabis dependence measured with positron emis-
sion tomography. Psychopharmacology 197, 549556. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1075-1.
Shotbolt, P., Tziortzi, A.C., Searle, G.E., Colasanti, A., van der
Aart, J., Abanades, S., Plisson, C., Miller, S.R., Huiban, M.,
Beaver, J.D., Gunn, R.N., Laruelle, M., Rabiner, E.A., 2012.
Within-subject comparison of [11C]-(+)-PHNO and [11C]raclo-
pride sensitivity to acute amphetamine challenge in healthy
humans. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab.. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/jcbfm.2011.115.
Snyder, S.H., 1976. The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia:
focus on the dopamine receptor. Am. J. Psychiatry 133,
197202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/2.1.19.
Steffens, M., Engler, C., Zentner, J., Feuerstein, T.J., 2004.
Cannabinoid CB1 receptor-mediated modulation of evoked
dopamine release and of adenylyl cyclase activity in the human
neocortex. Br. J. Pharmacol. 141, 11931203. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/sj.bjp.0705706.
Stokes, P.R., Egerton, A., Watson, B., Reid, A., Lappin, J.,
Howes, O.D., Nutt, D.J., Lingford-Hughes, A.R., 2012. History
M.B. Sami et al.
of cannabis use is not associated with alterations in striatal
dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability. J. Psychopharmacol..
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269881111414090.
Stokes, P.R.A., Egerton, A., Watson, B., Reid, A., Breen, G.,
Lingford-Hughes, A., Nutt, D.J., Mehta, M.A., 2010. Signicant
decreases in frontal and temporal [11C]-raclopride binding after
THC challenge. Neuroimage 52, 15211527. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.274.
Stokes, P.R.A., Mehta, M.A., Curran, H.V., Breen, G., Grasby, P.M.,
2009. Can recreational doses of THC produce signicant dopa-
mine release in the human striatum? Neuroimage 48, 186190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.029.
Tanda, G., Goldberg, S.R., 2003. Cannabinoids: reward, depen-
dence, and underlying neurochemical mechanismsa review of
recent preclinical data. Psychopharmacology. 10.1007/s00213-
003-1485-z.
Tanda, G., Pontieri, F.E., Di Chiara, G., 1997. Cannabinoid and
heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a
common mu1 opioid receptor mechanism. Science 276,
20482050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5321.2048.
United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime, 2013. World Drug Report
2013. Joost 2013, 316. doi:10.1002/yd.20002.
Urban, N.B.L., Slifstein, M., Thompson, J.L., Xu, X., Girgis, R.R.,
Raheja, S., Haney, M., Abi-Dargham, A., 2012. Dopamine
release in chronic cannabis users: a [11C]raclopride positron
emission tomography study. Biol. Psychiatry 71, 677683. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.018.
Van Nimwegen, L.J., de Haan, L., van Beveren, N.J., van der Helm, M.,
van den Brink, W., Linszen, D., 2008. Effect of olanzapine and
risperidone on subjective well-being and craving for cannabis in
patients with schizophrenia or related disorders: a double-blind
randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Psychiatry 53, 400405.
Van Winkel, R., 2011. Family-based analysis of genetic variation
underlying psychosis-inducing effects of cannabis: sibling analy-
sis and proband follow-up. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 68, 148157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.152.
Van Winkel, R., Kuepper, R., 2014. Epidemiological, neurobiological,
and genetic clues to the mechanisms linking cannabis use to risk
for nonaffective psychosis. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10, 767791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153631.
Vaske, J., Boisvert, D., Wright, J.P., Beaver, K.M., 2013. A long-
itudinal analysis of the effects of a DRD4 polymorphism on
marijuana use. Psychiatry Res. 210, 247255. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychres.2013.04.022.
Volkow, N.D., Wang, G.-J., Telang, F., Fowler, J.S., Alexoff, D.,
Logan, J., Jayne, M., Wong, C., Tomasi, D., 2014. Decreased
dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated
with negative emotionality and addiction severity. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci., 1411228111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1411228111.
Voruganti, L.N.P., Slomka, P., Zabel, P., Mattar, A., Awad, A.G.,
2001. Cannabis induced dopamine release: an in-vivo SPECT
study. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimaging 107, 173177. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0925-4927(01)00104-4.
West, S., King, V., Carey, T.S., Lohr, K.N., McKoy, N., Sutton, S.F.,
Lux, L., 2002. Systems to rate the strength of scientic
evidence. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. (Summ)., 111 doi:AHRQ
Publication No. 02-E016.
Williams, H.J., Owen, M.J., ODonovan, M.C., 2007. Is COMT a
susceptibility gene for schizophrenia? Schizophr. Bull.. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbm019.
Zammit, S., Moore, T.H.M., Lingford-Hughes, A., Barnes, T.R.E.,
Jones, P.B., Burke, M., Lewis, G., 2008. Effects of cannabis use
on outcomes of psychotic disorders: systematic review. Br. J.
Psychiatry 193, 357363, http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.
bp.107.046375.