Cited by 187Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Cannabinoids modulate hippocampal memory and plasticity

Abush, Hila, Akirav, Irit·2010·Hippocampus

Abstract

Considerable evidence demonstrates that cannabinoid agonists impair whereas cannabinoid antagonists improve memory and plasticity. However, recent studies suggest that the effects of cannabinoids on learning do not necessarily follow these simple patterns, particularly when emotional memory processes are involved. We investigated the involvement of the cannabinoid system in hippocampal learning and plasticity using the fear‐related inhibitory avoidance (IA) and the non‐fear‐related spatial learning paradigms, and cellular models of learning and memory, i.e., long‐term potentiation (LTP) and long‐term depression (LTD). We found that microinjection into the CA1 of the CB1/CB2 receptor agonist WIN55,212‐2 (5 μg/side) and an inhibitor of endocannabinoid reuptake and breakdown AM404 (200 ng/side) facilitated the extinction of IA, while the CB1 receptor antagonist AM251 (6 ng/side) impaired it. WIN55,212‐2 and AM251 did not affect IA conditioning, while AM404 enhanced it, probably due to a drug‐induced increase in pain sensitivity. However, in the water maze, systemic or local CA1 injections of AM251, WIN55,212‐2, and AM404 all impaired spatial learning. We also found that i.p. administration of WIN55,212‐2 (0.5 mg/kg), AM404 (10 mg/kg), and AM251 (2 mg/kg) impaired LTP in the Schaffer collateral‐CA1 projection, whereas AM404 facilitated LTD. Our findings suggest diverse effects of the cannabinoid system on CA1 memory and plasticity that cannot be categorized simply into an impairing or an enhancing effect of cannabinoid activation and deactivation, respectively. Moreover, they provide preclinical support for the suggestion that targeting the endocannabinoid system may aid in the treatment of disorders associated with impaired extinction‐like processes, such as post‐traumatic stress disorder. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hipo.20711

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abush, H., & Akirav, I.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Akirav, Irit
Venue
Hippocampus
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-14
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
1126-1138
ISSN
  • 1050-9631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1063
OpenAlex
W1987625703
Cited by
186
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 25
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hippocampus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
cannabinoids, endocannabinoid system, CA1, memory, synaptic plasticity, passive avoidance, fear extinction, spatial learning, long-term potentiation, long-term depression, CB1 receptor, CB2 receptor, WIN 55,212-2, AM404, AM251, post-traumatic stress disorder
MeSH terms
Animals, Avoidance Learning, Cannabinoids, Hippocampus, Learning, Male, Memory, Memory Disorders, Microinjections, Neuronal Plasticity, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, CA1 Region, Hippocampal, Cannabinoid Receptor Modulators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review