Does dopamine mediate the psychosis-inducing effects of cannabis? A review and integration of findings across disciplines
Abstract
General population epidemiological studies have consistently found that cannabis use increases the risk of developing psychotic disorders in a dose-dependent manner. While the epidemiological signal between cannabis and psychosis has gained considerable attention, the biological mechanism whereby cannabis increases risk for psychosis remains poorly understood. Animal research suggests that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis) increases dopamine levels in several regions of the brain, including striatal and prefrontal areas. Since dopamine is hypothesized to represent a crucial common final pathway between brain biology and actual experience of psychosis, a focus on dopamine may initially be productive in the examination of the psychotomimetic effects of cannabis. Therefore, this review examines the evidence concerning the interactions between THC, endocannabinoids and dopamine in the cortical as well as subcortical regions implicated in psychosis, and considers possible mechanisms whereby cannabis-induced dopamine dysregulation may give rise to delusions and hallucinations. It is concluded that further study of the mechanisms underlying the link between cannabis and psychosis may be conducted productively from the perspective of progressive developmental sensitization, resulting from gene-environment interactions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Neurobiological evidence on the effect of cannabis use, which includes dopaminergic, glutaminergic, and GABA activity modulation, is broadly consistent with the current understanding of neurobiology of psychotic disorders.
“Neurobiological evidence on the effect of cannabis use, which includes dopaminergic, glutaminergic, and GABA activity modulation, are broadly consistent with the current understanding of neurobiology of psychotic disorders (55), as discussed in other articles in this issue (refs).”
From Association Between Cannabis and Psychosis: Epidemiologic Evidence (2016) · cites this paper as [55]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 167 · Cited by 116
- Authors
- Kuepper, R., Morrison, P. D., van Os, J., Murray, R. M., Kenis, G., & Henquet, C.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Henquet, Cécile
- Venue
- Schizophrenia Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 1-3
- Pages
- 107-117
- ISSN
- 0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2037466665
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 167
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- cannabis, psychosis
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cannabis, Marijuana Abuse, Cerebral Cortex, Dopamine, Humans, Neural Pathways, Psychotic Disorders, Dronabinol
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