Cited by 63Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSchizophrenia research and treatment

History of cannabis use is not associated with alterations in striatal dopamine D 2 /D 3 receptor availability

Stokes, Paul RA, Egerton, Alice, Watson, Ben, Reid, Alistair, Lappin, Julia, Howes, Oliver D, Nutt, David J, Lingford-Hughes, Anne R·2012·Journal of Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Cannabis use in adolescence is emerging as a risk factor for the development of psychosis. In animal studies, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis, modulates striatal dopaminergic neurotransmission. Alterations in human striatal dopaminergic function have also been reported both in psychosis and in stimulant use. We sought to examine whether striatal dopamine D(2)/D(3) receptor availability was altered in volunteers with a history of cannabis use using a database of previously acquired [(11)C]-raclopride positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Ten [(11)C]-raclopride scans from volunteers with a history of cannabis use were compared to ten control scans using a functional striatal subdivision region of interest (ROI) analysis. No significant differences in either overall striatal BP(ND) values or BP(ND) values in any functional striatal subdivision were found between the two groups. There was also no correlation between lifetime frequency of cannabis use and BP(ND) values. Limbic striatal BP(ND) values were ten percent lower in current nicotine cigarette smokers. These findings suggest that, unlike other drugs of abuse, a history of cannabis use is not associated with alterations in striatal dopamine D(2)/D(3) receptor availability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269881111414090

Cites

43 of 43 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
Stokes, P. R., Egerton, A., Watson, B., Reid, A., Lappin, J., Howes, O. D., Nutt, D. J., & Lingford-Hughes, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Published
2011-09-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
144-149
ISSN
  • 0269-8811 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7285
OpenAlex
W1966914364
Cited by
63
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
cannabis use, receptor availability, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, psychosis risk, adolescent cannabis use, limbic striatum, dopamine signaling
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Cannabis, Marijuana Abuse, Carbon Isotopes, Corpus Striatum, Female, Humans, Limbic System, Male, Synaptic Transmission, Nicotine, Psychotic Disorders, Receptors, Dopamine D2, Raclopride, Positron-Emission Tomography, Receptors, Dopamine D3

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