Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Susceptibility of the adolescent brain to cannabinoids: long-term hippocampal effects and relevance to schizophrenia

Abstract

Clinical studies report associations between cannabis use during adolescence and later onset of schizophrenia. We examined the causal relationship between developmental cannabinoid administration and long-term behavioral and molecular alterations in mice. Mice were administered either WIN 55,212-2 (WIN), a cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) agonist or vehicle (Veh) during adolescence (postnatal day 30–35) or early adulthood (postnatal day 63–70). Behavioral testing was conducted after postnatal day 120 followed by biochemical assays. Adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU) leads to deficits in prepulse inhibition and fear conditioning in adulthood. Metabotropic glutamate receptors type 5 (mGluR5), a receptor critically involved in fear conditioning and endocannabinoid (eCB) signaling, is significantly reduced in the ACU mouse hippocampus. Next, we examined expression profiles of genes involved in eCB synthesis (diacylglycerol lipase (DGL)) and uptake (monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH)) in the experimental mice. We find evidence of increased MGL and FAAH in ACU mice, reflecting increases in eCB uptake and degradation. These data suggest that administration of cannabinoids during adolescence leads to a behavioral phenotype associated with a rodent model of schizophrenia, as indexed by alterations in sensorimotor gating and hippocampal-dependent learning and memory deficits. Further, these deficits are associated with a reduction in hippocampal mGluR5 and a sustained change in eCB turnover, suggesting reduced eCB signaling in the ACU hippocampus. These data suggest that significant cannabis use during adolescence may be a contributory causal factor in the development of certain features of schizophrenia and may offer mGluR5 as a potential therapeutic target.

Introduction

Cannabis is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States, with about 60% of the 2.4 million marijuana initiates in 2010 being <18 years of age.1 Daily marijuana use is now at a 30-year peak level among high-school seniors.2 This is of particular health concern given the large body of literature that shows an association between adolescent cannabis use and adult onset of psychosis.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 A recent systematic review of longitudinal studies of cannabis use and subsequent psychotic outcomes reported a 40% increased risk of psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.20±1.65).9 The risk rose in a dose-dependent fashion with greater cannabis exposure (odds ratio=2.09, 1.54±2.84). Schizophrenia did not develop days or weeks after cannabis use but years later, suggesting that cannabis use during a critical period of brain maturation may lead to long-term effects. These human studies demonstrate associations but do not demonstrate causality.

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannanol (Δ9-THC), the main psychoactive constituent of Cannabis sativa, binds to cannabinoid receptors in the brain. To date, two G-protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors, cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and CB2, have been discovered. CB1 receptors are highly expressed in the brain, particularly in the cortex, hippocampus and striatum. The principal endogenous ligands for the CB receptors include the endocannabinoids (eCBs) 2-AG (2–arachidonoylglycerol) and anandamide (N-arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA), with 2-AG being predominant in the hippocampus.10, 11, 12 The key synthetic enzyme for 2-AG is diacylglycerol lipase (DGL), whereas several routes for AEA synthesis have been described. Inactivation of these eCBs occur predominantly through monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) for 2-AG and AEA, respectively.13 In the brain, eCBs are synthesized on demand in post-synaptic neurons, released into the synapse where they activate presynaptic CB1 receptors in a retrograde manner to inhibit neurotransmitter release. In the rodent and human hippocampus, CB1 receptors are predominantly expressed on gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) terminals,14, 15, 16 implicating a role in GABA neurotransmission. eCBs are key activity-dependent molecules in the regulation of synaptic transmission in the brain and are involved in numerous neural processes, including memory and cognition.

Previous studies show that Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) or CB1 receptor agonists administered prenatally or peri-pubertally leads to behavioral deficits in rodents,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 suggesting that adolescence may be a developmental period during which the brain is susceptible to the effects of exogenous cannabinoids. In addition, human post-mortem studies have identified alterations in the eCB system in schizophrenia.23, 24, 25, 26 We conducted a series of experiments in mice to (i) examine the cause–effect relationship between adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU) and development of schizophrenia-like behaviors and (ii) to determine whether exposure to exogenous cannabinoids during adolescence has a lasting impact on metabotropic glutamate receptors type 5 (mGluR5) and CB1 receptor expression, genes critically involved in eCB signaling.

Methods

Behavioral experiments

C57BL6 mice were obtained from Jackson Laboratories, (Bar Harbor, ME), housed on a 12:12-h light–dark cycle in a temperature- and humidity-controlled environment with ad libitum access to food and water. Mice were administered either a CB1 agonist (WIN 55,212-2, 2 mg kg−1) or vehicle (n=10 per group) for 3–5 or 10 consecutive days by intraperitoneal injection. Injections were administered to mice starting on either postnatal day 30 or 63 to reflect adolescence and adulthood, respectively. After drug administration, the animals were left undisturbed until postnatal day 120 at which time they underwent behavioral testing. Behavioral tests included locomotor activity, prepulse inhibition (PPI), social interaction and fear conditioning in that order (Figure 1). Two weeks after behavioral tests were completed, the mice were killed, brains immediately removed, hippocampus dissected, snap frozen and processed for immunoblotting studies. All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the UT Southwestern Medical Center and are in accordance with the National Institutes of Health policy on the care and use of laboratory animals.

Figure 1
figure1

Overview of experimental timeline. Mice were administered cannabinoid receptor 1 agonist (WIN 55,212-2) or vehicle for either 3–5 or 10 days starting at postnatal day (PND) 30 or PND 63, tested behaviorally after PND 120 and killed 2 weeks later. Cond, conditioning; PPI, prepulse inhibition; soc, social.

Fear conditioning

Fear conditioning was measured in boxes equipped with a metal grid floor connected to a scrambled shock generator (Med Associates, St Albans, VT). For training, mice were individually placed in the chamber. After 2 min, the mice received two tone-shock pairings (30 s white noise, 95 dB tone co-terminated with a 2 s, 0.5 mA foot shock, 1 min inter-trial interval). The following day, memory of the context was measured by placing the mice into the same chambers and freezing was measured every 5 s for 5 min. Forty-eight hours after training, memory for the white noise cue was measured by placing the mice in a box with altered floors and walls, different lighting and a vanilla smell. Freezing was measured every 4–5 s for 3 min, then the noise cue was turned on for an additional 3 min and freezing was measured every 5 s.

Baseline startle and PPI

Startle was measured using a San Diego Instruments SR-Lab Startle Response System (San Diego, CA). Mice were placed into the Plexiglas holders and allowed to acclimate to the chamber and background white noise (70 dB) for 5 min. After the acclimation period, startle stimuli (120 dB, 40 ms, white noise) were presented with an average interstimulus interval of 20 s (range 13–27 s). The maximum startle amplitude was measured. The Plexiglas holders were wiped and allowed to dry between mice. Startle was measured using a San Diego Instruments SR-Lab Startle Response System (San Diego, CA). Mice were placed into the Plexiglas holders and allowed to acclimate to the chamber and background white noise (70 dB) for 5 min. After the acclimation period, six startle stimuli (120 dB, 40 ms, white noise) were presented with an average interstimulus interval of 15 s (range 7–23 s, these data were not used to calculate PPI), followed by 40-startle stimuli preceded by a prepulse stimulus (20 ms prepulse preceding the 120-dB stimulus by 100 ms). The prepulse intensities were 0, 4, 8 or 16 dB above the background noise and were presented in a pseudorandom order. The Plexiglas holders were wiped and allowed to dry between mice.

Locomotor activity

Mice were placed individually into a clean, plastic mouse cage (18 cm × 28 cm) with minimal bedding. Each cage was placed into a dark Plexiglas box. Movement was monitored by five photobeams in one dimension (Photobeam Activity System, San Diego Instruments, San Diego, CA) for 2 h, with the number of beam breaks recorded every 5 min. Movement was characterized in three ways: repetitive beam breaks of a single beam is classified as stereotypy, consecutive beam breaks of 2 beams is classified as ambulatory movements and total beam breaks during each 5-min interval.

Social interaction

A mouse was placed in the center of a novel open field environment (44 cm × 44 cm, walls 30 cm high) in a dimly lit room and allowed to explore for 5 min. A small plastic chamber (the ‘interaction box’, 8.5 cm × 4.5 cm) was placed along one wall of the arena. After 5 min, the test mouse was removed and a novel, unfamiliar mouse was placed into the interaction box. Small holes in the interaction box allow the mice to see, hear and smell each other. The test mouse was returned to the center of the open field environment and allowed to explore for another 5 min. The test mouse was monitored from above by a video camera connected to a computer running video-tracking software (Ethovision 3.0, Noldus, Leesburg, VA). The time the test mouse spent in the area immediately adjacent (within 8 cm) to the interaction chamber was recorded as the interaction time. Total activity within the arena was also measured.

Immunoblotting experiments

Bilateral hippocampi from each mouse were pulverized on dry ice and homogenized in buffer (1 × phosphate-buffered saline containing 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonylfluoride, 20 mg ml−1 leupeptin, 10 mg ml−1 pepstatinA, 2 mg ml−1 aprotinin). In all, 20 mg protein per sample was loaded in duplicate on a 10% polyacrylamide gel, transferred to nitrocellulose membrane, blocked for 30 min at room temperature (5% non-fat dry milk, 0.1% Tween20, 50 mM Tris-buffered saline; TBS, pH7.5) and then incubated overnight at 4 °C with mGluR5 (1:1000), CB1 (1:1000), MGL (1:1000), FAAH (1: 1000), DGL (1:500) or norbin (1:350). After washing, blots were incubated with respective secondary antibody for 30 min. β-Tubulin or vcp (valosin-containing protein) was used as a loading control. Immunoreactive proteins were detected using enhanced chemiluminescence (Amersham, NJ) using Fuji film (Light Labs Company, Dusseldorf, Germany). Film-based images of immunoblots were scanned and bands of interest quantified using ImageQuant software (Amersham,UK) blind to the treatment group. Antibodies were obtained commercially: CB1 and mGluR5 (Abcam, Cambridge, MA), MGL (Thermoscientific, Rockford, IL), FAAH, DGL and norbin (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA).

Statistical analysis

For behavioral data, two-way analyses of variance were used to examine significant main effects of age (adolescent or adult), drug (WIN 55,212-2 or vehicle) and age × drug interactions. Significant findings were further analyzed using post hoc t tests. Immunoblotting data were quantified and analyzed by unpaired t-tests for each gene target. Pearson’s Product Moment correlations were conducted to determine relationships between measured target molecules and behavior. Values outside two s.d.s away from the mean were considered outliers and not included in the statistical analyses. All statistical analyses were conducted using Statistica software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). Significance was taken as P<0.05 for all experiments.

Results

ACU leads to long-lasting behavioral deficits

Mice treated with CB1 agonist during adolescence show significant long-lasting deficits in sensorimotor gating and hippocampal-dependent contextual learning in adulthood. These deficits were not observed in mice treated with the CB1 agonist during adulthood.

PPI: Mice treated with WIN 55,212-2 during adolescence display significant deficits in PPI. There is a significant interaction of age (F=12.37, df (1,36), P=0.0012), no effect of drug (F=0.44, df (1,36), P=0.51) and a significant age × drug interaction (F=6.09, df (2,27), P=0.018). Post hoc analyses show that ACU mice show reduced PPI at prepulse intensities 4 dB (t=2.1, df 18, P=0.049) and 8 dB (t=2.2, df 18, P=0.041) above background. Adult-CU mice, however, do not show any significant change in PPI at any of the prepulse intensities (all t between 0.6 and 1.6, all P >0.13) (Figure 2a and 2e).

Figure 2
figure2

Adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU) leads to long-term behavioral deficits. Mice were administered WIN 55,212-2 (white bars) or vehicle (black bars) for 10 days during adolescence (ad) or adulthood (eh) and tested behaviorally as 4-month-old adults (n=10 mice per group). (a, e) Prepulse inhibition: the startle response was measured with prepulse intensities 0, 4, 8, or 16 dB above the background noise presented in a pseudorandom order. (b, f) Contextual and cued fear conditioning show significant deficits in contextual but not cued freezing in ACU, but not adult CU, mice compared with control (CON) mice. (c, g) Locomotor activity: movement was monitored by five photobeams in one dimension for 2 h. Data are expressed as the average number of beam breaks at each 5-min bin per 2-hour test. (d, h) Social interaction: time spent by test mouse in the area immediately adjacent to the interaction chamber either with or without a novel, unfamiliar mouse. All data are presented as means+s.e.m. Asterisk represents significant differences at P0.05.

Fear conditioning: Mice treated with WIN 55,212-2 during adolescence display significant deficits in contextual learning. There is a significant interaction of age (F=72, df (1,36), P<0.0001), drug (F=8.1, df (1,36), P=0.007) and a significant age × drug interaction (F= 8.1, df, p=0.007). Post hoc analyses show that ACU mice show reduced freezing compared with controls (t=2.85, df 18, P=0.011). Adult-CU mice, however, do not show any significant change in the contextual fear conditioning (t=0.27, df 18, p=0.78), Similarly, two-way analysis of variance conducted for cued fear conditioning shows a significant interaction of age (F=57.3, df (1,36), P<0.001), drug (F=5.4, df (1,36), P=0.03 ) and a significant age × drug interaction (F=5.6, df (1,36), P=0.02). Post hoc analyses show that ACU mice show reduced freezing compared with controls (t=2.34, df 18, P=0.031). Adult-CU mice, however, do not show any significant change in cued fear conditioning (t=1.22, df 18, P=0.24,). Mice treated with WIN 55,212-2 during adolescence for a shorter duration between 3–5 days did not display any fear-conditioning deficits in the contextual (t=0.62, df 38, P=0.54) or cued paradigms (t=0.83, df 38, P=0.41) (Figure 2b and 2f).

Social interaction: There were no significant differences in interaction time between groups. There were no interactions of age (F=0.78, df (1,36), P=0.38), drug (F=0.22, P=0.64) or age × drug interaction (F=0.80, df (1,36), P=0.38) (Figure 2d and 2h).

Locomotor activity: There were no significant differences in total locomotor activity. There were no interactions of age (F=1.54, df (1,36), P=0.22), drug (F=1.14, df (1,36), P=0.29) or age × drug interaction (F=0.002, df (1,36), P=0.96) (Figure 2c and 2g).

Molecular assays

mGluR5 is critically involved in fear conditioning with mGluR5 knockout mice showing impairments in acquisition of fear, deficits in the ability to extinguish contextual fear and poor performance in novelty detection,27, 28 all tasks that involve the hippocampus. We measured mGluR5 protein expression in the hippocampus of the ACU mice and found significant reductions in mGluR5 levels (t=3.02, df 18, P=0.007) (Figure 3). In addition, mGluR5 receptor activation is one mechanism for activating eCB synthesis and release, suggesting that eCB signaling might be altered in ACU mice. We measured CB1, DGL (synthetic enzyme for 2-AG), MGL (metabolic enzyme for 2-AG) and FAAH (metabolic enzyme for AEA) protein levels in the hippocampus of the experimental mice. We found significant increases in both MGL (t=4.2, df 13, P=0.001) and FAAH (t=2.8, df15, P=0.014) but no changes in CB1 (t=0.17, df18, P=0.86) or DGL (t=0.56, df14, P=0.59) between groups. Lastly, we quantified norbin, an endogenous mGluR5 ligand,29 which was not altered in ACU mice (t=0.35, df 16, P=0.73).

Figure 3
figure3

Adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU) leads to altered expression of genes involved in endocannabinoid signaling in the hippocampus of ACU and control (CON) mice in adulthood (n=10 mice per group). (a) Levels of hippocampal cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1), mGluR5, (b) monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL), fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), (c) diacylglycerol lipase (DGL) and (d) norbin protein relative to loading controls in ACU (white bars) and CON (black bars). All data are presented as means+s.e.m. Asterisk represents significant differences at P0.05. vcp, valosin-containing protein.

Receptor-behavior correlations

Given the critical role for mGluR5 in contextual fear conditioning, we examined correlations between contextual freezing and mGluR5 protein levels. In ACU mice, we find strong significant correlations (r=0.66, P=0.039) that are not seen in vehicle-treated mice (r=0.20, P=0.58). There were no correlations between freezing behavior and hippocampal CB1 levels in ACU mice (r=0.31, P=0.39) or controls (r=0.35, P=0.32) (Figure 4).

Figure 4
figure4

Correlations between contextual freezing behavior and hippocampal mGluR5 protein levels in adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU) and control (CON) mice (n=10 mice per group). Siginificant correlations are seen between contextual freezing in ACU mice but not CON mice.

Discussion

We find that cannabinoid treatment leads to certain schizophrenia-like behaviors in an age of exposure-dependent manner, providing evidence supportive of the notion that cannabis use during adolescence may have a contributory causative role in schizophrenia. Mice treated with cannabinoids during adolescence exhibit sensorimotor-gating deficits and impaired learning and memory in adulthood, physiological functions known to be affected in schizophrenia. We also find reduced expression of hippocampal mGluR5 receptors, levels of which correlate with the learning and memory deficits in ACU mice.

ACU-induced behavior

Cannabinoid treatment during adolescence, but not adulthood, leads to disruptions of PPI and contextual fear conditioning. PPI deficits are well characterized in schizophrenia and reflect an inability to ‘gate’ sensory stimuli.30 Our findings are consistent with previous studies showing a persistent reductions in PPI following Δ9-THC or synthetic cannabinoid treatments during adolescence.19, 21 Contextual fear conditioning is known to be dependent on the hippocampus. There is high density of CB1 receptors in the hippocampus31 and direct injection of cannabinoids into the hippocampus acutely impairs memory,32 possibly by desynchronizing hippocampal neuronal assemblies.33 Microinjections of THC into the hippocampus, but not other brain regions relevant to maze learning, impair learning in radial arm maze.34 In addition, hippocampal morphological changes are reported following chronic administration of cannabinoids.35, 36 Thus, cannabinoids affect hippocampal structure and function, a brain region repeatedly implicated in schizophrenia pathophysiology. Declarative memory, critically dependent on the hippocampal,37, 38, 39 is one of the most consistent impairments in memory in schizophrenia.40, 41, 42 These deficits include impairments in the flexible use of learned information,43, 44, 45 deficits in recall46 and contextual memory.47 Abnormal hippocampal activation is observed while schizophrenia volunteers perform declarative memory tasks.48, 49, 50 These deficits may be similar to the hippocampal-dependent contextual fear-conditioning deficits induced by ACU in our mouse model. Previous studies have reported deficits in object recognition and spatial learning in cannabinoid-treated rats,19, 32, 51, 52, 53, 54 supporting the idea that ACU leads to hippocampal deficits.55, 56

ACU-induced molecular changes

The ACU-induced reductions in mGluR5 are of particular interest. mGluR5 knockout mice show reduced hippocampal long-term potentiation associated with deficits in PPI that can be reversed by chronic clozapine treatment.57 Administration of mGluR5 antagonists (MPEP (2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)-pyridine), MTEP (3-((2-methyl-4-thiazolyl)ethynyl)pyridine)) augments psychotomimetic effects of NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptor antagonists58 while mGluR5 agonists and positive allosteric modulators attenuate these effects.59, 60 Modulators of mGluR5 are being developed as novel treatments for schizophrenia.61 Further, mGluR5 is critically involved in fear conditioning,27 with mGluR5 knockout mice showing impairments in acquisition of fear and deficits in the ability to extinguish contextual fear and performing poorly on detecting novelty.28 This is consistent with our data showing reduced mGLuR5 in the ACU hippocampus.

Next, we examined expression of eCB genes. The rationale for this was twofold. Firstly, modulation of the eCB system by exogenous cannabinoids could impact the trajectory of the developing eCB system. Secondly, we found reduced mGluR5, the activation of which is known to mobilize eCBs. We find that the enzymes involved in eCB inactivation, MGL and FAAH are significantly increased in the ACU hippocampus. This observation, together with reduced mGluR5, suggests that there is reduced eCB synthesis and greater eCB degradation. Both 2-AG and AEA are present in high concentrations during adolescence62 in the rodent brain, and treatment with THC during adolescence acutely increases 2-AG concentrations.62 It is possible that chronic administration of exogenous cannabinoids alters the dynamics of the eCB system in an attempt to maintain normal eCB signaling. This could be in the form of reducing synthesis of eCB, increasing degradation or reduction in CB1 receptor expression. We find evidence of reduced synthesis and increased breakdown of eCB but did not find any long-term change in CB1 receptor expression. This is, however, consistent with a previous rodent studies that quantified CB1 expression following adolescent THC treatment22 but differs from other studies.63 Another study reports acute but transient reductions in CB1 expression following chronic administration of the synthetic cannabinoid agonist, CP-55940, during adolescence.64 A similar pattern of CB1 transient downregulation is seen in human PET (positron emission tomography) imaging studies of the CB1 receptor in chronic cannabis, but, with abstinence, CB1 receptor density returned to normal levels.65 It has also been proposed that adolescent CB1 receptors contribute to learning impairments in ACU mice by virtue of their functional properties.66 Adolescent CB1 receptors are less functionally active during adolescence, desensitize and develop tolerance to THC more slowly than the adult rodent which may be one reason that adolescent rodents find Δ9-THC less aversive compared with adults.53 This delay in CB1 homeostatic adaptation, not CB1 density, has been postulated to contribute to the long-term cognitive deficits in ACU mice.66 It is also possible that long-term ACU-induced gene expression changes are mediated via epigenetic mechanisms. Drugs of abuse can alter specific gene programs by altering chromatin structure on specific gene promoters,67 and histone-associated heterochromatin structural changes are known to occur in hippocampal long-term potentiation and memory formation.68 Our data suggests that ACU leads to persistent changes in eCB system in the hippocampus that may impact long-term plasticity69, 70 and subsequent hippocampal-dependent learning and memory as seen in schizophrenia.

Model of ACU-induced hippocampal deficits: relevance to schizophrenia

CB1Rs are almost exclusively expressed on GABA-containing interneurons,16, 71 but may also exist on glutamate terminals.72, 73, 74 Cholecystokinin-containing axon terminals contain high levels of CB1 receptors in rodents14, 71 and humans23 and are more sensitive to the effects of CB1 receptor agonists than pyramidal cell axon terminals.73 The data we present suggests that ACU-induced schizophrenia-like behaviors are associated with a reduction in eCB signaling, which would be expected to increase GABA release (Figure 5). There are several reports of reductions in GAD67, the synthetic enzyme for GABA, in the prefrontal cortex75 and hippocampus76 in schizophrenia, interpreted as reductions in GABA neurotransmission in schizophrenia. On the other hand, a recent human magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) study finds increases in GABA in the medial prefrontal cortex of unmedicated schizophrenia volunteers.77 This MRS study is consistent with our model (Figure 5) showing that ACU leads to a long-term reduction in eCB signaling that is predicted to enhance GABA release. One possible explanation for differences in GABA levels in schizophrenia could be explained by the fact that schizophrenia is a heterogeneous illness, and individuals with schizophrenia who have significant premorbid adolescent cannabis use may have a discrete pathophysiology. In fact, individuals with schizophrenia and a history of adolescent cannabis use exhibit a clinically distinct profile with earlier onset of illness,78, 79, 80, 81, 82 more severe positive symptoms80, 83, 84 and discrete cognitive deficits85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 compared with affected individuals without a cannabis use history. These data may suggest that individuals with schizophrenia and significant history of adolescent cannabis use may have a distinct underlying neurobiology associated with differential clinical profile.

Figure 5
figure5

Model of hippocampal deficits induced by adolescent cannabinoid administration. Panel (a) shows a control endocannabinoid (eCB) synapse and panel (b) shows adolescent cannabinoid treatment (ACU)-induced changes in the adult. Adult mice treated with cannabinoids during adolescence express significantly lower levels of mGluR5, known to stimulate eCB synthesis. This is associated with an upregulation of monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), enzymes associated with eCB degradation. The net effect is lower eCB production and increased degradation, which would lower eCB levels and reduce cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) activation. As CB1 activation inhibits gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) release, lower CB1 activation would be expected to lead to greater GABA release in the ACU hippocampus. AEA, N-arachidonoylethanolamide, 2-AG, 2–arachidonoylglycerol; DAG, diacyl glycerol; DGL, diacylglycerol lipase.

Limitations of the study

There are several considerations to take into account. One is that we treated mice the commonly used synthetic CB1 agonist, WIN 55,212-2. This compound is a full agonist at the CB1 receptor, while Δ9-THC is a partial agonist at CB1, raising the possibility that the two compounds might not have identical effects. Secondly, molecular assays were conducted on mice that had behavioral testing 2 weeks before being killed. It is possible that the behavioral testing could influence expression levels of the proteins examined. Thirdly, there are some discrepancies between studies on behaviors induced by adolescent cannabinoids/Δ9-THC treatment. This might reflect experimental design differences, such as age at treatment, duration of treatment or drug doses used, which might be of particularly importance in terms of the magnitude and duration of receptor desensitization.

Summary

In summary, we report that the adolescent use of cannabinoids has long-term impact on the brain and induces schizophrenia-like behaviors, including hippocampal learning and memory deficits. Adult administration of cannabinoids did not have lasting effects. We also demonstrate that ACU induces a long-term reorganization of the eCB system and a reduction in mGluR5 that correlates with ACU-induced hippocampal deficits. These data may add to the literature suggesting candidacy of mGluR5 as a therapeutic target for schizophrenia, perhaps specifically for those individuals with a history of significant adolescent cannabis use.

References

  1. 1

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Summary of National Findings: Rockville, MD, 2011.

  2. 2

    Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE . "Marijuana use continues to rise among U.S. teens, while alcohol use hits historic lows". University of Michigan News Service: Ann Arbor, MI Retrieved 05/10/12ww.monitoringthefuture.org2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Andreasson S, Allebeck P, Engstrom A, Rydberg U . Cannabis and schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts. Lancet 1987; 2: 1483–1486.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Arseneault L, Cannon M, Poulton R, Murray R, Caspi A, Moffitt TE . Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study. BMJ 2002; 325: 1212–1213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    van Os J, Bak M, Hanssen M, Bijl RV, de Graaf R, Verdoux H . Cannabis use and psychosis: a longitudinal population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156: 319–327.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Zammit S, Allebeck P, Andreasson S, Lundberg I, Lewis G . Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study. BMJ 2002; 325: 1199.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Henquet C, Krabbendam L, Spauwen J, Kaplan C, Lieb R, Wittchen HU et al. Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. BMJ 2005; 330: 11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Cannon M, McClay J, Murray R, Harrington H et al. Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis by a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene: longitudinal evidence of a gene X environment interaction. Biol Psychiatry 2005; 57: 1117–1127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Moore TH, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, Barnes TR, Jones PB, Burke M et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 2007; 370: 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Kim J, Alger BE . Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 potentiates retrograde endocannabinoid effects in hippocampus. Nat Neurosci 2004; 7: 697–698.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Makara JK, Mor M, Fegley D, Szabo SI, Kathuria S, Astarita G et al. Selective inhibition of 2-AG hydrolysis enhances endocannabinoid signaling in hippocampus. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8: 1139–1141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hashimotodani Y, Ohno-Shosaku T, Kano M . Presynaptic monoacylglycerol lipase activity determines basal endocannabinoid tone and terminates retrograde endocannabinoid signaling in the hippocampus. J Neurosci 2007; 27: 1211–1219.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Ligresti A, Cascio MG, Di Marzo V . Endocannabinoid metabolic pathways and enzymes. Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disord 2005; 4: 615–623.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Irving AJ, Coutts AA, Harvey J, Rae MG, Mackie K, Bewick GS et al. Functional expression of cell surface cannabinoid CB(1) receptors on presynaptic inhibitory terminals in cultured rat hippocampal neurons. Neuroscience 2000; 98: 253–262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Katona I, Sperlagh B, Sik A, Kafalvi A, Vizi ES, Mackie K et al. Presynaptically located CB1 cannabinoid receptors regulate GABA release from axon terminals of specific hippocampal interneurons. J Neurosci 1999; 19: 4544–4558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Eggan SM, Melchitzky DS, Sesack SR, Fish KN, Lewis DA . Relationship of cannabinoid CB1 receptor and cholecystokinin immunoreactivity in monkey dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience 169: 1651–1661.

  17. 17

    Spano MS, Ellgren M, Wang X, Hurd YL . Prenatal cannabis exposure increases heroin seeking with allostatic changes in limbic enkephalin systems in adulthood. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 61: 554–563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Rubino T, Realini N, Braida D, Alberio T, Capurro V, Vigano D et al. The depressive phenotype induced in adult female rats by adolescent exposure to THC is associated with cognitive impairment and altered neuroplasticity in the prefrontal cortex. Neurotox Res 2009; 15: 291–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Schneider M, Koch M . Chronic pubertal, but not adult chronic cannabinoid treatment impairs sensorimotor gating, recognition memory, and the performance in a progressive ratio task in adult rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2003; 28: 1760–1769.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Schneider M, Koch M . The effect of chronic peripubertal cannabinoid treatment on deficient object recognition memory in rats after neonatal mPFC lesion. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2007; 17: 180–186.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Wegener N, Koch M . Behavioural disturbances and altered Fos protein expression in adult rats after chronic pubertal cannabinoid treatment. Brain Res 2009; 1253: 81–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Ellgren M, Spano SM, Hurd YL . Adolescent cannabis exposure alters opiate intake and opioid limbic neuronal populations in adult rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007; 32: 607–615.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Eggan SM, Stoyak SR, Verrico CD, Lewis DA . Cannabinoid CB1 receptor immunoreactivity in the prefrontal cortex: comparison of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology Sep 35: 2060–2071.

  24. 24

    Dean B, Sundram S, Bradbury R, Scarr E, Copolov D . Studies on [3 H]CP-55940 binding in the human central nervous system: regional specific changes in density of cannabinoid-1 receptors associated with schizophrenia and cannabis use. Neuroscience 2001; 103: 9–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Zavitsanou K, Garrick T, Huang XF . Selective antagonist [3 H]SR141716A binding to cannabinoid CB1 receptors is increased in the anterior cingulate cortex in schizophrenia. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2004; 28: 355–360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Koethe D, Llenos IC, Dulay JR, Hoyer C, Torrey EF, Leweke FM et al. Expression of CB1 cannabinoid receptor in the anterior cingulate cortex in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. J Neural Transm 2007; 114: 1055–1063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Lu YM, Jia Z, Janus C, Henderson JT, Gerlai R, Wojtowicz JM et al. Mice lacking metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 show impaired learning and reduced CA1 long-term potentiation (LTP) but normal CA3 LTP. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 5196–5205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Xu J, Zhu Y, Contractor A, Heinemann SF . mGluR5 has a critical role in inhibitory learning. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 3676–3684.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Wang H, Westin L, Nong Y, Birnbaum S, Bendor J, Brismar H et al. Norbin is an endogenous regulator of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 signaling. Science 2009; 326: 1554–1557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Swerdlow NR, Shoemaker JM, Platten A, Pitcher L, Goins J, Auerbach PP . Heritable differences in the dopaminergic regulation of sensorimotor gating. I. Apomorphine effects on startle gating in albino and hooded outbred rat strains and their F1 and N2 progeny. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004; 174: 441–451.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Little MD, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR et al. Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87: 1932–1936.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Lichtman AH, Dimen KR, Martin BR . Systemic or intrahippocampal cannabinoid administration impairs spatial memory in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1995; 119: 282–290.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Robbe D, Montgomery SM, Thome A, Rueda-Orozco PE, McNaughton BL, Buzsaki G . Cannabinoids reveal importance of spike timing coordination in hippocampal function. Nat Neurosci 2006; 9: 1526–1533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Egashira N, Mishima K, Iwasaki K, Fujiwara M . Intracerebral microinjections of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol: search for the impairment of spatial memory in the eight-arm radial maze in rats. Brain Res 2002; 952: 239–245.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Lawston J, Borella A, Robinson JK, Whitaker-Azmitia PM . Changes in hippocampal morphology following chronic treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid WIN 55,212-2. Brain Res 2000; 877: 407–410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Tagliaferro P, Javier Ramos A, Onaivi ES, Evrard SG, Lujilde J, Brusco A . Neuronal cytoskeleton and synaptic densities are altered after a chronic treatment with the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2. Brain Res 2006; 1085: 163–176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Squire LR . Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychol Rev 1992; 99: 195–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Gabrieli JD . Cognitive neuroscience of human memory. Annu Rev Psychol 1998; 49: 87–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Eichenbaum HE CN . From Conditioning to Conscious Recollection: Memory Systems of the Brain. Oxford University Press: New York, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Keefe RS, Silverman JM, Mohs RC, Siever LJ, Harvey PD, Friedman L et al. Eye tracking, attention, and schizotypal symptoms in nonpsychotic relatives of patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997; 54: 169–176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Ragland JD, Cools R, Frank M, Pizzagalli DA, Preston A, Ranganath C et al. CNTRICS final task selection: long-term memory. Schizophr Bull 2009; 35: 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Stone M, Gabrieli JD, Stebbins GT, Sullivan EV . Working and strategic memory deficits in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology 1998; 12: 278–288.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Weiss AP, Goff D, Schacter DL, Ditman T, Freudenreich O, Henderson D et al. Fronto-hippocampal function during temporal context monitoring in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 60: 1268–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Shohamy D, Mihalakos P, Chin R, Thomas B, Wagner AD, Tamminga C . Learning and generalization in schizophrenia: effects of disease and antipsychotic drug treatment. Biol Psychiatry 67: 926–932.

  45. 45

    Titone D, Ditman T, Holzman PS, Eichenbaum H, Levy DL . Transitive inference in schizophrenia: impairments in relational memory organization. Schizophr Res 2004; 68: 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Aleman A, Hijman R, de Haan EH, Kahn RS . Memory impairment in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 1358–1366.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Danion JM, Rizzo L, Bruant A . Functional mechanisms underlying impaired recognition memory and conscious awareness in patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 639–644.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Achim AM, Bertrand MC, Sutton H, Montoya A, Czechowska Y, Malla AK et al. Selective abnormal modulation of hippocampal activity during memory formation in first-episode psychosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 999–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Heckers S, Zalesak M, Weiss AP, Ditman T, Titone D . Hippocampal activation during transitive inference in humans. Hippocampus 2004; 14: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Leube DT, Rapp A, Buchkremer G, Bartels M, Kircher TT, Erb M et al. Hippocampal dysfunction during episodic memory encoding in patients with schizophrenia-an fMRI study. Schizophr Res 2003; 64: 83–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    O'Shea M, McGregor IS, Mallet PE . Repeated cannabinoid exposure during perinatal, adolescent or early adult ages produces similar longlasting deficits in object recognition and reduced social interaction in rats. J Psychopharmacol 2006; 20: 611–621.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    O'Shea M, Singh ME, McGregor IS, Mallet PE . Chronic cannabinoid exposure produces lasting memory impairment and increased anxiety in adolescent but not adult rats. J Psychopharmacol 2004; 18: 502–508.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Quinn HR, Matsumoto I, Callaghan PD, Long LE, Arnold JC, Gunasekaran N et al. Adolescent rats find repeated Delta(9)-THC less aversive than adult rats but display greater residual cognitive deficits and changes in hippocampal protein expression following exposure. Neuropsychopharmacology 2008; 33: 1113–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Wise LE, Thorpe AJ, Lichtman AH . Hippocampal CB(1) receptors mediate the memory impairing effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009; 34: 2072–2080.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Broadbent NJ, Gaskin S, Squire LR, Clark RE . Object recognition memory and the rodent hippocampus. Learn Mem Jan 17: 5–11.

  56. 56

    Nadel L, Hardt O . The spatial brain. Neuropsychology 2004; 18: 473–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Gray L, van den Buuse M, Scarr E, Dean B, Hannan AJ . Clozapine reverses schizophrenia-related behaviours in the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 knockout mouse: association with N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor up-regulation. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2009; 12: 45–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Homayoun H, Stefani MR, Adams BW, Tamagan GD, Moghaddam B . Functional interaction between NMDA and mGlu5 receptors: effects on working memory, instrumental learning, motor behaviors, and dopamine release. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004; 29: 1259–1269.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Kinney GG, O'Brien JA, Lemaire W, Burno M, Bickel DJ, Clements MK et al. A novel selective positive allosteric modulator of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 has in vivo activity and antipsychotic-like effects in rat behavioral models. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2005; 313: 199–206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60

    Chan MH, Chiu PH, Sou JH, Chen HH . Attenuation of ketamine-evoked behavioral responses by mGluR5 positive modulators in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2008; 198: 141–148.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Noetzel MJ, Rook JM, Vinson PN, Cho HP, Days E, Zhou Y et al. Functional impact of allosteric agonist activity of selective positive allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 in regulating central nervous system function. Mol Pharmacol Feb 81: 120–133.

  62. 62

    Ellgren M, Artmann A, Tkalych O, Gupta A, Hansen HS, Hansen SH et al. Dynamic changes of the endogenous cannabinoid and opioid mesocorticolimbic systems during adolescence: THC effects. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2008; 18: 826–834.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Rubino T, Guidali C, Vigano D, Realini N, Valenti M, Massi P et al. CB1 receptor stimulation in specific brain areas differently modulate anxiety-related behaviour. Neuropharmacology 2008; 54: 151–160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Chadwick B, Saylor AJ, Lopez HH . Adolescent cannabinoid exposure attenuates adult female sexual motivation but does not alter adulthood CB(1)R expression or estrous cyclicity. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2011; 100: 157–164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Hirvonen J, Goodwin RS, Li CT, Terry GE, Zoghbi SS, Morse C et al. Reversible and regionally selective downregulation of brain cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in chronic daily cannabis smokers. Mol Psychiatry 2012; 17: 642–649.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Moore NL, Greenleaf AL, Acheson SK, Wilson WA, Swartzwelder HS, Kuhn CM . Role of cannabinoid receptor type 1 desensitization in greater tetrahydrocannabinol impairment of memory in adolescent rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2010; 335: 294–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Renthal W, Nestler EJ . Epigenetic mechanisms in drug addiction. Trends Mol Med 2008; 14: 341–350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Levenson JM, O'Riordan KJ, Brown KD, Trinh MA, Molfese DL, Sweatt JD . Regulation of histone acetylation during memory formation in the hippocampus. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 40545–40559.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Mackie K . Signaling via CNS cannabinoid receptors. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2008; 286 (1-2 Suppl 1): S60–S65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    Viveros MP, Marco EM, Llorente R, Lopez-Gallardo M . Endocannabinoid system and synaptic plasticity: implications for emotional responses. Neural Plast 2007; 2007: 52908.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Katona I, Sperlagh B, Magloczky Z, Santha E, Kofalvi A, Czirjak S et al. GABAergic interneurons are the targets of cannabinoid actions in the human hippocampus. Neuroscience 2000; 100: 797–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    Hill EL, Gallopin T, Ferezou I, Cauli B, Rossier J, Schweitzer P et al. Functional CB1 receptors are broadly expressed in neocortical GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons. J Neurophysiol 2007; 97: 2580–2589.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Marsicano G, Lutz B . Expression of the cannabinoid receptor CB1 in distinct neuronal subpopulations in the adult mouse forebrain. Eur J Neurosci 1999; 11: 4213–4225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Matsuda LA, Bonner TI, Lolait SJ . Localization of cannabinoid receptor mRNA in rat brain. J Comp Neurol 1993; 327: 535–550.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Lewis DA, Hashimoto T, Volk DW . Cortical inhibitory neurons and schizophrenia. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6: 312–324.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    Heckers S, Stone D, Walsh J, Shick J, Koul P, Benes FM . Differential hippocampal expression of glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 and 67 messenger RNA in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 521–529.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77

    Kegeles LS, Mao X, Stanford AD, Girgis R, Ojeil N, Xu X et al. Elevated prefrontal cortex gamma-aminobutyric acid and glutamate-glutamine levels in schizophrenia measured in vivo with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69: 449–459.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78

    Arendt M, Rosenberg R, Foldager L, Perto G, Munk-Jorgensen P. . Cannabis-induced psychosis and subsequent schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: follow-up study of 535 incident cases. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 187: 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79

    Barnes TR, Mutsatsa SH, Hutton SB, Watt HC, Joyce EM . Comorbid substance use and age at onset of schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 237–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80

    Caspari D . Cannabis and schizophrenia: results of a follow-up study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1999; 249: 45–49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81

    Green AI, Tohen MF, Hamer RM, Strakowski SM, Lieberman JA, Glick I et al. First episode schizophrenia-related psychosis and substance use disorders: acute response to olanzapine and haloperidol. Schizophr Res 2004; 66: 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82

    Hambrecht M, Hafner H . Cannabis, vulnerability, and the onset of schizophrenia: an epidemiological perspective. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2000; 34: 468–475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83

    Degenhardt L, Tennant C, Gilmour S, Schofield D, Nash L, Hall W et al. The temporal dynamics of relationships between cannabis, psychosis and depression among young adults with psychotic disorders: findings from a 10-month prospective study. Psychol Med 2007; 37: 927–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84

    Grech A, Van Os J, Jones PB, Lewis SW, Murray RM . Cannabis use and outcome of recent onset psychosis. Eur Psychiatry 2005; 20: 349–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85

    Sevy S, Robinson DG, Holloway S, Alvir JM, Woerner MG, Bilder R et al. Correlates of substance misuse in patients with first-episode schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001; 104: 367–374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. 86

    McCleery A, Addington J, Addington D . Substance misuse and cognitive functioning in early psychosis: a 2 year follow-up. Schizophr Res 2006; 88: 187–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87

    Kumra S, Thaden E, DeThomas C, Kranzler H . Correlates of substance abuse in adolescents with treatment-refractory schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophr Res 2005; 73: 369–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88

    Potvin S, Briand C, Prouteau A, Bouchard RH, Lipp O, Lalonde P et al. CANTAB explicit memory is less impaired in addicted schizophrenia patients. Brain Cogn 2005; 59: 38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89

    Jockers-Scherubl MC, Wolf T, Radzei N, Schlattmann P, Rentzsch J, Gomez-Carrillo de Castro A et al. Cannabis induces different cognitive changes in schizophrenic patients and in healthy controls. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2007; 31: 1054–1063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90

    Schnell T, Koethe D, Daumann J, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E . The role of cannabis in cognitive functioning of patients with schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009; 205: 45–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 91

    Stirling J, White C, Lewis S, Hopkins R, Tantam D, Huddy A et al. Neurocognitive function and outcome in first-episode schizophrenia: a 10-year follow-up of an epidemiological cohort. Schizophr Res 2003; 65: 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92

    Rodriguez-Sanchez JM, Ayesa-Arriola R, Mata I, Moreno-Calle T, Perez-Iglesias R, Gonzalez-Blanch C et al. Cannabis use and cognitive functioning in first-episode schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 2010; 124: 142–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93

    Carey KB, Carey MP, Simons JS . Correlates of substance use disorder among psychiatric outpatients: focus on cognition, social role functioning, and psychiatric status. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003; 191: 300–308.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94

    Yucel M, Bora E, Lubman DI, Solowij N, Brewer WJ, Cotton SM et al. The impact of cannabis use on cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of existing findings and new data in a first-episode sample. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38: 316–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Grant MH79253 to SG). NIH had no further role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Ghose.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gleason, K., Birnbaum, S., Shukla, A. et al. Susceptibility of the adolescent brain to cannabinoids: long-term hippocampal effects and relevance to schizophrenia. Transl Psychiatry 2, e199 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2012.122

Download citation

Keywords

  • adolescence
  • cannabis
  • endocannabinoid
  • hippocampus
  • mGluR5

Further reading

Search

Quick links