Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Brain and Behavior logoLink to Brain and Behavior
. 2026 Feb 27;16(3):e71289. doi: 10.1002/brb3.71289

Olanzapine Attenuates the Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference: The Involvement of the D2‐Like Dopamine Receptors

Farkhondeh Rzazzaghi‐ Firozjaei 1, Amineh Sadat Zahiri‐ Pour 1, Gholamreza Ghavipanjeh 2, Amir Ghaderi 3, Abbas Haghparast 4, Abolfazl Ardjmand 2, Hamid Reza Banafshe 2,5,✉
PMCID: PMC12949172  PMID: 41761485

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Opioid use disorder is associated with persistent molecular and cellular changes in the brain, leading to compulsive drug‐seeking behaviors. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of olanzapine (OLZ), a D2‐like dopamine receptor (D2R) antagonist, on morphine dependence using the conditioned place preference (CPP) model.

Methods:

Morphine‐induced CPP was established by subcutaneous (sc) administration of morphine (5 mg/kg) for three consecutive days. OLZ at doses of 1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg was administered intraperitoneally (ip) during different phases of CPP: acquisition, expression, and extinction. Behavioral assessments included measurement of conditioning scores and locomotor activity. D2R protein expression in the hippocampus (HIP) was evaluated using western blotting.

Results:

OLZ reduced both acquisition and expression of morphine‐induced CPP in a dose‐dependent manner. Additionally, OLZ facilitated extinction by shortening the duration of the extinction phase. Western blot analysis showed a significant reduction in D2R protein expression in the expression and extinction phases in the OLZ‐treated groups compared to the morphine‐only group. Importantly, effective doses of OLZ did not impair locomotor activity.

Conclusion:

OLZ attenuates morphine‐induced CPP and downregulates D2R expression in the HIP without affecting general locomotor function. These findings suggest a potential therapeutic role for OLZ in the management of opioid‐related behaviors. Further research is needed to determine its clinical relevance.

Keywords: conditioned place preference, D2 receptor, hippocampus, opioid dependence, Olanzapine

The results of this study demonstrated that olanzapine can inhibit morphine‐induced CPP behavior during the acquisition, expression, and extinction phases. These effects are likely mediated by the inhibition of dopamine receptors and a reduction in D2R protein expression in the HIP. Additionally, the use of olanzapine during the extinction phase accelerated the extinction process of CPP. These findings suggest that olanzapine may hold therapeutic potential in managing psychological dependence on drugs through D2R‐dependent pathways.

graphic file with name BRB3-16-e71289-g007.jpg

1. Introduction

Opioid dependence is considered a significant challenge in public health. Due to complex biological and social factors, this dependence can lead to persistent cravings and relapse into substance abuse, even after prolonged periods of abstinence (Luo et al. 2011). The treatment and control of opioid dependence is one of the most complex and fundamental challenges in the public health system (Moeini et al. 2019). One of the common approaches to treating morphine dependence is the use of oral full opioid agonists like methadone. Methadone is beneficial in controlling craving; however, it may lead to dependence and be linked to various adverse effects, such as withdrawal symptoms, intense drug cravings, and cognitive dysfunction (Javdan et al. 2019). The role of the dopaminergic system is crucial in both the development of opioid dependence and the relapse to substance use (Te 1993). Dopamine plays an important role in essential functions such as emotion, learning, decision‐making, opioid dependence, and reward (Schultz 2015). The mesocorticolimbic pathway, linking the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex, is central to opioid dependence through its role in reward, learning, and memory. Chronic opioid use alters this system, promoting craving and relapse. The mesolimbic pathway, including VTA‐hippocampus (HIP) connections, also contributes to processing reward cues, with the HIP essential for encoding reward‐based learning and preferences (Kutlu and Gould 2016). The HIP is critical for learning and memory and is highly responsive to drug‐induced synaptic changes, especially in regions like the dentate gyrus (DG), CA1, and CA3. Disruption in hippocampal function, particularly through dopaminergic signaling from the VTA to the DG, impairs drug‐associated learning and may contribute to addiction and relapse (Avchalumov and Mandyam 2021).

The conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm serves as a research tool to investigate substance dependence and its impact on the brain's reward pathways. The CPP test is widely used to evaluate the rewarding effects of substances and the reward memory associated with them (Sun et al. 2017). Previous studies have shown that the injection of D1/D2‐like dopamine receptor antagonists into various regions of the HIP, including CA1 and DG, can inhibit both the CPP learning induced by morphine and its reinstatement (Assar et al. 2016; Khakpour‐Taleghani et al. 2015).

Olanzapine (OLZ), a second‐generation antipsychotic, received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996 for treating schizophrenia and has been offered as a generic medication since 2011 (Meftah et al. 2020). OLZ blocks acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, and histamine receptors, and specifically exerts an inhibitory effect on dopamine receptor subtypes (D2/D4) (Torigoe et al. 2012; Go et al. 2018). It has been suggested that OLZ's efficacy in reducing drug cravings is due to its rapid dissociation from the D2‐like dopamine receptor (D2R), a characteristic that may help mitigate dysphoria and dopamine hypersensitivity during withdrawal (Potvin et al. 2003; Akerele and Levin 2007). Research has shown that OLZ can prevent the development of CPP induced by various substances, such as amphetamines (Mechanic et al. 2003) and cocaine (Meil and Schechter 1997; Kosten and Nestler 1994) in rats and reduce addictive behaviors related to opioids (Torigoe et al. 2012). Additionally, OLZ can reduce alcohol cravings and intake in humans (Guardia et al. 2004).

Considering the involvement of the dopaminergic system in regulating reward‐related behaviors and cravings, this animal study aimed to investigate the effects of OLZ on morphine‐CPP and the potential role of D2R. While previous studies, such as Torigoe et al. (2012), have explored OLZ's effects on morphine‐induced reward, the present study provides a comprehensive evaluation of dose‐dependent effects across all CPP phases (acquisition, expression, and extinction) combined with the assessment of D2R expression in the hippocampus. This approach allows for a more detailed understanding of OLZ's modulatory effects on morphine‐induced behaviors and their underlying neural mechanisms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animal

One hundred and sixty adult male albino Wistar rats (weight: 220–250 g; Basic Science Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences) were kept under standard conditions in a 12‐h light‐dark cycle (lights on from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.). Each cage housed two rats in a room with a regulated temperature (25 ± 1°C) and humidity (38 ± 2%). In addition, food and water were provided without restriction. The animals were randomly distributed into various test groups. All experiments were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Kashan University of Medical Sciences for the care and use of laboratory animals (IR.KAUMS.AEC.1401.004).

2.2. Drugs

Morphine sulfate was provided by the FDA, Tehran, Iran. A preliminary dose–response study was conducted using 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 mg/kg subcutaneously (sc) to determine the optimal dose for inducing psychological dependence in CPP. Based on these results and previous reports, 5 mg/kg was selected for the main experiments (Nazari‐Serenjeh et al. 2021). OLZ was provided in powder form by Pharma Chemie. To prepare the solution, the powder was mixed with 2.5–3 drops of DMSO, followed by the addition of 5 mL of normal saline solution and several drops of Tween 80 to create a suspension for intraperitoneal (ip) administration. OLZ doses were selected based on a previous study (Meil and Schechter 1997).

2.3. CPP Apparatus

The device consists of three compartments: A, B, and C. Sections A and B are of the same size, each measuring 30 × 30 × 40 cm, and are connected to section C by guillotine doors. Section A features walls with black and white vertical stripes and a flat floor, while Section B has walls with a white background and black and white horizontal stripes. Section C, located between the other two compartments, measures 40 × 15 × 30 cm and has walls painted black (Modaberi et al. 2023). A camera (Microsoft LifeCam HD‐3000, China) is positioned above the device and starts recording as soon as the rat enters a compartment. It records the duration spent in each compartment and the number of entries, allowing detailed observation of the rat's behavior (Figure 1A).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Experimental protocols for assessing morphine‐induced CPP in rats. (A) On the pre‐test day (Day 1), the time each rat spent in both compartments was recorded. Only animals showing no initial preference for either side were included in the study. Following three consecutive days of morphine administration (5 mg/kg, sc), the conditioning and post‐test session were conducted on Day 5. The CPP score was defined as the difference between the time spent in the drug‐paired compartment and the saline‐paired compartment. The extinction phase began on Day 6, during which animals were exposed to the CPP apparatus for 10 min daily. Testing continued until the CPP score declined by 50% compared to the pre‐conditioning value. (B) To assess the effect of OLZ on morphine‐induced CPP acquisition, treatment groups received OLZ at doses of 1.5, 3, or 4.5 mg/kg via ip injection, once daily, 30 min before the sc morphine administration during the 3‐day conditioning phase. (C) In a separate experiment, to evaluate the effect of OLZ on CPP expression, animals were administered OLZ at the same doses (1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg, ip) 30 min before the post‐conditioning test session in the CPP apparatus. (D) To investigate the effect of OLZ on CPP extinction, two doses of OLZ (1 and 1.5 mg/kg) were administered ip 30 min before daily CPP testing, beginning the day after the post‐conditioning test. This procedure was repeated each day during the extinction phase until the CPP scores stabilized. The extinction latency for each rat was defined as the number of days required to reduce the CPP score by 50% compared to the post‐conditioning level.

2.4. Pre‐conditioning (Familiarization) Phase

On Day 1, rats were allowed to freely explore all compartments of the CPP apparatus for 10 min, and the time spent in each compartment was recorded automatically. Rats showing strong initial bias (>70% time in one compartment) were excluded (Katebi et al. 2018). At this stage, seven rats were excluded based on this criterion.

2.5. Conditioning (Acquisition) Phase

From Day 2 to 4, animals received alternating sc injections of morphine (5 mg/kg) and saline, being confined to the corresponding compartment for 30 min after each injection. The schedule was reversed daily to control for time‐of‐day effects. During this phase, OLZ (1.5, 3, or 4.5 mg/kg, ip) was administered 30 min before morphine injection to assess its effects on CPP acquisition (Figure 1B). Vehicle‐control groups received the drug solvent.

2.6. Post‐conditioning (Expression) Phase

On Day 5, animals were allowed to freely explore the apparatus for 10 min, during which preference scores were recorded to assess morphine‐induced place preference. To evaluate the effects of OLZ on CPP expression, treated groups received a single dose of the drug (1.5, 3, or 4.5 mg/kg, ip) 30 min before testing (Figure 1C).

2.7. Extinction Phase

One day after the post‐conditioning test, OLZ was administered ip at doses of 1 and 1.5 mg/kg, 30 min before the CPP test, followed by assessment of the preference score. This daily procedure continued throughout the extinction phase until complete extinction was achieved (Figure 1D). In this study, “extinction latency” was defined as the number of days required for each animal's CPP score to decrease to half of the value observed on the post‐conditioning day. It is worth noting that due to the daily administration of OLZ and its cumulative effects in the animals, higher doses (3 and 4.5 mg/kg) caused reduced locomotor activity; therefore, lower doses of 1 and 1.5 mg/kg were used during this phase.

2.8. Locomotor Activity Measurement

Locomotor activity can significantly influence CPP outcomes. Therefore, the effects of interventions on locomotion were assessed by measuring and comparing the total distance traveled on Day 5 between experimental and control (vehicle‐treated) groups, as recorded by a Microsoft LifeCam HD‐3000 (China) camera connected to a video tracking system (Noldus Information Technology, Netherlands) and analyzed with EthoVision software (version 7).

2.9. Molecular Studies

To investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying OLZ's effects, hippocampal samples were selectively collected from treatment groups demonstrating the most significant behavioral responses in each experimental phase. Accordingly, acquisition phase samples were obtained from animals treated with 3 mg/kg OLZ, expression phase samples from the 4.5 mg/kg treatment group, and extinction phase samples from animals receiving 1.5 mg/kg OLZ. All samples were collected immediately following the final behavioral test in each respective phase and compared with matched vehicle‐control groups from the same experimental phase.

After completing the experimental sessions and behavioral studies, the rats were euthanized with carbon dioxide under deep anesthesia, and their heads were beheaded with a guillotine. Both the right and left hippocampi were separated and placed in tubes. These microtubes were then dipped in liquid nitrogen and stored in a deep freezer at −80°C. The tissues were kept at −80°C until use and were gradually subjected to molecular tests.

To extract proteins, 100 µL of Pro‐Pre cell lysis solution was added to the cells, and the cells were lysed on ice using a homogenizer. The cell suspension was then incubated at −20°C for 20 min. After centrifuging for 15 min at 4°C and 13,000 rpm, the supernatant was collected. The protein concentration was measured using the Bicinchoninic Acid (BCA) method. Western blotting was performed in two stages using a vertical system with 10 × 10 cm gel units and a Consort EV202 power supply. Electrophoresis was conducted with a 10% separating gel and a 5% stacking gel, prepared with bisacrylamide, Tris base, SDS, ammonium persulfate, and TEMED. After solidification, the gels were placed in an electrophoresis container containing 1.2 L of electrophoresis solution (25 mM Tris base, 190 mM glycine, 0.1% SDS, pH 8). Protein samples (50 µg) were boiled in 2× Laemmli buffer for 5 min and loaded into the gel using a Hamilton syringe. A pre‐colored protein marker was included, and proteins were first tested at 80 V, followed by 180 V. After electrophoresis, the proteins were transferred from the gel to 0.2 µm PVDF membranes (Bio‐Rad). The gel and membrane were stacked in a sandwich format with sponges and filter papers, placed in a transfer tank with a buffer of pH 8.3, and incubated at 300 mA for 75 min. After transfer, the gel was stained with Ponceau‐S solution to check transfer quality and then decolorized. The PVDF membrane was blocked with TBST and BSA or fat‐free dry milk, followed by incubation with primary and secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using ECL solution and x‐ray film, then analyzed using Gel Analyzer software to calculate the relative intensities compared to the beta‐actin control (Babaei et al. 2018; Siavashi et al. 2016; Jabarpour et al. 2018).

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The results are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Data analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism software (version 8.0). To compare CPP scores and distances traveled among the experimental groups, a one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with block randomization was performed, followed by post‐hoc analysis using the Newman–Keuls test. A p‐value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. CPP Induction by Morphine

Data analysis revealed a dose–response effect of morphine during the conditioning phase (Figure 2). Among the tested doses (2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 mg/kg), 5 mg/kg morphine produced the greatest increase in time spent by rats in the morphine‐associated compartment compared to the saline compartment (*** p < 0.001), while 7.5 and 10 mg/kg also induced a significant CPP (** p < 0.01). Based on these results, 5 mg/kg was selected for all subsequent experiments. Effect size (η2 ) has been added to the morphine dose–response ANOVA analysis (η 2 = 0.59). Additionally, 95% confidence intervals (CI) saline control: [10.56, 59.77]; morphine 2.5 mg/kg: [26.34, 144.1]; morphine 5 mg/kg: [96.09, 167.6]; morphine 7.5 mg/kg: [91.87, 133.3]; morphine 10 mg/kg: [79.31, 140.0].

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

The effects of various doses of morphine on CPP to determine the effective dose of morphine. **p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 different from the control group. Mor: morphine.

3.2. Olanzapine's Effects on the Acquisition of CPP

In this series of experiments, the effect of various doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg), which acts as a D2R antagonist, on morphine‐induced CPP after ip administration was investigated. Analysis using one‐way ANOVA and the Newman–Keuls multiple comparison test (p < 0.001; n = 6–7; Figure 3A) showed that the ip injection of all three doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg) administered 30 min before morphine injection (5 mg/kg, sc) significantly reduced morphine‐induced CPP compared to the vehicle groups. In contrast, the results of the one‐way ANOVA followed by the Newman–Keuls multiple comparison test (p = 0.0531; Figure 3B) showed that the OLZ at the specified dose had no significant effect on the distance traveled during the 10‐min test period (the day after the test) compared to the vehicle‐control groups. The acquisition phase showed a significant effect (F(6,38) = 75.91, p < 0.0001) with a very large effect size (η 2 = 0.923). Data are reported as 95% CI: saline [21.35, 57.22], vehicle + morphine [103.6, 160.1], saline + morphine 5 mg/kg [98.15, 159.5], Olanzapine + saline [4.517, 39.48], morphine + Olanzapine 1.5 mg/kg [−216.2, −133.5], morphine + Olanzapine 3 mg/kg [−236.0, −92.02], and morphine + Olanzapine 4.5 mg/kg [−113.0, −52.33].

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

The effects of saline, vehicle, OLZ alone (3 mg/kg, ip), and different doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg, ip) administered 30 min before morphine (5 mg/kg, sc) during the acquisition phase (A). The effects of different doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, or 4.5 mg/kg) on locomotor activity during the acquisition phase (B). *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 as compared with the saline‐control group. +++p < 0.001 as compared with the morphine group.

3.3. Olanzapine's Effects on the Expression of CPP

The day after conditioning, the animals received OLZ as a D2R antagonist via ip injection to investigate the role of this antagonist in the expression of morphine‐induced CPP. The results of the one‐way ANOVA (p < 0.001, n = 6–7; Figure 4A), followed by the Newman–Keuls multiple comparative test, showed that the higher OLZ dose (4.5 mg/kg) markedly reduced the conditioned values compared to the groups of vehicles that received saline solution instead of OLZ on the test day. OLZ at the specified dose had no significant effect on the distance traveled during the 10‐min test period (the day after the test) compared to the vehicle‐control groups (Figure 4B). OLZ significantly reduced morphine‐induced CPP in a dose‐dependent manner during the expression phase (F(6,39) = 78.51, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.92).  Data are presented as 95% CI: saline, [21.35, 57.22]; vehicle + morphine, [104.8, 211.5]; saline + morphine, [131.4, 219.2]; Olanzapine + saline, [4.517, 39.48]; morphine + Olanzapine 1.5 mg/kg, [99.96, 138.4]; morphine + Olanzapine 3 mg/kg, [−91.80, −18.20]; morphine + Olanzapine 4.5 mg/kg, [−355.6, −201.5].

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

The effects of saline, vehicle, OLZ alone (3 mg/kg, ip), and different doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, and 4.5 mg/kg, ip) administered 30 min before morphine (5 mg/kg, sc) during the expression phase (A). The effects of different doses of OLZ (1.5, 3, or 4.5 mg/kg) on locomotor activity during the expression phase (B). **p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 as compared with the saline‐control group. +++p < 0.001 as compared with the morphine group.

3.4. Olanzapine's Effects on the Extinction of CPP

To investigate the effect of OLZ on the extinction latency of morphine‐induced CPP starting from the day after the conditioning phase, various doses of the drug were administered daily via ip injection. Based on the results of one‐way ANOVA followed by the Newman–Keuls multiple comparison test (p = 0.0034, n = 6–7; Figure 5A), daily administration of 1.5 mg/kg OLZ during the extinction phase significantly reduced the mean extinction latency. However, the 1 mg/kg dose did not affect the mean extinction latency. Additionally, higher doses (3 and 4.5 mg/kg) decreased the animals’ locomotor activity but did not affect the mean extinction latency. According to the data shown in Figure 5B, neither dose of OLZ (1 and 1.5 mg/kg) produced a significant difference in the mean distance traveled (cm/day) compared to the vehicle‐control group. For the extinction phase, we have reported the 95% confidence intervals for all groups (Vehicle: [5.438, 7.991]; Dose 1: [4.395, 6.748]; Dose 1.5: [0.9240, 5.409]) alongside the effect size (η2 = 0.487)

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

The effects of vehicle and different doses of OLZ (1 and 1.5 mg/kg, ip), during the extinction phase (A). The effects of different doses of OLZ (1 and 1.5 mg/kg, ip) on locomotor activity during the extinction phase (B). **p < 0.01 as compared with the vehicle‐control group.

3.5. Olanzapine's Effects on D2R Protein Expression in HIP

We investigated the expression status of the D2R using a specific anti‐D2 receptor antibody and western blot analysis. The comparison with the morphine group revealed a significant reduction in D2R protein expression during the expression phase (p < 0.0080) and the extinction phase (p < 0.0004). However, in the acquisition phase, no significant difference in the expression of dopamine D2 protein was observed compared to the morphine group with the effective dose of 5 mg/kg (Figure 6B). Due to financial constraints associated with performing western blot experiments, we focused on treatment groups showing the most pronounced behavioral effects.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

The effect of OLZ co‐administration with morphine on D2R protein expression in the HIP during different CPP phases. The western blot images (A) and corresponding densitometric analysis (B) show D2R protein levels in rats treated with morphine alone and those receiving morphine plus the most effective OLZ doses during the acquisition (3 mg/kg), expression (4.5 mg/kg), and extinction (1.5 mg/kg) phases. All values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 4). Data were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Comparison with the morphine group revealed a significant reduction in D2R protein expression during the expression phase (**p < 0.01) and the extinction phase (***p < 0.001).

Western blot (hippocampal D2R): OLZ had no significant effect on D2R in the acquisition phase (effect size = 0.018; 95% CI: −0.22 to 0.26), but significantly reduced D2R levels in the expression (effect size = 0.322; 95% CI: 0.084–0.561) and extinction phases (effect size = 0.465; 95% CI: 0.227–0.703), showing a phase‐dependent effect.

4. Discussion

This study investigated the effects of OLZ on the acquisition, expression, and extinction phases of morphine‐induced CPP. The key findings are as follows: (1) 5 mg/kg morphine was identified as the optimal dose to induce robust CPP; (2) OLZ effectively suppressed morphine‐induced CPP, likely via modulation of HIP D2R expression; and (3) OLZ administration during the extinction phase accelerated CPP extinction.

Notably, during the acquisition phase, the behavioral and molecular effects of OLZ were dissociated. While OLZ effectively attenuated morphine‐induced CPP behaviorally, it did not affect hippocampal D2R expression. In contrast, during the expression and extinction phases, OLZ reduced both morphine‐induced CPP and hippocampal D2R expression. Our molecular results support the possible link between the behavioral efficacy of OLZ and a phase‐specific modulation of hippocampal D2R expression. During the expression phase, the 4.5 mg/kg dose of OLZ significantly reduced both CPP scores and D2R levels without affecting locomotor activity. In the extinction phase, the 1.5 mg/kg dose specifically facilitated extinction without motor impairment, whereas higher doses (3 and 4.5 mg/kg) reduced locomotion, likely due to sedative effects, without further enhancing extinction. This dose‐dependent profile indicates that the pro‐extinction effect is separable from OLZ's sedative properties.

The facilitated extinction of conditioned behaviors, primarily through D2 receptor modulation during extinction and expression phases, underscores the critical role of dopaminergic signaling in extinction learning (Zbukvic et al. 2016). This process is highly significant because extinction involves the formation of new inhibitory memories while preserving the original drug‐related associations, leaving individuals vulnerable to relapse upon re‐exposure to drug cues. Therefore, interventions capable of modulating the neuroplastic changes induced by chronic drug use are essential for relapse prevention. Pharmacological agents that mitigate these neural adaptations may effectively reduce drug craving and susceptibility to relapse (Hashemizadeh et al. 2024). This is particularly relevant given that most addictive drugs, including morphine, ultimately enhance dopamine activity within reward pathways through diverse mechanisms (Cousins et al. 2002). Morphine binds to μ‐opioid receptors on inhibitory GABAergic neurons in the VTA, leading to neuronal inhibition via multiple mechanisms, including a reduction in cyclic AMP signaling, hyperpolarization mediated by G protein‐gated inwardly rectifying potassium (GIRK) channels, and suppression of presynaptic calcium channel function. This disinhibition of dopaminergic neurons increases dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens, contributing to the reinforcing effects of morphine (Reeves et al. 2022; Listos et al. 2019).

Studies have shown that the HIP, beyond forming drug‐related memories, plays a role in drug‐seeking behaviors and environmental influences. Additionally, the HIP is critical in the acquisition and expression of morphine‐, cocaine‐, and nicotine‐induced CPP (Kramar et al. 2014; Luo et al. 2011). Morphine‐induced CPP is modulated by several neurotransmitter systems, including dopaminergic, adrenergic, muscarinic, and serotonergic systems (Arani et al. 2023). Recent findings highlight the significant role of D2R in enhancing extracellular dopamine levels and initiating and expressing morphine‐induced CPP (Rougé‐Pont et al. 2002). In fact, inhibiting the D2 receptor can significantly reduce the intensity of morphine‐induced CPP (Katebi et al. 2018). Administration of sulpiride, a D2R antagonist, provides valuable evidence for this hypothesis by inhibiting the effect of morphine on reward enhancement and the formation of a CPP (Haghparast et al. 2013). Also, previous research has shown that administration of D1 and/or D2‐like dopamine receptor antagonists in the CA1 region of the HIP prevents morphine‐induced CPP learning (Esmaeili et al. 2012; Assar et al. 2016). The antagonistic effect of OLZ in the induction of morphine‐CPP is consistent with previous results of other atypical antipsychotics, such as risperidone and quetiapine (Arani et al. 2023; Khezri et al. 2022). The effect of OLZ on CPP caused by various substances has been investigated.

The results of Jordan E. A study showed that OLZ (1.5 mg/kg) could prevent the development of a CPP induced by amphetamine (Mechanic et al. 2003). Treated animals at doses of 3.0 or 4.5 mg/kg OLZ showed lower motor activity, and a reduction in cocaine‐induced activity was observed at doses of 4.5 mg/kg. The effects of OLZ in reducing cocaine‐induced hyperactivity and spontaneous motor activity are consistent with the results of a study by Arnett (1995). The effect of OLZ on substance abuse has been studied in patients with dual diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia with substance use disorder (Harder et al. 2019). It has been suggested that OLZ's ability to reduce cravings may be due to its rapid dissociation from the D2R, which could help reduce the risk of dysphoria and hypersensitivity to dopamine following drug withdrawal (Akerele and Levin 2007; Potvin et al. 2003). According to a study conducted by M. Zhou, administration of OLZ to patients with schizophrenia and opioid use disorder (OUD) can significantly increase the likelihood of recovery from OUD, with these patients having a higher chance of recovery than people who did not receive OLZ treatment (Zhou et al. 2021). Studies have shown that OLZ affects 7 of 19 opioid‐associated genes use disorder, including BDNF, CYP2D6, DRD2, DRD4, HTR1B, POMC, and SLC6A4 (Al‐Hasani and Bruchas 2011; Koob and Volkow 2016). A study showed that OLZ at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg, which had only a minimal effect on motor coordination, effectively suppressed the hyperlocomotion and rewarding effects of morphine (Torigoe et al. 2012). However, the precise role of hippocampal D2R in this effect remained unclear. Therefore, our study aimed to build upon these findings by specifically investigating the involvement of D2R‐mediated signaling in the HIP across all phases of morphine‐induced CPP. Research has shown that muscarinic M1 receptors have a role in improving dopaminergic effects induced by opioids and associated with increased drug dependence (Tanda et al. 2007). Given OLZ's high affinity for muscarinic M1 receptors, it was hypothesized that this drug could increase the potential for opioid abuse. Data have shown that M1 antagonists can increase dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. In contrast to previous studies, however, OLZ was not only unable to increase hyperlocomotion or morphine‐induced place preference, but its effect on various receptors, such as serotonin, histamine, and dopamine, could also explain the suppressive effects of the drug (Torigoe et al. 2012). Based on these pathophysiological mechanisms, OLZ, as a dopamine receptor antagonist, may effectively manage psychological dependence (Murphy et al. 2017). In addition, this effect may reduce the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (which make patients more likely to accept and stick to treatment) (Bédard et al. 2013). It may also improve mood and cognitive function, possibly by blocking various 5‐HT and adrenergic receptors (Akerele and Levin 2007). An unblinded comparison has shown that OLZ may be as effective as clonidine in treating heroin withdrawal symptoms (Cha et al. 2013). In a randomized trial, 10 mg of OLZ treated opioid withdrawal symptoms more effectively than clonidine. In addition, in a prospective study, OLZ reduced the frequency of discontinuation of opioid maintenance therapy, which was associated with a reduction in craving (Torigoe et al. 2012).

5. Conclusion

In summary, OLZ attenuated morphine‐induced CPP across acquisition, expression, and extinction phases, likely via dopamine receptor antagonism and reduced hippocampal D2R expression. Notably, OLZ accelerated CPP extinction, suggesting that its inhibitory effects on morphine reward may involve modulation of D2 receptor‐dependent signaling in the hippocampus. These findings provide insights into potential neural mechanisms for future interventions in opioid‐related disorders.

Author Contributions

Farkhondeh Rzazzaghi‐Firozjaei: methodology, software, data curation, investigation, writing – original draft, formal analysis. Amineh Sadat Zahiri‐Pour: methodology, software, data curation, investigation, writing – original draft. Gholamreza Ghavipanjeh: methodology, data curation, writing – original draft. Amir Ghaderi: methodology, software, data curation, writing – original draft. Abbas Haghparast: methodology, writing – original draft. Abolfazl Ardjmand: methodology, writing – original draft. Hamid Reza Banafshe: conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation; supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, investigation, validation, writing – original draft.

Funding

This work was supported by the Vice‐Chancellor for Research and Technology, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran (Grant Number: 40178, 2022). The Vice‐Chancellor for Research and Technology had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was the PhD thesis on addiction studies (F. Razzaghi). The authors would like to thank the Clinical Research Development Unit of Kashan Shahid Beheshti Hospital. This project was carried out with the valuable support of the Vice‐Chancellor for Research and Technology at Kashan University of Medical Sciences. The authors also express their sincere gratitude to the Basic Sciences and Anatomy Research Center at Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, and the Narcotics Control Headquarters of Isfahan Province for their collaborative efforts and unwavering assistance in conducting this study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Akerele, E. , and Levin F. R.. 2007. “Comparison of olanzapine to Risperidone in Substance‐abusing Individuals With Schizophrenia.” American Journal on Addictions 16, no. 4: 260–268. 10.1080/10550490701389658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐Hasani, R. , and Bruchas M. R.. 2011. “Molecular Mechanisms of Opioid Receptor‐Dependent Signaling and Behavior.” Anesthesiology 115, no. 6: 1363. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318238bba6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arani, Z. M. , Heidariyeh N., Ghavipanjeh G., et al. 2023. “Effect of Risperidone on Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference and Dopamine Receptor D2 Gene Expression in Male Rat Hippocampus.” Brain and Behavior 13, no. 5: e2975. 10.1002/brb3.2975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnt, J. 1995. “Differential Effects of Classical and Newer Antipsychotics on the Hypermotility Induced by Two Dose Levels of D‐Amphetamine.” European Journal of Pharmacology 283, no. 1–3: 55–62. 10.1016/0014-2999(95)00292-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Assar, N. , Mahmoudi D., Farhoudian A., et al. 2016. “D1‐and D2‐Like Dopamine Receptors in the CA1 Region of the Hippocampus Are Involved in the Acquisition and Reinstatement of Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference.” Behavioural Brain Research 312: 394–404. 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Avchalumov, Y. , and Mandyam C. D.. 2021. “Plasticity in the Hippocampus, Neurogenesis and Drugs of Abuse.” Brain Sciences 11, no. 3: 404. 10.3390/brainsci11030404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Babaei, H. , Alibabrdel M., Asadian S., Siavashi V., et al. 2018. “Increased Circulation Mobilization of Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Preterm Infants With Retinopathy of Prematurity.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 119, no. 8: 6575–6583. 10.1002/jcb.26777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bédard, A.‐M. , Maheux J., Lévesque D., and Samaha A.‐N.. 2013. “Prior Haloperidol, But Not Olanzapine, Exposure Augments the Pursuit of Reward Cues: Implications for Substance Abuse in Schizophrenia.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 39, no. 3: 692–702. 10.1093/schbul/sbs077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cha, H. J. , Lee H.‐A., Ahn J.‐I., et al. 2013. “Dependence Potential of Quetiapine: Behavioral Pharmacology in Rodents.” Biomolecules & Therapeutics 21, no. 4: 307. 10.4062/biomolther.2013.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cousins, M. S. , Roberts D. C., and De Wit H.. 2002. “GABAB Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Drug Addiction: A Review of Recent Findings.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 65, no. 3: 209–220. 10.1016/s0376-8716(01)00163-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Esmaeili, M.‐H. , Kermani M., Parvishan A., and Haghparast A.. 2012. “Role of D1/D2 Dopamine Receptors in the CA1 Region of the Rat Hippocampus in the Rewarding Effects of Morphine Administered Into the Ventral Tegmental Area.” Behavioural Brain Research 231, no. 1: 111–115. 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.02.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Go, S.‐I. , Song H.‐N., Lee S.‐J., et al. 2018. “Craving Behavior From Opioid Addiction Controlled With Olanzapine in an Advanced Cancer Patient: A Case Report.” Journal of Palliative Medicine 21, no. 9: 1367–1370. 10.1089/jpm.2017.0636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Guardia, J. , Segura L., Gonzalvo B., et al. 2004. “A Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Study of Olanzapine in the Treatment of Alcohol‐Dependence Disorder.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 28, no. 5: 736–745. 10.1097/01.alc.0000125352.06688.f7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Haghparast, A. , Esmaeili M.‐H., Taslimi Z., et al. 2013. “Intrahippocampal Administration of D2 But Not D1 Dopamine Receptor Antagonist Suppresses the Expression of Conditioned Place Preference Induced by Morphine in the Ventral Tegmental Area.” Neuroscience Letters 541: 138–143. 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Harder, S. L. , Groenvold M., Herrstedt J., and Johnsen A. T.. 2019. “Nausea in Advanced Cancer: Relationships Between Intensity, Burden, and the Need for Help.” Supportive Care in Cancer 27: 265–273. 10.1007/s00520-018-4326-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hashemizadeh, S. , Alaee E., Aghajani N., et al. 2024. “Atorvastatin Facilitates Extinction and Prevents Reinstatement of Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference in Rats.” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 181: 117639. 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jabarpour, M. , Siavashi V., Asadian S., et al. 2018. “Hyperbilirubinemia‐Induced Pro‐Angiogenic Activity of Infantile Endothelial Progenitor Cells.” Microvascular Research 118: 49–56. 10.1016/j.mvr.2018.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Javdan, N. S. , Ghoreishi F. S., Sehat M., et al. 2019. “Mental Health and Cognitive Function Responses to Quetiapine in Patients With Methamphetamine Abuse Under Methadone Maintenance Treatment.” Journal of Affective Disorders 251: 235–241. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.03.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Katebi, N. , Farahimanesh S., Fatahi Z., et al. 2018. “Involvement of D1‐and D2‐Like Dopamine Receptors in the Dentate Gyrus in the Acquisition, Expression, and Extinction of the Morphine‐induced Conditioned Place Preference in Rats.” Behavioural Brain Research 353: 185–193. 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khakpour‐Taleghani, B. , Reisi Z., and Haghparast A.. 2015. “The Blockade of D1/D2‐Like Dopamine Receptors Within the Dentate Gyrus of Hippocampus Decreased the Reinstatement of Morphine‐Extinguished Conditioned Place Preference in Rats.” Basic and Clinical Neuroscience 6, no. 2: 73. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636881/. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Khezri, A. , Mohsenzadeh M. S., Mirzayan E., Bagherpasand N., et al. 2022. “Quetiapine Attenuates the Acquisition of Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference and Reduces ERK Phosphorylation in the Hippocampus and Cerebral Cortex.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 48, no. 4: 422–432. 10.1080/00952990.2022.2069574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Koob, G. F. , and Volkow N. D.. 2016. “Neurobiology of Addiction: A Neurocircuitry Analysis.” Lancet Psychiatry 3, no. 8: 760–773. 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kosten, T. A. , and Nestler E. J.. 1994. “Clozapine Attenuates Cocaine Conditioned Place Preference.” Life Sciences 55, no. 1: PL9–PL14. 10.1016/0024-3205(94)90084-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kramar, C. P. , Barbano M. F., and Medina J. H.. 2014. “Dopamine D1/D5 Receptors in the Dorsal Hippocampus Are Required for the Acquisition and Expression of a Single Trial Cocaine‐Associated Memory.” Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 116: 172–180. 10.1016/j.nlm.2014.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kutlu, M. G. , and Gould T. J.. 2016. “Effects of Drugs of Abuse on Hippocampal Plasticity and Hippocampus‐Dependent Learning and Memory: Contributions to Development and Maintenance of Addiction.” Learning & Memory 23, no. 10: 515–533. 10.1101/lm.042192.116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Listos, J. , Łupina M., Talarek S., et al. 2019. “The Mechanisms Involved in Morphine Addiction: An Overview.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20, no. 17: 4302. 10.3390/ijms20174302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Luo, A. H. , Tahsili‐Fahadan P., Wise R. A., et al. 2011. “Linking Context With Reward: A Functional Circuit From Hippocampal CA3 to Ventral Tegmental Area.” Science 333, no. 6040: 353–357. 10.1126/science.1204622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mechanic, J. A. , Maynard B. T., and Holloway F. A.. 2003. “Treatment With the Atypical Antipsychotic, Olanzapine, Prevents the Expression of Amphetamine‐Induced Place Conditioning in the Rat.” Progress in Neuro‐Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 27, no. 1: 43–54. 10.1016/S0278-5846(02)00313-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Meftah, A. M. , Deckler E., Citrome L., and Kantrowitz J. T.. 2020. “New Discoveries for an Old Drug: A Review of Recent Olanzapine Research.” Postgraduate Medicine 132, no. 1: 80–90. 10.1080/00325481.2019.1701823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Meil, W. M. , and Schechter M. D.. 1997. “Olanzapine Attenuates the Reinforcing Effects of Cocaine.” European Journal of Pharmacology 340, no. 1: 17–26. 10.1016/S0014-2999(97)01351-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Modaberi, S. , Amirteymori H., Mesgar S., et al. 2023. “The Blockade of Orexin Receptors Within the Dentate Gyrus of the Hippocampus Attenuated Methamphetamine‐Induced Reward Learning During Conditioning Place Preference.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 226: 173559. 10.1016/j.pbb.2023.173559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moeini, M. , Omidi A., Sehat M., and Banafshe H. R.. 2019. “The Effects of Oxytocin on Withdrawal, Craving and Stress Response in Heroin‐Dependent Patients: A Randomized, Double‐Blind Clinical Trial.” European Addiction Research 25, no. 1: 41–47. 10.1159/000496194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Murphy, A. , Nestor L. J., Mcgonigle J., et al. 2017. “Acute D3 Antagonist GSK598809 Selectively Enhances Neural Response During Monetary Reward Anticipation in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.” Neuropsychopharmacology 42, no. 5: 1049–1057. 10.1038/npp.2017.47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nazari‐Serenjeh, F. , Zarrabian S., Azizbeigi R., and Haghparast A.. 2021. “Effects of Dopamine D1‐and D2‐Like Receptors in the CA1 Region of the Hippocampus on Expression and Extinction of Morphine‐Induced Conditioned Place Preference in Rats.” Behavioural Brain Research 397: 112924. 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Potvin, S. , Stip E., and Roy J.‐Y.. 2003. “Clozapine, Quetiapine and Olanzapine Among Addicted Schizophrenic Patients: Towards Testable Hypotheses.” International Clinical Psychopharmacology 18, no. 3: 121–132. 10.1097/01.yic.0000063501.97247.38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Reeves, K. C. , Shah N., Muñoz B., and Atwood B. K.. 2022. “Opioid Receptor‐Mediated Regulation of Neurotransmission in the Brain.” Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 15: 919773. 10.3389/fnmol.2022.919773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rougé‐Pont, F. , Usiello A., Benoit‐Marand M., et al. 2002. “Changes in Extracellular Dopamine Induced by Morphine and Cocaine: Crucial Control by D2 Receptors.” Journal of Neuroscience 22, no. 8: 3293–3301. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-08-03293.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schultz, W. 2015. “Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data.” Physiological Reviews 95, no. 3: 853–951. 10.1152/physrev.00023.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Siavashi, V. , Nassiri S. M., Rahbarghazi R., et al. 2016. “ECM‐Dependence of Endothelial Progenitor Cell Features.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 117, no. 8: 1934–1946. 10.1002/jcb.25492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sun, Y. , Pan Z., and Ma Y.. 2017. “Increased Entrances to Side Compartments Indicate Incubation of Craving in Morphine‐Induced Rat and Tree Shrew CPP Models.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 159: 62–68. 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.07.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tanda, G. , Ebbs A. L., Kopajtic T. A., et al. 2007. “Effects of Muscarinic M1 Receptor Blockade on Cocaine‐Induced Elevations of Brain Dopamine Levels and Locomotor Behavior in Rats.” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 321, no. 1: 334–344. 10.1124/jpet.106.118067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Te, R. 1993. “The Neural Basis of Drug Craving: An Incentive‐Sensitization Theory of Addiction.” Brain Research Reviews 18: 247–291. 10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Torigoe, K. , Mori T., Shibasaki M., Yoshizawa K., et al. 2012. “Olanzapine Suppresses the Rewarding and Discriminative Stimulus Effects Induced by Morphine.” Synapse 66, no. 2: 174–179. 10.1002/syn.21500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zbukvic, I. C. , Ganella D. E., Perry C. J., Madsen H. B., et al. 2016. “Role of Dopamine 2 Receptor in Impaired Drug‐Cue Extinction in Adolescent Rats.” Cerebral Cortex 26, no. 6: 2895–2904. 10.1093/cercor/bhw051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhou, M. , Wang Q., Zheng C., Rush A. J., et al. 2021. “Drug Repurposing for Opioid Use Disorders: Integration of Computational Prediction, Clinical Corroboration, and Mechanism of Action Analyses.” Molecular Psychiatry 26, no. 9: 5286–5296. 10.1038/s41380-020-01011-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Brain and Behavior are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES