The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia has been one of the most enduring ideas in psychiatry. Initially, the emphasis was on a role of hyperdopaminergia in the etiology of schizophrenia (version I), but it was subsequently reconceptualized to specify subcortical hyperdopaminergia with prefrontal hypodopaminergia (version II). However, these hypotheses focused too narrowly on dopamine itself, conflated psychosis and schizophrenia, and predated advances in the genetics, molecular biology, and imaging research in schizophrenia. Since version II, there have been over 6700 articles about dopamine and schizophrenia. We selectively review these data to provide an overview of the 5 critical streams of new evidence: neurochemical imaging studies, genetic evidence, findings on environmental risk factors, research into the extended phenotype, and animal studies. We synthesize this evidence into a new dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia-version III: the final common pathway. This hypothesis seeks to be comprehensive in providing a framework that links risk factors, including pregnancy and obstetric complications, stress and trauma, drug use, and genes, to increased presynaptic striatal dopaminergic function. It explains how a complex array of pathological, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and other findings, such as frontotemporal structural and functional abnormalities and cognitive impairments, may converge neurochemically to cause psychosis through aberrant salience and lead to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The hypothesis has one major implication for treatment approaches. Current treatments are acting downstream of the critical neurotransmitter abnormality. Future drug development and research into etiopathogenesis should focus on identifying and manipulating the upstream factors that converge on the dopaminergic funnel point.

The magnitude and variability of cytokine alterations in depression are not clear. To perform an up to date meta-analysis of mean differences of immune markers in depression, and to quantify and test for evidence of heterogeneity in immune markers in depression by conducting a meta-analysis of variability to ascertain whether only a sub-group of patients with depression show evidence of inflammation. Studies that reported immune marker levels in peripheral blood in patients with depression and matched healthy controls in the MEDLINE database from inception to August 29th 2018 were examined. Case-control studies that reported immune marker levels in peripheral blood in patients with depression and healthy controls were selected. Means and variances (SDs) were extracted for each measure to calculate effect sizes, which were combined using multivariate meta-analysis. Hedges g was used to quantify mean differences. Relative variability of immune marker measurements in patients compared with control groups as indexed by the coefficient of variation ratio (CVR). A total of 107 studies that reported measurements from 5,166 patients with depression and 5,083 controls were included in the analyses. Levels of CRP (g = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.50-0.92; p < 0.0001); IL-3 (g = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.31-0.89; p < 0.0001); IL-6 (g = 0.61; 95%CI: 0.39-0.82; p < 0.0001); IL-12 (g = 1.18; 95%CI: 0.74-1.62; p < 0.0001); IL-18 (g = 1.97; 95%CI: 1.00-2.95; p < 0.0001); sIL-2R (g = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.44-0.98; p < 0.0001); and TNFα (g = 0.54; 95%CI: 0.32-0.76; p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in patients with depression. These findings were robust to a range of potential confounds and moderators. Mean-scaled variability, measured as CVR, was significantly lower in patients with depression for CRP (CVR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75-0.98; p = 0.02); IL-12 (CVR = 0.61; 95%CI: 0.46-0.80; p < 0.01); and sIL-2R (CVR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.73-0.99; p = 0.04), while it was unchanged for IL-3, IL-6, IL-18, and TNF α. Acute depression is confirmed as a pro-inflammatory state. Some of the inflammatory markers elevated in depression, including CRP and IL-12, show reduced variability in patients with depression, therefore supporting greater homogeneity in terms of an inflammatory phenotype in depression. Some inflammatory marker elevations in depression do not appear due to an inflamed sub-group, but rather to a right shift of the immune marker distribution.

Schizophrenia remains one of the leading causes of global disease burden in adults despite more than 50 years of drug development.¹ Understanding its neurobiology is critical for future rational drug discovery.^2,3 The dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia was first proposed more than 30 years ago on the basis of indirect evidence. It received support from studies of postmortem brain tissue that found increased striatal D_2/3 receptor density and dopamine levels in patients with schizophrenia and from studies of dopamine and its metabolites in cerebrospinal fluid.^4-8 However, postmortem studies are not able to measure some aspects of the dopaminergic function, such as dopamine release, and are potentially biased by the effects of antipsychotic treatment and agonal events, whereas the cerebrospinal fluid studies were inconsistent and unable to provide insights into the regional aspects of dopamine dysfunction.^9-11 The introduction of positron emission tomographic (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) imaging enabled the investigation of in vivo cerebral dopamine neurotransmission free of these limitations.^11-13

The mesolimbic hypothesis has been a central dogma of schizophrenia for decades, positing that aberrant functioning of midbrain dopamine projections to limbic regions causes psychotic symptoms. Recently, however, advances in neuroimaging techniques have led to the unanticipated finding that dopaminergic dysfunction in schizophrenia is greatest within nigrostriatal pathways, implicating the dorsal striatum in the pathophysiology and calling into question the mesolimbic theory. At the same time our knowledge of striatal anatomy and function has progressed, suggesting new mechanisms via which striatal dysfunction may contribute to the symptoms of schizophrenia. This Review draws together these developments, to explore what they mean for our understanding of the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and treatment of the disorder.