Biomedical subjects

James R Shoblock

Publications and source records attributed to James R Shoblock.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Constitutively active micro opioid receptors mediate the enhanced conditioned aversive effect of naloxone in morphine-dependent mice.

Naloxone administration produces a robust conditioned place aversion (CPA) in opiate-naive rodents by blocking the action of enkephalins at mu opioid receptors. This aversive response is potentiated by prior exposure to morphine. In vitro studies indicate that morphine treatment may promote constitutive activity of mu opioid receptors. We hypothesized that such enhanced constitutive activity in vivo may underlie the increased aversive property of naloxone by uncovering the inverse agonist property of this drug. The CPA produced by naloxone was compared with that produced by the neutral antagonists 6-alpha- and 6-beta-naloxol in mice with and without prior morphine exposure. While all three drugs produced CPA, only naloxone CPA was enhanced by morphine given 20 h prior to each naloxone injection. Furthermore, only naloxone produced withdrawal jumping when given 20 h after morphine, even though 6-alpha-naloxol was able to produce jumping when given 4 h after morphine. These data suggest that morphine may enhance naloxone CPA by increasing levels of constitutively active mu receptors and further support the role of such constitutive activity in mediating naloxone-precipitated physical withdrawal. Such long-term changes in constitutive activity of the mu receptor induced by exogenous opiate exposure may thus be an important factor in hedonic homeostatic dysregulation proposed to underlie the addictive process.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

The effect of a systemically active ORL-1 agonist, Ro 64-6198, on the acquisition, expression, extinction, and reinstatement of morphine conditioned place preference.

ORL-1 agonists have been proposed as potential therapeutics for substance abuse based on their propensity to counter the effects of mu opioid agonists in several systems, and to inhibit mesolimbic dopamine release, while mostly being devoid of aversive properties. In support of this, ORL-1 agonists have been shown to block the acquisition of morphine conditioned place preference (CPP). We investigated the effect of Ro 64-6198, a systemically active ORL-1 agonist, on the acquisition, expression, extinction, and reinstatement of morphine (20 mg/kg, s.c.) CPP in C57BL6/J mice. Similar to effects obtained with nociceptin/orphanin FQ, Ro 64-6198 (1 mg/kg, i.p.) blocked the acquisition of morphine CPP when given 15 min prior to each drug and vehicle conditioning session. This effect was not due to state dependent learning, since when tested again in the presence of Ro 64-6198 or vehicle no CPP was observed. Administration of Ro 64-6198 (0.3 or 1 mg/kg, i.p.) on the test day alone, in a separate group of animals, failed to block the expression of morphine CPP. Another group of mice was conditioned to morphine to develop CPP, and then exposed to the CPP chambers in the absence of drug once a day for 30 min to extinguish the CPP. Ro 64-6198 (1 mg/kg, i.p.) given 15 min prior to each session during extinction did not affect the rate of extinction. Finally, another group was conditioned to morphine, their CPP extinguished and subsequently reinstated by a priming injection of morphine (20 mg/kg, s.c.). Ro 64-6198 (1 mg/kg, i.p.), given 15 min prior to the priming injection, blocked reinstatement of morphine CPP. These results suggest that Ro 64-6198's effects may be limited to attenuation of the acute rewarding effects of morphine.

Analgesics, Opioid↗

PubMed2004

Differential interactions of desipramine with amphetamine and methamphetamine: evidence that amphetamine releases dopamine from noradrenergic neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex.

Amphetamine is more effective than methamphetamine at raising dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex. The current study tested the hypothesis that norepinephrine transporters are involved in this difference. Using microdialysis, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin were measured in the rat prefrontal cortex after administration of methamphetamine or amphetamine, with and without perfusion of desipramine. Amphetamine raised norepinephrine levels more than methamphetamine did. Desipramine raised dopamine and serotonin levels but did not alter metabolite levels. Desipramine attenuated the increase in dopamine by amphetamine while increasing the dopamine released by methamphetamine. These data suggest that methamphetamine and amphetamine differ in altering prefrontal cortical dopamine levels and in interacting with norepinephrine transporters. It is proposed that amphetamine releases dopamine in the prefrontal cortex primarily through norepinephrine transporters, whereas methamphetamine interacts minimally with norepinephrine transporters.

Amphetamine↗

PubMed2003

Differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats: working memory, tolerance, and extinction.

RATIONALE: Previously, we have shown that d-amphetamine (AMPH) was more potent than d-methamphetamine (METH) at increasing extracellular levels of dopamine (DA) in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) at doses that had similar effects in the nucleus accumbens. Since working memory depends on PFC DA, it was postulated that AMPH would also be more potent than METH at affecting working memory. OBJECTIVE: To determine if AMPH is more potent than METH at affecting working memory. METHODS: Working memory was measured in adult female Sprague-Dawley rats using a delayed-alternation T-maze task with multiple delays (1, 10, 60 s) and food rewards. The percentage of food rewards consumed was also recorded. Animals were tested with METH and AMPH before and after a chronic protocol, with measurements of locomotor activity used to test for pharmacological tolerance or sensitization. The effects of METH and AMPH on extinction were also examined by omitting the food rewards from the T-maze. RESULTS. Both METH and AMPH produced dose-related bimodal effects on working memory at the intermediate delay (10 s); however, AMPH was more potent than METH. Both METH and AMPH initially also decreased the percentage of food rewards consumed in the T-maze. After chronic testing, animals displayed tolerance to both the working memory impairments and the reduction in food reward intake produced by AMPH. Animals did not display significant tolerance to the effects of METH on food reward consumption and performed worse in the T-maze after chronic testing. METH, but not AMPH, interfered with extinction. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that METH and AMPH differ in altering working memory and the expression of tolerance, perhaps due to differences in behavioral inhibition.

Amphetamines↗

PubMed2002

Neurochemical and behavioral differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats.

RATIONALE: Methamphetamine (METH) and amphetamine (AMPH) are both abused psychostimulants. Although METH is generally accepted to be more addictive and potent than its analogue AMPH, there are no known neurobiological differences in action between the two drugs that may account for such differences. OBJECTIVE: METH and AMPH were compared to determine potential mechanisms for such differences between the two drugs in order to provide new targets for the treatment of METH addiction. METHODS: Using in vivo microdialysis on rats, dopamine (DA), DA metabolites, and glutamate (GLU) release in the nucleus accumbens (NAC) and prefrontal cortex (PFC) were measured after administration of 2 mg/kg, IP, of METH or AMPH. Based on the neurochemical differences between METH and AMPH, a locomotor activity study was designed to assess differences in locomotor activation for a range of doses (1-4 mg/kg, IP) of METH and AMPH and after pretreatment with intra-accumbens GLU antagonists. RESULTS: METH and AMPH raised NAC DA levels to a similar degree. In the PFC, both METH and AMPH raised DA levels, but METH was less effective than AMPH. In the NAC, AMPH raised GLU levels but METH did not. In the PFC, METH raised GLU levels but AMPH did not. The locomotor activity dose response curve for METH had a lower peak than that of AMPH. This difference was blocked by pretreatment with either the GLU NMDA antagonist AP5 or the GLU AMPA antagonist DNQX locally in the NAC. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals several previously unknown neurochemical and behavioral differences between METH and AMPH. Based on these results, it is suggested that new pharmacotherapeutic agents that produce augmentations of NAC GLU or PFC DA activity, or perhaps inhibition of PFC GLU activity, may someday be useful for the treatment of METH addiction.

3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic Acid↗