Suppr超能文献

大鼠中苯丙胺和甲基苯丙胺诱导的运动活动比较:行为存在质的差异的证据。

A comparison of amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced locomotor activity in rats: evidence for qualitative differences in behavior.

作者信息

Hall Darien A, Stanis Jessica J, Marquez Avila Hector, Gulley Joshua M

机构信息

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 731 Psychology Bldg MC-716, 603 E Daniel St, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.

出版信息

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008 Jan;195(4):469-78. doi: 10.1007/s00213-007-0923-8. Epub 2007 Sep 17.

Abstract

RATIONALE

Methamphetamine (METH) is typically characterized as a more potent psychostimulant than amphetamine (AMPH), but few studies have directly compared the effects of these drugs at low, behaviorally activating doses that tend not to produce focused stereotypy.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to compare the effects of AMPH or METH treatment on locomotor activity in an open-field arena, focusing on their ability to produce conditioned locomotor activity, sensitization, and cross-sensitization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult male rats were given AMPH or METH (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg) for 5 days, with half of the rats presented with discrete, salient stimuli (S+) during the postinjection period. After a 3-day withdrawal, they were given three different injections on successive days: a saline challenge to assess conditioned responding, a drug challenge to assess sensitization, and a cross-sensitization test to the same dose of the drug with which they were not pretreated.

RESULTS

Except in certain conditions, AMPH and METH were equipotent at activating locomotor activity. The exceptions included when rats were presented with S+ on acute and drug challenge days and in tests of cross-sensitization. There were no consistent differences in the magnitude of sensitization produced by AMPH or METH, and both drugs produced similar amounts of conditioned locomotion after a saline injection.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found specific conditions where METH is more potent than AMPH, but this study and others that used higher doses of these drugs are not consistent with the generalized characterization of METH as a more potent psychostimulant.

摘要

理论依据

甲基苯丙胺(METH)通常被认为是比苯丙胺(AMPH)更强效的精神兴奋剂,但很少有研究直接比较这两种药物在低剂量、行为激活剂量下的效果,这些低剂量往往不会产生刻板行为。

目的

本研究的目的是比较AMPH或METH治疗对旷场实验中运动活动的影响,重点关注它们产生条件性运动活动、敏化和交叉敏化的能力。

材料与方法

成年雄性大鼠连续5天给予AMPH或METH(0.5或1.0mg/kg),其中一半大鼠在注射后期间给予离散的显著刺激(S+)。在停药3天后,它们在连续几天内接受三次不同的注射:生理盐水激发以评估条件反应,药物激发以评估敏化,以及对未预处理的相同剂量药物的交叉敏化测试。

结果

除某些情况外,AMPH和METH在激活运动活动方面具有同等效力。例外情况包括大鼠在急性和药物激发日以及交叉敏化测试中接受S+刺激时。AMPH或METH产生的敏化程度没有一致的差异,并且两种药物在注射生理盐水后产生的条件性运动活动量相似。

结论

我们发现了METH比AMPH更有效的特定条件,但本研究以及其他使用更高剂量这些药物的研究与METH作为更强效精神兴奋剂的普遍特征不一致。

相似文献

1
A comparison of amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced locomotor activity in rats: evidence for qualitative differences in behavior.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008 Jan;195(4):469-78. doi: 10.1007/s00213-007-0923-8. Epub 2007 Sep 17.
2
Neurochemical and behavioral differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Feb;165(4):359-69. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1288-7. Epub 2002 Dec 19.
3
Differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats: working memory, tolerance, and extinction.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Nov;170(2):150-6. doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1522-y. Epub 2003 May 28.
4
Dissociation between long-lasting behavioral sensitization to amphetamine and impulsive choice in rats performing a delay-discounting task.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008 Sep;199(4):539-48. doi: 10.1007/s00213-008-1182-z. Epub 2008 May 13.
5
Interactions between iboga agents and methamphetamine sensitization: studies of locomotion and stereotypy in rats.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000 Aug;151(2-3):234-41. doi: 10.1007/s002130000478.
6
7
Prepulse inhibition during withdrawal from an escalating dosage schedule of amphetamine.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Sep;169(3-4):340-53. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1254-4. Epub 2002 Nov 12.
8
Prenatal lead exposure enhances methamphetamine sensitization in rats.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2009 Aug;93(2):165-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.05.001. Epub 2009 May 9.
9
Sex differences in (+)-amphetamine- and (+)-methamphetamine-induced behavioral response in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007 Jan;86(1):140-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.12.018. Epub 2007 Jan 9.

引用本文的文献

2
Locomotion changes in methamphetamine and amphetamine withdrawal: a systematic review.
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jul 17;15:1428492. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1428492. eCollection 2024.
4
The role of sex and drug use during adolescence in determining the risk for adverse consequences of amphetamines.
Adv Pharmacol. 2024;99:125-144. doi: 10.1016/bs.apha.2023.09.002. Epub 2023 Oct 20.
5
A reinforcement learning model with choice traces for a progressive ratio schedule.
Front Behav Neurosci. 2024 Jan 10;17:1302842. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1302842. eCollection 2023.
7
An overview of the methamphetamine effect on male sexual behavior and reproductive system.
Physiol Res. 2023 Dec 29;72(S5):S445-S459. doi: 10.33549/physiolres.935266.
8
Amphetamines in child medicine: a review of ClinicalTrials.gov.
Front Pharmacol. 2023 Oct 3;14:1280562. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1280562. eCollection 2023.
9
Repeated chemogenetic activation of dopaminergic neurons induces reversible changes in baseline and amphetamine-induced behaviors.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2023 Dec;240(12):2545-2560. doi: 10.1007/s00213-023-06448-x. Epub 2023 Aug 18.
10
Sexual satiety modifies methamphetamine-induced locomotor and rewarding effects and dopamine-related protein levels in the striatum of male rats.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2023 Apr;240(4):797-812. doi: 10.1007/s00213-023-06322-w. Epub 2023 Feb 6.

本文引用的文献

1
The Open-Field Test: a critical review.
Psychol Bull. 1976 May;83(3):482-504.
2
Why do we need an Addiction supplement focused on methamphetamine?
Addiction. 2007 Apr;102 Suppl 1:1-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01781.x.
3
Sex differences in (+)-amphetamine- and (+)-methamphetamine-induced behavioral response in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007 Jan;86(1):140-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.12.018. Epub 2007 Jan 9.
4
Clinical effects and management of methamphetamine abuse.
Pharmacotherapy. 2006 Aug;26(8):1148-56. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.8.1148.
5
Cocaine conditioning and sensitization: the habituation factor.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2006 May;84(1):128-33. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.04.017. Epub 2006 Jun 9.
6
(+)-Methamphetamine-induced spontaneous behavior in rats depends on route of (+)METH administration.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2004 Dec;79(4):751-60. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2004.10.006.
8
Drug-induced neurobehavioral plasticity: the role of environmental context.
Behav Pharmacol. 2004 Sep;15(5-6):327-39. doi: 10.1097/00008877-200409000-00004.
10
Neurochemical and behavioral differences between d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine in rats.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Feb;165(4):359-69. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1288-7. Epub 2002 Dec 19.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验