Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6.
J Psychopharmacol. 1992 Jan;6(1):34-42. doi: 10.1177/026988119200600109.
A comparison of the effects of apomorphine, amphetamine and dopamine (DA) receptor subtype-specific agonists in responding for conditioned reward, self-administration and place conditioning paradigms provides insights into the possible involvement of D-1 and D-2 receptors in reward-related learning. Amphetamine and the D-2 agonists bromocriptine and quinpirole enhanced responding for conditioned reward, were self-administered and produced place preferences. Apomorphine impaired responding for conditioned reward by enhancing responding on two levers, was self-administered and produced a place preference. The D-1 agonist SKF 38393 impaired responding for condition reward, did not support self-administration and produced a place preference. The failure of SKF 38393 to support self-administration may have been related to effects of this drug, for example, peripheral aversive effects or a slow onset of action, unrelated to its action at the D-1 receptor. It was suggested that a D-1 agonist might be expected to be self-administered from the point of view of the hypothesis that it is the action at D-1 receptors of DA released in association with reward that produces reward-related learning. This hypothesis was supported by the remaining data. Thus, apomorphine and SKF 38393 may have masked the DA signal associated with reward in the conditioned reward paradigm leading to a loss of control of responding by the conditioned rewarding stimulus. In self-administration, apomorphine would have its onset of action after the performance of the response which is followed immediately by a conditioned reward. The conditioned reward may effectively maintain control of behaviour by the lever and related stimuli while the drug may maintain the effectiveness of the conditioned reward. In place conditioning, there is no specific environmental stimulus that must come to control responding; therefore, apomorphine and SKF 38393 may have been seen to produce place preferences in spite of their relatively tonic action at D-1 receptors. Finally, the finding that the D-1 antagonists SCH 23390 or SCH 39166 blocked the effects of reward in these paradigms was taken as further evidence that the D-1 receptor may be critically involved in the learning produced by rewarding stimuli.
比较阿扑吗啡、安非他命和多巴胺(DA)受体亚型特异性激动剂在条件性奖励反应、自我给药和位置条件作用范式中的作用,为 D-1 和 D-2 受体在与奖励相关的学习中的可能参与提供了线索。安非他命和 D-2 激动剂溴隐亭和喹吡罗增强了对条件性奖励的反应,被自我给药,并产生了位置偏好。阿扑吗啡通过增强对两个杠杆的反应来损害对条件性奖励的反应,被自我给药,并产生了位置偏好。D-1 激动剂 SKF 38393 损害了对条件性奖励的反应,不支持自我给药,并产生了位置偏好。SKF 38393 不支持自我给药可能与该药物的作用有关,例如外周厌恶作用或作用缓慢,与 D-1 受体无关。有人认为,从 D-1 受体释放的与奖励相关的 DA 的作用产生与奖励相关的学习的假设来看,D-1 激动剂可能会被自我给药。这一假设得到了其余数据的支持。因此,阿扑吗啡和 SKF 38393 可能掩盖了条件性奖励范式中与奖励相关的 DA 信号,导致对条件性奖励刺激的反应失去控制。在自我给药中,阿扑吗啡的作用会在反应完成后开始,随后立即出现条件性奖励。条件性奖励可能有效地通过杠杆和相关刺激来维持对行为的控制,而药物可能维持条件性奖励的有效性。在位置条件作用中,没有特定的环境刺激来控制反应;因此,尽管阿扑吗啡和 SKF 38393 在 D-1 受体上具有相对持久的作用,但它们可能被视为产生了位置偏好。最后,发现 D-1 拮抗剂 SCH 23390 或 SCH 39166 阻断了这些范式中奖励的作用,这被视为 D-1 受体可能在与奖励相关的刺激产生的学习中起着关键作用的进一步证据。