4.2 Article

Role of dopamine D1-like receptors in methamphetamine locomotor responses of D2 receptor knockout mice

期刊

GENES BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 568-577

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2008.00392.x

关键词

dopamine receptors; knockout; locomotor activity; neuroadaptation; null mutant; psychostimulant; sensitization

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [T32 DA007262-10, R01 DA010913, T32 DA007262, R01 DA010913-05, P50 DA018165, T32 DA076262, P50 DA018165-020002] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH061326] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Behavioral sensitization to psychostimulants manifests as an increased locomotor response with repeated administration. Dopamine systems are accepted to play a fundamental role in sensitization, but the role of specific dopamine receptor subtypes has not been completely defined. This study used the combination of dopamine D2 receptor-deficient mice and a D1-like antagonist to examine dopamine D1 and D2 receptor involvement in acute and sensitized locomotor responses to methamphetamine. Absence of the dopamine D2 receptor resulted in attenuation of the acute stimulant effects of methamphetamine. Mutant and wild-type mice exhibited sensitization that lasted longer within the time period of the challenge test in the mutant animals. Pretreatment with the D1-like receptor antagonist SCH 23390 produced more potent reductions in the acute and sensitized locomotor responses to methamphetamine in D2 receptor-deficient mice than in wild-type mice; however, the expression of locomotor sensitization when challenged with methamphetamine alone was equivalently attenuated by previous treatment with SCH 23390. These data suggest that dopamine D2 receptors play a key role in the acute stimulant and sensitizing effects of methamphetamine and act in concert with D1-like receptors to influence the acquisition of methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization, traits that may influence continued methamphetamine use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据