4.0 Article

Effect of three different regimens of repeated methamphetamine on rats' cognitive performance

Journal

COGNITIVE PROCESSING
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 107-115

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10339-017-0839-0

Keywords

Methamphetamine; Repeated doses; Neurocognitive impairment

Funding

  1. Neuroscience Research Center of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neurocognitive impairment in response to methamphetamine (MA) has been proven in a variety of experimental and clinical studies. Elucidation of the underlying mechanisms of MA-induced cognitive deficits and finding preventive/therapeutic approaches need best-suited animal models. In modeling repeated MA exposure, while some believes that escalating doses simulate drug abuse conditions, others believe this regimen confers a preconditioning protection. The present study aimed to compare the effects of three different regimens of repeated MA administration on memory and cognitive function of adult rats. Rats in two different experimental groups were treated with escalating paradigms consisted of twice-daily i.p. injections; 1-4 mg/kg over 7 days or 1-10 mg/kg over 10 days. The third group received twice-daily doses of 15 mg/kg every other day over 14 days. Spatial working memory, novel object recognition task and anxiety-like behavior were measured sequentially in all MA-treated rats and vehicle-treated controls started from day 8 after last injection. All MA regimens decreased rates of spontaneous alternation in Y-maze and increased anxiety-like response. Short-term recognition memory was unchanged across all MA-treated animals, while long-term memory was impaired in the second and third MA regimen. Though MA deleterious effect especially in recognition memory is somehow dose dependent, preconditioning effect of increasing doses may be ruled out at least in the case of parameters measured here.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available