4.5 Article

Impaired spatial and sequential learning in rats treated neonatally with D-fenfluramine

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 491-500

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02100.x

Keywords

5-HT; amphetamines; Cincinnati maze; fenfluramine; Morris water maze; reference memory; serotonin

Categories

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA06733] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES07051] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

D-Fenfluramine, a serotonin releaser, was administered to neonatal rats on postnatal days 11-20 (a stage of hippocampal development analogous to third trimester human ontogeny). As adults, the D-fenfluramine-treated offspring exhibited dose-related impairments of sequential and spatial learning and reference memory in the absence of sensorimotor impairments. Procedures to minimize stress and to control for other performance effects prior to testing for spatial learning demonstrated that nonspecific factors did not account for the selective effects of D-fenfluramine on learning and memory. Developmental D-fenfluramine-induced spatial and sequential learning deficits are similar to previous findings with developmental MDMA treatment. By contrast, recent findings with developmental D-methamphetamine treatment showed spatial learning deficits while sparing sequential learning. The spatial learning effects common to all three drugs suggest that they may share a common mechanism of action, however, the effects are not related to long-lasting changes in hippocampal 5-HT levels as no differences were found in adulthood. Whether the cognitive deficits are related to the effects of substituted amphetamines on corticosteroids, other aspects of the 5-HT system, or some unidentified neuronal substrates is not known, but the data demonstrate that these drugs are all capable of inducing long-term adverse effects on learning.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available