4.4 Article

Effects of single or repeated administrations of methamphetamine on immune response in mice

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 35-43

Publisher

INT PRESS EDITING CENTRE INC
DOI: 10.1538/expanim.57.35

Keywords

administration frequency; immune responses; methamphetamine; mice; sex difference

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study aimed to clarify the connection between immune responses and the administration frequency of methamphetamine (MAP) in male and female mice. Male and female ddY mice were given single or multiple (repeated for 10 days) intraperitoneal injections of MAP (5.0 mg/kg/day). The following immune parameters were examined; the number of leukocytes in peripheral blood and the proliferative activity (phytohemagglutinin;PHA, lipopolysaccharide; LPS response) and natural killer (NK) cell activity in splenic lymphocytes. Further, the differences in metabolic function in the spleen in response to MAP (and its metabolite amphetamine) in male and female mice were measured by gas chromatography The results of the present study were that; 1) single and repeated MAP injections reduced leukocytes; 2) single MAP injection increased the proliferative response of splenic lymphocytes to PHA stimulation in only male mice, but the response to LPS stimulation was slightly increased in both male and female mice; 3) single and repeated MAP injections reduced NK cell activity of splenic lymphocytes, and especially in female mice with 5 injections of MAP; 4) with 10 MAP injections the NK cell activity and leukocytes recovered to the level of controls; and 5) the metabolic activity of MAP was reduced in female mice treated acutely with MAP in comparison to male mice. These results appear to indicate that immune responses to MAP were involved in the different results shown for administration frequency, sex difference and metabolic process of MAP.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available