4.7 Article

Dopamine D2-Like Receptors and Behavioral Economics of Food Reinforcement

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 971-978

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/npp.2015.223

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Intramural Research Program (IRP) [R01-DA025088, R21-DA036921]
  2. Shands Hospital at the University of Florida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies suggest dopamine (DA) D-2-like receptor involvement in the reinforcing effects of food. To determine contributions of the three D-2-like receptor subtypes, knockout (KO) mice completely lacking DA D-2, D-3, or D-4 receptors (D2R, D3R, or D4R KO mice) and their wild-type (WT) littermates were exposed to a series of fixed-ratio (FR) food-reinforcement schedules in two contexts: an open economy with additional food provided outside the experimental setting and a closed economy with all food earned within the experimental setting. A behavioral economic model was used to quantify reinforcer effectiveness with food pellets obtained as a function of price (FR schedule value) plotted to assess elasticity of demand. Under both economies, as price increased, food pellets obtained decreased more rapidly (ie, food demand was more elastic) in DA D2R KO mice compared with WT littermates. Extinction of responding was studied in two contexts: by eliminating food deliveries and by delivering food independently of responding. A hyperbolic model quantified rates of extinction. Extinction in DA D2R KO mice occurred less rapidly compared with WT mice in both contexts. Elasticity of food demand was higher in DA D4R KOthan WT mice in the open, but not closed, economy. Extinction of responding in DA D4R KO mice was not different from that in WT littermates in either context. No differences in elasticity of food demand or extinction rate were obtained in D3R KO mice and WT littermates. These results indicate that the D2R is the primary DA D-2-like receptor subtype mediating the reinforcing effectiveness of food.

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

4.7
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