4.7 Article

Inhibition of Hippocampal β-Adrenergic Receptors Impairs Retrieval But Not Reconsolidation of Cocaine-Associated Memory and Prevents Subsequent Reinstatement

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 303-310

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/npp.2013.187

关键词

noradrenergic beta-receptor; norepinephrine; dorsal hippocampus; cocaine-induced reinstatement; drug abuse; reconsolidation

资金

  1. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Research Growth Initiative
  2. [DA027870]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Retrieval of drug-associated memories is critical for maintaining addictive behaviors, as presentation of drug-associated cues can elicit drug seeking and relapse. Recently, we and others have demonstrated that beta-adrenergic receptor (beta-AR) activation is necessary for retrieval using both rat and human memory models. Importantly, blocking retrieval with beta-AR antagonists persistently impairs retrieval and provides protection against subsequent reinstatement. However, the neural locus at which beta-ARs are required for maintaining retrieval and subsequent reinstatement is unclear. Here, we investigated the necessity of dorsal hippocampus (dHipp) beta-ARs for drugassociated memory retrieval. Using a cocaine conditioned place preference (CPP) model, we demonstrate that local dHipp beta-AR blockade before a CPP test prevents CPP expression shortly and long after treatment, indicating that dHipp beta-AR blockade induces a memory retrieval disruption. Furthermore, this retrieval disruption provides long-lasting protection against cocaine-induced reinstatement. The effects of beta-AR blockade were dependent on memory reactivation and were not attributable to reconsolidation disruption as blockade of beta-ARs immediately after a CPP test had little effect on subsequent CPP expression. Thus, cocaine-associated memory retrieval is mediated by beta-AR activity within the dHipp, and disruption of this activity could prevent cue-induced drug seeking and relapse long after treatment.

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