4.4 Article

Group II metabotropic glutamate receptors in the striatum of non-human primates: Dysregulation following chronic cocaine self-administration

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 496, 期 1, 页码 15-19

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2011.03.077

关键词

Cocaine self-administration; Non-human primate; Striatum; Group II metabotropic glutamate receptors

资金

  1. NIDA [DA26590, DA09085, DA06634 (P50)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of evidence has demonstrated a role for group II metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) in the reinforcing effects of cocaine. These receptors are important given their location in limbic-related areas, and their ability to control the release of glutamate and other neurotransmitters. They are also potential targets for novel pharmacotherapies for cocaine addiction. The present study investigated the impact of chronic cocaine self-administration (9.0 mg/kg/session for 100 sessions, 900 mg/kg total intake) on the densities of group II mGluRs, as assessed with in vitro receptor autoradiography, in the striatum of adult male rhesus monkeys. Binding of [H-3]LY341495 to group II mGluRs in control animals was heterogeneous, with a medial to lateral gradient in binding density. Significant elevations in the density of group II mGluRs following chronic cocaine self-administration were measured in the dorsal, central and ventral portions of the caudate nucleus (P < 0.05), compared to controls. No differences in receptor density were observed between the groups in either the putamen or nucleus accumbens. These data demonstrate that group II mGluRs in the dorsal striatum are more sensitive to the effects of chronic cocaine exposure than those in the ventral striatum. Cocaine-induced dysregulation of the glutamate system, and its consequent impact on plasticity and synaptic remodeling, will likely be an important consideration in the development of novel pharmacotherapies for cocaine addiction. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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