4.5 Review

Negative Allosteric Modulators of Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors Subtype 5 in Addiction: a Therapeutic Window

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyw002

关键词

glutamate; mGluR5; addiction; MPEP; MTEP

资金

  1. University of Bern, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abundant evidence at the anatomical, electrophysiological, and molecular levels implicates metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 (mGluR5) in addiction. Consistently, the effects of a wide range of doses of different mGluR5 negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) have been tested in various animal models of addiction. Here, these studies were subjected to a systematic review to find out if mGluR5 NAMs have a therapeutic potential that can be translated to the clinic. Literature on consumption/self-administration and reinstatement of drug seeking as outcomes of interest published up to April 2015 was retrieved via PubMed. The review focused on the effects of systemic (i.p., i.v., s.c.) administration of the mGluR5 NAMs 3-((2-Methyl-4-thiazolyl)ethynyl)pyridine (MTEP) and 2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine (MPEP) on paradigms with cocaine, ethanol, nicotine, and food in rats. MTEP and MPEP were found to reduce self-administration of cocaine, ethanol, and nicotine at doses a parts per thousand yen1mg/kg and 2.5mg/kg, respectively. Dose-response relationship resembled a sigmoidal curve, with low doses not reaching statistical significance and high doses reliably inhibiting self-administration of drugs of abuse. Importantly, self-administration of cocaine, ethanol, and nicotine, but not food, was reduced by MTEP and MPEP in the dose range of 1 to 2mg/kg and 2.5 to 3.2mg/kg, respectively. This dose range corresponds to approximately 50% to 80% mGluR5 occupancy. Interestingly, the limited data found in mice and monkeys showed a similar therapeutic window. Altogether, this review suggests a therapeutic window for mGluR5 NAMs that can be translated to the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders.

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

4.5
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