4.0 Article

Reinforcing effects of abused 'bath salts' constituents 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone and α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone and their enantiomers

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 578-581

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000315

关键词

bath salts; cathinones; enantiomers; rat; self-administration

资金

  1. Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  3. National Institutes of Health
  4. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA039146, T32 DA031115]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Synthetic cathinones found in abused 'bath salts' preparations are chiral molecules. Racemic 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (alpha-PVP) are two common constituents of these preparations that have been reported to be highly effective reinforcers; however, the relative contribution of each enantiomer toward these effects has not been determined. Thus, male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to respond for racemic MDPV or alpha-PVP (n = 9/drug), with full dose-response curves for the racemate and the S and R enantiomers of MDPV and alpha-PVP generated under a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. Racemic mixtures of both MDPV and alpha-PVP as well as each enantiomer maintained responding in a dose-dependent manner, with racemic MDPV and alpha-PVP being equipotent. The rank order of potency within each drug was S enantiomer > racemate >> R enantiomer. Although both enantiomers of alpha-PVP were as effective as racemic alpha-PVP, R-MDPV was a slightly less effective reinforcer than both S and racemic MDPV. The results of these studies provide clear evidence that both enantiomers of MDPV and alpha-PVP function as highly effective reinforcers and likely contribute toward the abuse-related effects of 'bath salts' preparations containing racemic MDPV and/or alpha-PVP. Copyright (C) 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 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

4.0
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