4.0 Article

Further delineation between typical and atypical dopamine uptake inhibitors: effects on food-maintained behavior and food consumption

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 74-82

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000278

关键词

AHN 1-055; atypical dopamine transport inhibitors; benztropine analogs; cocaine; 4-Cl-BZT; food intake; GBR 12909; JHW 007; progressive-ratio schedule; rat

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
  2. NIH/NIDA/IRP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present studies compared the acute effects of benztropine analogs (4-Cl-BZT, JHW 007, AHN 1-055), which are atypical dopamine uptake inhibitors, with those of the standard dopamine uptake inhibitors GBR 12909 and cocaine, on the reinforcing efficacy of food and food intake in male Sprague-Dawley rats. Repeated drug effects of JHW 007 on food intake were also determined. The number of ratios completed under a progressive-ratio schedule of food delivery was used as an index of reinforcing efficacy. Food intake was determined by measuring powdered laboratory-chow consumption during daily 40 min food-availability time periods. Under the progressive-ratio schedule, cocaine and GBR 12909 dose-dependently increased the number of ratios completed. JHW 007 decreased ratios completed, whereas neither 4-Cl-BZT nor AHN 1-055 increased ratios completed with a magnitude that approximated any of the increases produced by cocaine or GBR 12909. Acute administration of each drug dose-dependently decreased food intake; however, the benztropine analogs were more potent than cocaine and GBR 12909. A reduction in food intake emerged after repeated administration of a low dose of JHW 007. Future studies that compare JHW 007 with standard anorectic drugs (e.g. phentermine) and continue investigation of the repeated drug effects under similar experimental procedures are clearly warranted. 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