4.7 Article

HIV-1 proteins dysregulate motivational processes and dopamine circuitry

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-25109-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH (National Institute on Drug Abuse) [DA013137]
  2. NIH (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) [HD043680]
  3. NIH (National Institute of Mental Health) [MH106392]
  4. NIH (National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke) [NS100624]
  5. University of South Carolina Behavioral-Biomedical Interface Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivational alterations, such as apathy, in HIV-1+ individuals are associated with decreased performance on tasks involving frontal-subcortical circuitry. We used the HIV-1 transgenic (Tg) rat to assess effect of long-term HIV-1 protein exposure on motivated behavior using sucrose (1-30%, w/v) and cocaine (0.01-1.0 mg/kg/infusion) maintained responding with fixed-ratio (FR) and progressive-ratio (PR) schedules of reinforcement. For sucrose-reinforced responding, HIV-1 Tg rats displayed no change in EC50 relative to controls, suggesting no change in sucrose reinforcement but had a downward shifted concentration-response curves, suggesting a decrease in response vigor. Cocaine-maintained responding was attenuated in HIV-1 Tg rats (FR1 0.33 mg/kg/infusion and PR 1.0 mg/kg/infusion). Dose-response tests (PR) revealed that HIV-1 Tg animals responded significantly less than F344 control rats and failed to earn significantly more infusions of cocaine as the unit dose increased. When choosing between cocaine and sucrose, control rats initially chose sucrose but with time shifted to a cocaine preference. In contrast, HIV-1 disrupted choice behaviors. DAT function was altered in the striatum of HIV-1 Tg rats; however, prior cocaine self-administration produced a unique effect on dopamine homeostasis in the HIV-1 Tg striatum. These findings of altered goal directed behaviors may determine neurobiological mechanisms of apathy in HIV-1+ patients.

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