4.1 Article

A novel mGluR5 antagonist, MFZ 10-7, inhibits cocaine-taking and cocaine-seeking behavior in rats

期刊

ADDICTION BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 195-209

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/adb.12086

关键词

Cocaine; cue-induced cocaine seeking; MFZ 10-7; mGluR5; MTEP; reinstatement; self-administration; sucrose

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services
  2. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pre-clinical studies suggest that negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) of the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 (mGluR5), including 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine (MPEP), 3-[(2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]pyridine (MTEP) and fenobam are highly effective in attenuating drug-taking and drug-seeking behaviors. However, both MPEP and MTEP have no translational potential for use in humans because of their off-target effects and short half-lives. Here, we report that 3-fluoro-5-[(6-methylpyridin-2-yl)ethynyl]benzonitrile (MFZ 10-7), a novel mGluR5 NAM, is more potent and selective than MPEP, MTEP and fenobam in both in vitro binding and functional assays. Similar to MTEP, intraperitoneal administration of MFZ 10-7 inhibited intravenous cocaine self-administration, cocaine-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior and cocaine-associated cue-induced cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. Although MFZ 10-7 and MTEP lowered the rate of oral sucrose self-administration, they did not alter total sucrose intake. Further, MFZ 10-7 appeared to be more potent than MTEP in inducing downward shifts in the cocaine dose-response curve, but less effective than MTEP in attenuating sucrose-induced reinstatement of sucrose-seeking behavior. MFZ 10-7 and MTEP had no effect on basal locomotor behavior. These findings not only provide additional evidence supporting an important role for mGluR5 in cocaine reward and addiction, but also introduce a new tool for both in vitro and in vivo investigations with which to further characterize this role.

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

4.1
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