4.4 Article

Effects of the FAAH inhibitor, URB597, and anandamide on lithium-induced taste reactivity responses: a measure of nausea in the rat

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 190, 期 2, 页码 135-143

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-006-0589-7

关键词

nausea; FAAH; URB597; anandamide; cannabinoids; lithium; taste aversion; rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale The endogenous cannabinoid system plays a vital role in the control of nausea and emesis. Because of the rapid breakdown and hydrolysis of endocannabinoids, such as anandamide, the therapeutic effects may be enhanced by prolonging their duration of action. Objective The present experiment evaluated the potential of various doses of URB597, a fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitor, alone and in combination with systemic administration of anandamide to modulate the establishment of lithium-induced conditioned taste reactivity responses in rats. Materials and methods In experiment 1, on the conditioning day, rats first received an injection of 0.3 mg/kg URB597, 0.15 mg/kg URB597, or vehicle and then received a second injection of anandamide (5 mg/kg) or vehicle, before a 3-min exposure of 0.1% saccharin by intraoral infusion. Immediately after the saccharin exposure, the rats were injected with lithium chloride. On each of three test days, rats received a 3-min intraoral infusion of saccharin solution, and the taste reactivity responses were videotaped and monitored. In experiment 2, the effects of pretreatment with the CB1 antagonist, AM-251, on URB597 and anandamide-induced suppressed aversion was evaluated. Results Administration of URB597 alone and in combination with anandamide reduced active rejection reactions elicited by a LiCl-paired saccharin solution; both effects were reversed by pretreatment with AM-251, suggesting that they were CB1 receptor mediated. Conclusions The results suggest that prolonging the action of anandamide by pretreatment with the FAAH inhibitor, URB597, suppresses lithium-induced nausea in the rat.

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

4.4
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