4.7 Article

Interactions between 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and σ1 receptors

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 553, 期 1-3, 页码 141-145

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.09.038

关键词

sigma receptor; MDMA; BD1063; locomotor

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA11979, DA13978, R01 DA011979, R01 DA013978] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are structurally similar and represent a serious and growing health threat. Earlier studies in our laboratory have shown that methamphetamime interacts with sigma receptors and that antagonism of these receptors can attenuate methamphetamine-induced locomotor stimulation and neurotoxicity. However, no research exists which characterizes the interaction between a receptors and MDMA. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to determine whether a receptors are involved in the actions of MDMA. In the first part of the study, competition and saturation binding assays were performed to measure the interaction of MDMA with sigma receptors. The receptor binding assays revealed that MDMA interacts preferentially with the sigma(1) subtype, as compared to the sigma 2 subtype, and that this interaction occurs in a competitive manner. The second part of the study focused on behavioral measurements in male, Swiss Webster mice to determine whether a selective sigma(1) receptor antagonist, BD1063 (1-[2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)ethyl]-4-methylpiperazine, 0-30 mg/kg, i.p.) could attenuate the locomotor stimulant actions of MDMA (0-50 mg/kg, i.p.). BD1063 alone had no effect on locomotor activity, but dose-dependently attenuated the locomotor stimulant effects of MDMA and produced a significant shift to the right in the MDMA dose response curve. Together, the data support the functional relevance of the interaction of MDMA with sigma(1) receptors, and suggest that these receptors are involved in the stimulant actions of MDMA. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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