4.7 Article

A reduced rate of in vivo dopamine transporter binding is associated with lower relative reinforcing efficacy of stimulants

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 351-362

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300795

关键词

dopamine; pharmacokinetics; rhesus monkey; self-administration; stimulants

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA-05477, DA-10352, K05-DA15343] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A slow onset of action has been hypothesized to weaken the reinforcing effects of drugs. The present study evaluated this hypothesis with slow-onset cocaine analogs, WIN 35428, RTI 31, and RTI 51. When cocaine or a cocaine analog was made available to rhesus monkeys (n = 4 or 5) for self-administration under a progressive-ratio (PR) schedule with a 1-h time-out between injections, all the drugs functioned as positive reinforcers. The maximum number of injections was in the order of cocaine >WIN 35428 >RTI 31 >RTI 51. In in vivo binding in rat striatum, equipotent doses of cocaine, WIN 35428, RTI 31, and RTI 51 were estimated to displace 25% of [H-3] WIN 35428 binding at the dopamine transporters (DAT), respectively, 5.8, 22.4, 30.8, and 44.1 min after the intravenous injection. Further, relative reinforcing efficacy was correlated with rate of DAT binding such that slower displacement of [H-3] WIN 35428 was associated with a weaker reinforcing effect. In in vitro binding in monkey brain tissue, the cocaine analogs had higher affinity for monoamine transporter sites, but similar affinity ratios of 5-HTT/DAT, compared to cocaine. Lastly, RTI 31 was shown to function as a positive reinforcer in drug-naive rhesus monkeys under a fixed-ratio 1 schedule. Collectively, the data support the hypothesis that a slow onset at the DAT is associated with reduced reinforcing efficacy of DAT ligands. The data under both the PR and FR schedules, however, suggest that a slow onset at the DAT influence reinforcing effect only to a limited extent.

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