4.7 Article

Effects of MPEP on locomotion, sensitization and conditioned reward induced by cocaine or morphine

期刊

NEUROPHARMACOLOGY
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 973-984

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.07.037

关键词

MPEP; metabotropic glutamate receptors subtype 5 (mGlUR5); cocaine; morphine; locomotion; sensitization; conditioned place preference (CPP); secondary reward; state-dependency; body-weight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exposure to environmental cues is considered a major cause of relapse in detoxified addicts. Recent findings showed an involvement of glutamate in cue-induced relapse and suggest that subtype 5 of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR5) is involved in conditioned drug-reward. The present study applied the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm to examine the involvement of mGluR5 in cocaine- and morphine-induced behaviours. Results of previous mice-studies were extended into rats by using the selective mGluR5 antagonist 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine (MPEP). As a result, the evaluated behavioural parameters were dose-relatedly affected by MPEP. Low-dosed MPEP (10 mg/kg, i.p.) did not affect spontaneous locomotion, reduced cocaine-induced hyperlocomotion and produced sensitized locomotion, while showing no effect on sensitized locomotion induced by repeated cocaine or morphine. Low-dosed MPEP did not genuinely block development of cocaine- and morphine-CPP, but rendered CPP expression state-dependent. The medium MPEP-dose (30 mg/kg) was most effective in reducing spontaneous locomotion. The high MPEP-close (50 mg/kg) was most effective in reducing both body-weight and morphine-CPP expression. Cocaine-CPP expression was not affected by any MPEP-close. In conclusion, mGluR5 are involved in modulation of spontaneous and cocaine-induced locomotion, in state-dependent learning and in expression of morphine-CPP. Thus, MPEP may be beneficial for relapse prevention in morphine-addicts. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. 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