4.6 Article

Inhibition of vesicular glutamate transporters contributes to attenuate methamphetamine-induced conditioned place preference in rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 1-5

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.02.047

关键词

Vesicular glutamate transporters; Methamphetamine; Conditioned place preference; Chicago sky blue 6B

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273494]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulating evidence suggests that glutamatergic system plays a crucial role in methamphetamine (METH) addiction. In the glutamatergic transmission, vesicular glutamate transporters (VGLUTs) are responsible for transporting glutamate into synaptic vesicles and affect the glutamate concentrations in the synaptic cleft. It is well documented that VGLUTs play an essential role in pathophysiology of several psychiatric and neurological diseases, however, whether VGLUTs also have a role in addiction caused by psychostimulant drugs is still unknown. The present study was underwent to investigate the effect of inhibition of VGLUTs on METH-induced induce conditioned place preference in rats. Rats were induced to conditioned place preference with METH (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg) by intraperitoneal injection. Intracerebroventricular administration of 1.0 or 5.0 mu g Chicago sky blue 6B (CSB6B), a VGLUTs inhibitor, and 2.5 h prior to METH was to observe its effect on METH-induced conditioned place preference in rats. The rats receiving METH showed stronger place preference at the dose of 1.0 mg/kg than that of other doses. The intracerebroventricular administration of CSB6B (1.0, 5.0 mu g) 2.5 h prior to the exposure to METH attenuated the acquisition of METH-induced conditioned place preference, while CSB6B itself had no effect on place preference. These results indicate that VGLUTs are involved in the effect of METH-induced conditioned place preference and may be a new target against METH addiction. (C) 2014 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

4.6
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