4.0 Article

Differential response to a selective cannabinoid receptor antagonist (SR141716: rimonabant) in female mice from lines selectively bred for high voluntary wheel-running behaviour

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 812-820

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e32831c3b6b

关键词

artificial selection; endocannabinoids; exercise; experimental evolution; genetics; hyperactivity; locomotor activity; mouse; rimonabant; sex differences; wheel running

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [IOB-0543429, DA14263-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exercise is a naturally rewarding behaviour in human beings and can be associated with feelings of euphoria and analgesia. The endocannabinoid system may play a role in the perception of neurobiological rewards during and after prolonged exercise. Mice from lines that have been selectively bred for high voluntary wheel running (high runner or HR lines) may have evolved neurobiological mechanisms that increase the incentive salience of endurance-type exercise. Here, we test the hypothesis that endocannabinoid signalling has been altered in the four replicate HR lines as compared with four nonselected control lines. After 18 days of acclimation to cages with attached wheels, we injected mice with rimonabant (SR141716), a selective cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonist. During the time of normal peak running, each mouse received, in a randomized order, intraperitonial injection of rimonabant (0.1 or 3.0 mg/kg) or vehicle, over 9 days. Drug response was quantified as wheel revolutions, time and speed 10-70 min postinjection. Rimonabant decreased running in all mice; however, female HR mice differentially decreased running speed and distance (but not time) as compared with control females. We conclude that altered endocannabinoid signalling plays a role in the high wheel running of female HR mice. Behavioural Pharmacology 19:812-820 (C) 2008 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.0
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