4.0 Article

THC-methadone and THC-naltrexone interactions on discrimination, antinociception, and locomotion in rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 22, 期 5-6, 页码 489-497

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e328348ed22

关键词

antinociception; cannabinoid; drug discrimination; locomotion; opioid; rat

资金

  1. Peter F. McManus Charitable Trust
  2. Washington State University Center for Reproductive Biology
  3. Achievement Reward for College Scientists Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined cannabinoid-opioid interactions within the same subjects on measures of discrimination, antinociception, horizontal locomotion, and catalepsy. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, 3 mg/kg) from vehicle. THC alone (0.32-10 mg/kg) dose-dependently increased THC-appropriate lever responding and decreased response rate. THC alone also produced paw pressure antinociception and decreased locomotor activity, but did not produce catalepsy. Methadone (0.32-5.6 mg/kg) and naltrexone (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) alone produced low THC-appropriate lever responding up to doses that decreased response rate. When combined with THC, methadone (1.0 mg/kg) flattened the THC discrimination curve, but did not affect antinociceptive or motoric effects of THC. Naltrexone did not alter any effects of THC. In rats that were not trained to discriminate THC from vehicle, 1.0 mg/kg methadone did enhance THC antinociception. These results suggest that l-opioid receptor agonists can disrupt the discriminative stimulus effects of cannabinoids while not significantly altering their antinociceptive or motoric effects, in chronically drug-exposed subjects. Further research is required to determine whether opioid enhancement of cannabinoid antinociception is limited to acute exposure, or simply requires higher doses in chronically drug-exposed subjects. Behavioural Pharmacology 22:489-497 (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar 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