4.5 Article

mu opioid receptor signaling in morphine sensitization

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 117, 期 4, 页码 921-929

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4522(02)00825-4

关键词

behavioral sensitization; morphine; mu opioid receptor; G protein; cAMP system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used a previously reported model of morphine sensitization that elicited a complex behavioral syndrome involving stereotyped and non stereotyped activity. To identify the mechanism of these long-lasting processes, we checked the density of mu opioid receptors, receptor-G-protein coupling and the cyclic AMP (cAMP) cascade. In morphine-sensitized animals mu opioid receptor autoradiography revealed a significant increase in the caudate putamen (30% versus controls), nucleus accumbens shell (16%), prefrontal and frontal cortex (26%), medial thalamus (43%), hypothalamus (200%) and central gray (89%). Concerning morphine's activation of G proteins in the brain, investigated in the guanylyl 5'-[gamma-S-35]thio]triphosphate ([S-35]GTPgammaS) binding assay, a significant increase in net [S-35]GTPgammaS binding was seen in the caudate putamen (39%) and hypothalamus (27%). In the caudate putamen this was due to an increase in the amount of activated G proteins, and in the hypothalamus to a greater affinity of G proteins for guanosine triphosphate (GTP). The main second messenger system linked to the opioid receptor is the cAMP pathway. In the striatum basal cAMP levels were significantly elevated in sensitized animals (70% versus controls) and [D-Ala(2), N-Me-Phe(4), Gly(5)-ol]-enkephalin (DAMGO) significantly inhibited forskolin-stimulated cAMP production in control (30%) but not in sensitized rats. In the hypothalamus no significant changes were observed in basal cAMP levels and DAMGO inhibition. These cellular events induced by morphine pre-exposure could underlie the neuroadaptive processes involved in morphine sensitization. (C) 2003 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Science 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

4.5
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