4.7 Article

Antagonism of alpha 3 beta 4 nicotinic receptors as a strategy to reduce opioid and stimulant self-administration

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 438, 期 1-2, 页码 99-105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2999(02)01284-0

关键词

18-methoxycoronaridine; dextromethorphan; mecamylamine; morphine; methamphetamine; nicotine receptor; drug addiction

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 03817] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA003817] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The iboga alkaloid ibogaine and the novel iboga alkaloid congener 18-methoxycoronaridine are putative anti-addictive agents. Using patch-clamp methodology, the actions of ibogaine and 18-methoxycoronaridine at various neurotransmitter receptor ion-channel subtypes were determined. Both ibogaine and 18-methoxycoronaridine were antagonists at alpha3beta4 nicotinic receptors and both agents were more potent at this site than at alpha4beta2 nicotinic receptors or at NMDA or 5-HT3 receptors; 18-methoxycoronaridine was more selective in this regard than ibogaine. In studies of morphine and methamphetamine self-administration, the effects of low dose combinations of 18-methoxycoronaridine with mecamylamine or dextromethorphan and of mecamylamine with dextromethorphan were assessed. Mecamylamine and dextromethorphan have also been shown to be antagonists at alpha3beta4 nicotinic receptors. All three drug combinations decreased both morphine and methamphetamine self-administration at doses that were ineffective if administered alone. The data are consistent with the hypothesis that antagonism at alpha3beta4 receptors is a potential mechanism to modulate drug seeking behavior. 18-Methoxycoronaridine apparently has greater selectivity for this site than other agents and may be the first of a new class of synthetic agents acting via this novel mechanism to produce a broad spectrum of anti-addictive activity. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.7
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