W A Corrigall1, K M Coen, K L Adamson, B L Chow, J Zhang. 1. Smoking and Nicotine Dependence Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. bill_corrigall@camh.net
Abstract
RATIONALE: The mesolimbic dopamine system has been implicated in the reinforcing effects of nicotine, a drug which appears to act at least in part through the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Other neuronal elements in the VTA are important in drug reward. In particular, mu opioid receptors in the VTA have been shown to influence cocaine reinforcement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether the mu opioid receptors in the VTA also regulate the intake of nicotine. METHODS: This research was carried out with animals trained to self-administer nicotine or cocaine, or to respond for food. Mu receptors were targeted with the selective agonist [D-Ala2,N-Me-Phe4,Gly-ol5]-enkephalin (DAMGO) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors with the selective agonists baclofen and muscimol; each of these compounds was delivered by microinfusion into the VTA. RESULTS: The mu-selective agonist DAMGO, tested over a dose range of 0.005-0.05 microg, had an effect at the highest dose only, where it produced a reduction in self-administration maintained by doses of either 10 microg/kg or 30 microg/kg per infusion of nicotine. Intra-VTA microinfusions of DAMGO did not reinstate extinguished responding previously established for nicotine, nor did they have prominent effects on operant behavior maintained by food. In contrast to the overall limited effects of DAMGO on nicotine self-administration, the GABA agonists muscimol and baclofen each reduced nicotine self-administration substantially when delivered into the VTA, whereas they were less effective against cocaine self-administration. CONCLUSIONS: The lesser effect of DAMGO microinfusions in the VTA on nicotine than cocaine self-administration is associated with the opposite efficacy of GABA agonists. These findings suggest that nicotine and cocaine differentially activate circuitry in which mu receptors are situated, especially GABAergic elements.
RATIONALE: The mesolimbic dopamine system has been implicated in the reinforcing effects of nicotine, a drug which appears to act at least in part through the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Other neuronal elements in the VTA are important in drug reward. In particular, mu opioid receptors in the VTA have been shown to influence cocaine reinforcement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether the mu opioid receptors in the VTA also regulate the intake of nicotine. METHODS: This research was carried out with animals trained to self-administer nicotine or cocaine, or to respond for food. Mu receptors were targeted with the selective agonist [D-Ala2,N-Me-Phe4,Gly-ol5]-enkephalin (DAMGO) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors with the selective agonists baclofen and muscimol; each of these compounds was delivered by microinfusion into the VTA. RESULTS: The mu-selective agonist DAMGO, tested over a dose range of 0.005-0.05 microg, had an effect at the highest dose only, where it produced a reduction in self-administration maintained by doses of either 10 microg/kg or 30 microg/kg per infusion of nicotine. Intra-VTA microinfusions of DAMGO did not reinstate extinguished responding previously established for nicotine, nor did they have prominent effects on operant behavior maintained by food. In contrast to the overall limited effects of DAMGO on nicotine self-administration, the GABA agonists muscimol and baclofen each reduced nicotine self-administration substantially when delivered into the VTA, whereas they were less effective against cocaine self-administration. CONCLUSIONS: The lesser effect of DAMGO microinfusions in the VTA on nicotine than cocaine self-administration is associated with the opposite efficacy of GABA agonists. These findings suggest that nicotine and cocaine differentially activate circuitry in which mu receptors are situated, especially GABAergic elements.
Authors: Gary E Swan; Karen Suchanek Hudmon; Lisa M Jack; Kymberli Hemberger; Dorit Carmelli; Taline V Khroyan; Huijun Z Ring; Hyman Hops; Judy A Andrews; Elizabeth Tildesley; Dale McBride; Neal Benowitz; Chris Webster; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; Heidi S Feiler; Barbara Koenig; Lorraine Caron; Judy Illes; Li S-C Cheng Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nadia Chaudhri; Anthony R Caggiula; Eric C Donny; Matthew I Palmatier; Xiu Liu; Alan F Sved Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-10-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Tristan D McClure-Begley; Sharon R Grady; Michael J Marks; Allan C Collins; Jerry A Stitzel Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 5.858
Authors: Joke Beuten; Jennie Z Ma; Thomas J Payne; Randolph T Dupont; Karen M Crews; Grant Somes; Nancy J Williams; Robert C Elston; Ming D Li Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Scott C Steffensen; Samuel I Shin; Ashley C Nelson; Stephanie S Pistorius; Stephanie B Williams; Taylor J Woodward; Hyun Jung Park; Lindsey Friend; Ming Gao; Fenfei Gao; Devin H Taylor; M Foster Olive; Jeffrey G Edwards; Sterling N Sudweeks; Lori M Buhlman; J Michael McIntosh; Jie Wu Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 4.280