RATIONALE: The role played by D(1)-like receptors in amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization has been examined using both the D(1)-like receptor antagonist, SCH 23390, and the D(1A) receptor knockout mouse (i.e. D(1A)-deficient mice). Studies using these two approaches have provided conflicting evidence about the importance of D(1)-like receptors for amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to determine: (a) whether D(1A)-deficient mice exhibit amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization after 3 and 17 drug abstinence days, and (b) whether SCH 23390, which binds to both D(1A) and D(1B) receptor subtypes, blocks development of amphetamine sensitization in wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice. METHODS: In the first experiment, adult wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice were injected with amphetamine (0, 1, 2, 4, or 8 mg/kg, IP) for 7 consecutive days. In the second experiment, wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice were pretreated with SCH 23390 (0, 0.15, or 0.5 mg/kg, IP) 30 min prior to being injected with amphetamine (0 or 8 mg/kg, IP). After each daily amphetamine injection, mice were placed in activity chambers where distance traveled (i.e. horizontal locomotor activity) was measured for 60 min. On the test days, which occurred after 3 or 17 drug abstinence days, mice were injected with 1 mg/kg amphetamine and locomotion was measured for 120 min. RESULTS: Both wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice exhibited amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization. Pretreatment with 0.5 mg/kg SCH 23390 blocked the development of locomotor sensitization in wild-type mice, but did not alter the sensitized responding of D(1A)-deficient mice. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that D(1)-like receptors are necessary for the development of amphetamine sensitization in wild-type mice, while neither the D(1A) nor D(1B) receptor subtypes are necessary for the amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization of D(1A)-deficient mice. A possible explanation for these conflicting results is that D(1A)-deficient mice may have a compensatory mechanism (not involving D(1B) receptors) that allows them to exhibit amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization in the absence of the D(1A) receptor.
RATIONALE: The role played by D(1)-like receptors in amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization has been examined using both the D(1)-like receptor antagonist, SCH 23390, and the D(1A) receptor knockout mouse (i.e. D(1A)-deficient mice). Studies using these two approaches have provided conflicting evidence about the importance of D(1)-like receptors for amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to determine: (a) whether D(1A)-deficient mice exhibit amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization after 3 and 17 drug abstinence days, and (b) whether SCH 23390, which binds to both D(1A) and D(1B) receptor subtypes, blocks development of amphetamine sensitization in wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice. METHODS: In the first experiment, adult wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice were injected with amphetamine (0, 1, 2, 4, or 8 mg/kg, IP) for 7 consecutive days. In the second experiment, wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice were pretreated with SCH 23390 (0, 0.15, or 0.5 mg/kg, IP) 30 min prior to being injected with amphetamine (0 or 8 mg/kg, IP). After each daily amphetamine injection, mice were placed in activity chambers where distance traveled (i.e. horizontal locomotor activity) was measured for 60 min. On the test days, which occurred after 3 or 17 drug abstinence days, mice were injected with 1 mg/kg amphetamine and locomotion was measured for 120 min. RESULTS: Both wild-type and D(1A)-deficient mice exhibited amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization. Pretreatment with 0.5 mg/kg SCH 23390 blocked the development of locomotor sensitization in wild-type mice, but did not alter the sensitized responding of D(1A)-deficient mice. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that D(1)-like receptors are necessary for the development of amphetamine sensitization in wild-type mice, while neither the D(1A) nor D(1B) receptor subtypes are necessary for the amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization of D(1A)-deficient mice. A possible explanation for these conflicting results is that D(1A)-deficient mice may have a compensatory mechanism (not involving D(1B) receptors) that allows them to exhibit amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization in the absence of the D(1A) receptor.
Authors: Lauren M Reynolds; Leora Yetnikoff; Matthew Pokinko; Michael Wodzinski; Julia G Epelbaum; Laura C Lambert; Marie-Pierre Cossette; Andreas Arvanitogiannis; Cecilia Flores Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Sanders A McDougall; Carmela M Reichel; Michelle C Cyr; Patrick E Karper; Arbi Nazarian; Cynthia A Crawford Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-10-22 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Mufida B El-Ghundi; Theresa Fan; Joanna M Karasinska; John Yeung; Millee Zhou; Brian F O'Dowd; Susan R George Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Hong Zhu; Stefan Clemens; Michael Sawchuk; Shawn Hochman Journal: J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 1.836