Danielle L Graham1, Regis Hoppenot, April Hendryx, David W Self. 1. Department of Psychiatry, The Seay Center for Basic and Applied Research in Psychiatric Illness, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9070, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: D1-Like agonists are self-administered by drug-naive animals, whereas D2-like agonists reinstate cocaine-seeking behavior, but the rewarding and reinstating effects of D1- and D2-like agonists in pavlovian-based conditioned place preference are equivocal. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of D1 and D2 agonists to produce conditioned place preference with their modulation of expression and reinstatement of an established cocaine place preference. METHODS: Using an unbiased procedure, we measured the place preference induced by the D1 receptor agonist SKF 81297 and the D2/D3 receptor agonist quinpirole in drug-naive or cocaine-exposed rats. The rewarding effects of the D1 agonists SKF 82958, ABT-431, A-77636, and the D2/D3 receptor agonist 7-OH-DPAT were also tested. Additionally, we tested the ability of SKF 81297 and quinpirole to modulate expression and reinstatement of an established cocaine place preference. RESULTS: The D1 receptor agonists SKF 81297, SKF 82958, and ABT-431 produced dose-dependent conditioned place preferences, whereas A-77636 produced only place aversion, and the D2/D3 agonists quinpirole and 7-OH-DPAT were without effect in drug naive rats. In cocaine-treated rats, SKF-81297-induced place preference was reduced, whereas quinpirole-induced place preference was revealed. Pretreatment using either D1 or D2/D3 agonists blocked expression of an established cocaine place preference, but only the D1 agonist SKF 81297 and cocaine dose-dependently reinstated an extinguished cocaine place preference, whereas the D2/D3 agonist quinpirole induced place aversion but failed to alter cocaine-induced reinstatement. CONCLUSIONS: D1, but not D2/D3, agonists mediate rewarding effects and reinstatement of cocaine place preference, but the reinstating effects differ markedly from self-administration paradigms.
RATIONALE: D1-Like agonists are self-administered by drug-naive animals, whereas D2-like agonists reinstate cocaine-seeking behavior, but the rewarding and reinstating effects of D1- and D2-like agonists in pavlovian-based conditioned place preference are equivocal. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of D1 and D2 agonists to produce conditioned place preference with their modulation of expression and reinstatement of an established cocaine place preference. METHODS: Using an unbiased procedure, we measured the place preference induced by the D1 receptor agonist SKF 81297 and the D2/D3 receptor agonist quinpirole in drug-naive or cocaine-exposed rats. The rewarding effects of the D1 agonists SKF 82958, ABT-431, A-77636, and the D2/D3 receptor agonist 7-OH-DPAT were also tested. Additionally, we tested the ability of SKF 81297 and quinpirole to modulate expression and reinstatement of an established cocaine place preference. RESULTS: The D1 receptor agonists SKF 81297, SKF 82958, and ABT-431 produced dose-dependent conditioned place preferences, whereas A-77636 produced only place aversion, and the D2/D3 agonists quinpirole and 7-OH-DPAT were without effect in drug naive rats. In cocaine-treated rats, SKF-81297-induced place preference was reduced, whereas quinpirole-induced place preference was revealed. Pretreatment using either D1 or D2/D3 agonists blocked expression of an established cocaine place preference, but only the D1 agonist SKF 81297 and cocaine dose-dependently reinstated an extinguished cocaine place preference, whereas the D2/D3 agonist quinpirole induced place aversion but failed to alter cocaine-induced reinstatement. CONCLUSIONS: D1, but not D2/D3, agonists mediate rewarding effects and reinstatement of cocaine place preference, but the reinstating effects differ markedly from self-administration paradigms.
Authors: H Tsukada; J Kreuter; C E Maggos; E M Unterwald; T Kakiuchi; S Nishiyama; M Futatsubashi; M J Kreek Journal: J Neurosci Date: 1996-12-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: F Rodríguez De Fonseca; P Rubio; J L Martín-Calderón; S B Caine; G F Koob; M Navarro Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 1995-02-14 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: Andrea T Alleweireldt; Kenneth F Kirschner; Camille B Blake; Janet L Neisewander Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2003-01-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Garret D Stuber; Mitchell F Roitman; Paul E M Phillips; Regina M Carelli; R Mark Wightman Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Erin S Calipari; Rosemary C Bagot; Immanuel Purushothaman; Thomas J Davidson; Jordan T Yorgason; Catherine J Peña; Deena M Walker; Stephen T Pirpinias; Kevin G Guise; Charu Ramakrishnan; Karl Deisseroth; Eric J Nestler Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pamela F Marcott; Sheng Gong; Prashant Donthamsetti; Steven G Grinnell; Melissa N Nelson; Amy H Newman; Lutz Birnbaumer; Kirill A Martemyanov; Jonathan A Javitch; Christopher P Ford Journal: Neuron Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Makoto Taniguchi; Maria B Carreira; Yonatan A Cooper; Ana-Clara Bobadilla; Jasper A Heinsbroek; Nobuya Koike; Erin B Larson; Evan A Balmuth; Brandon W Hughes; Rachel D Penrod; Jaswinder Kumar; Laura N Smith; Daniel Guzman; Joseph S Takahashi; Tae-Kyung Kim; Peter W Kalivas; David W Self; Yingxi Lin; Christopher W Cowan Journal: Neuron Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Sun Mi Gu; Hye Jin Cha; So Woon Seo; Jin Tae Hong; Jaesuk Yun Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Elena H Chartoff; Matthew F Barhight; Steve D Mague; Allison M Sawyer; William A Carlezon Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Frederick A Schroeder; Krista L Penta; Anouch Matevossian; Sara R Jones; Christine Konradi; Andrew R Tapper; Schahram Akbarian Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 7.853