RATIONALE: Mesolimbic dopamine (DA) is a critical component of the brain circuitry regulating behavioral activation and effort-related processes. Research involving choice tasks has shown that rats with impaired DA transmission reallocate their instrumental behavior away from food-reinforced tasks with high response requirements and instead select less effortful food-seeking behaviors. OBJECTIVE: Previous work showed that adenosine A(2A) antagonism can reverse the effects of the DA antagonist haloperidol in an operant task that assesses effort-related choice. The present work used a T-maze choice procedure to assess the effects of adenosine A(2A) and A(1) antagonism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With this task, the two arms of the maze have different reinforcement densities (four vs. two food pellets), and a vertical 44 cm barrier is positioned in the arm with the higher density, presenting the animal with an effort-related challenge. Untreated rats strongly prefer the arm with the high density of food reward and climb the barrier in order to obtain the food. RESULTS: Haloperidol produced a dose-related (0.05-0.15 mg/kg i.p.) reduction in the number of trials in which the rats chose the high-barrier arm. Co-administration of the adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonist MSX-3 (0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg i.p.), but not the A(1) antagonist 8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine (0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg i.p.), reversed the effects of haloperidol on effort-related choice and latency. CONCLUSIONS: Adenosine A(2A) and D2 receptors interact to regulate effort-related decision making, which may have implications for the treatment of psychiatric symptoms such as psychomotor slowing or anergia that can be observed in depression, parkinsonism, and other disorders.
RATIONALE: Mesolimbicdopamine (DA) is a critical component of the brain circuitry regulating behavioral activation and effort-related processes. Research involving choice tasks has shown that rats with impaired DA transmission reallocate their instrumental behavior away from food-reinforced tasks with high response requirements and instead select less effortful food-seeking behaviors. OBJECTIVE: Previous work showed that adenosine A(2A) antagonism can reverse the effects of the DA antagonist haloperidol in an operant task that assesses effort-related choice. The present work used a T-maze choice procedure to assess the effects of adenosine A(2A) and A(1) antagonism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With this task, the two arms of the maze have different reinforcement densities (four vs. two food pellets), and a vertical 44 cm barrier is positioned in the arm with the higher density, presenting the animal with an effort-related challenge. Untreated rats strongly prefer the arm with the high density of food reward and climb the barrier in order to obtain the food. RESULTS:Haloperidol produced a dose-related (0.05-0.15 mg/kg i.p.) reduction in the number of trials in which the rats chose the high-barrier arm. Co-administration of the adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonist MSX-3 (0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg i.p.), but not the A(1) antagonist 8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropylxanthine (0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/kg i.p.), reversed the effects of haloperidol on effort-related choice and latency. CONCLUSIONS:Adenosine A(2A) and D2 receptors interact to regulate effort-related decision making, which may have implications for the treatment of psychiatric symptoms such as psychomotor slowing or anergia that can be observed in depression, parkinsonism, and other disorders.
Authors: K Fuxe; L F Agnati; K Jacobsen; J Hillion; M Canals; M Torvinen; B Tinner-Staines; W Staines; D Rosin; A Terasmaa; P Popoli; G Leo; V Vergoni; C Lluis; F Ciruela; R Franco; S Ferré Journal: Neurology Date: 2003-12-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Keita Ishiwari; Lisa J Madson; Andrew M Farrar; Susana M Mingote; John P Valenta; Michael D DiGianvittorio; Lauren E Frank; Merce Correa; Jörg Hockemeyer; Christa Müller; John D Salamone Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: F Denk; M E Walton; K A Jennings; T Sharp; M F S Rushworth; D M Bannerman Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Lucile Capuron; Giuseppe Pagnoni; Marina F Demetrashvili; David H Lawson; Fiona B Fornwalt; Bobbi Woolwine; Gregory S Berns; Charles B Nemeroff; Andrew H Miller Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: John D Salamone; Andrew M Farrar; Laura Font; Vatsal Patel; Devra E Schlar; Eric J Nunes; Lyndsey E Collins; Thomas N Sager Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Marie Therese Armentero; Annalisa Pinna; Sergi Ferré; José Luis Lanciego; Christa E Müller; Rafael Franco Journal: Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 12.310
Authors: Marta Pardo; Laura López-Cruz; Noemí San Miguel; John D Salamone; Mercè Correa Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 4.530