INTRODUCTION: Prior research indicates methylphenidate (MPH) and alcohol (ethanol, EtOH) interact to significantly affect responses humans and mice. The present studies tested the hypothesis that MPH and EtOH interact to potentiate ethanol-related behaviors in mice. METHODS: We used several behavioral tasks including: drug discrimination in MPH-trained and EtOH-trained mice, conditioned place preference (CPP), rota-rod and the parallel rod apparatus. We also used gas chromatographic methods to measure brain tissue levels of EtOH and the D- and L-isomers of MPH and the metabolite, ethylphenidate (EPH). RESULTS: In discrimination, EtOH (1 g/kg) produced a significant leftward shift in the MPH generalization curve (1-2 mg/kg) for MPH-trained mice, but no effects of MPH (0.625-1.25 mg/kg) on EtOH discrimination in EtOH-trained mice (0-2.5 g/kg) were observed. In CPP, the MPH (1.25 mg/kg) and EtOH (1.75 g/kg) combination significantly increased time on the drug paired side compared to vehicle (30.7 %), but this was similar to MPH (28.8 %) and EtOH (33.6 %). Footslip errors measured in a parallel rod apparatus indicated that the drug combination was very ataxic, with footslips increasing 29.5 % compared to EtOH. Finally, brain EtOH concentrations were not altered by 1.75 g/kg EtOH combined with 1.25 mg/kg MPH. However, EtOH significantly increased D-MPH and L-EPH without changing L-MPH brain concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced behavioral effects when EtOH is combined with MPH are likely due to the selective increase in brain D-MPH concentrations. These studies are consistent with observations in humans of increased interoceptive awareness of the drug combination and provide new clinical perspectives regarding enhanced ataxic effects of this drug combination.
INTRODUCTION: Prior research indicates methylphenidate (MPH) and alcohol (ethanol, EtOH) interact to significantly affect responses humans and mice. The present studies tested the hypothesis that MPH and EtOH interact to potentiate ethanol-related behaviors in mice. METHODS: We used several behavioral tasks including: drug discrimination in MPH-trained and EtOH-trained mice, conditioned place preference (CPP), rota-rod and the parallel rod apparatus. We also used gas chromatographic methods to measure brain tissue levels of EtOH and the D- and L-isomers of MPH and the metabolite, ethylphenidate (EPH). RESULTS: In discrimination, EtOH (1 g/kg) produced a significant leftward shift in the MPH generalization curve (1-2 mg/kg) for MPH-trained mice, but no effects of MPH (0.625-1.25 mg/kg) on EtOH discrimination in EtOH-trained mice (0-2.5 g/kg) were observed. In CPP, the MPH (1.25 mg/kg) and EtOH (1.75 g/kg) combination significantly increased time on the drug paired side compared to vehicle (30.7 %), but this was similar to MPH (28.8 %) and EtOH (33.6 %). Footslip errors measured in a parallel rod apparatus indicated that the drug combination was very ataxic, with footslips increasing 29.5 % compared to EtOH. Finally, brain EtOH concentrations were not altered by 1.75 g/kg EtOH combined with 1.25 mg/kg MPH. However, EtOH significantly increased D-MPH and L-EPH without changing L-MPH brain concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced behavioral effects when EtOH is combined with MPH are likely due to the selective increase in brain D-MPH concentrations. These studies are consistent with observations in humans of increased interoceptive awareness of the drug combination and provide new clinical perspectives regarding enhanced ataxic effects of this drug combination.
Authors: J S Markowitz; C L DeVane; D W Boulton; Z Nahas; S C Risch; F Diamond; K S Patrick Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Ike C dela Peńa; Hyung Seok Ahn; Ji Young Choi; Chan Young Shin; Jong Hoon Ryu; Jae Hoon Cheong Journal: Behav Pharmacol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.293
Authors: Kennerly S Patrick; Robin L Williard; Adam L VanWert; Justin J Dowd; John E Oatis; Lawrence D Middaugh Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Ike dela Peña; Jong Chan Lee; Han Lim Lee; Tae Seon Woo; Hae Chang Lee; Aee Ree Sohn; Jae Hoon Cheong Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Trevor Humby; Jessica B Eddy; Mark A Good; Amy C Reichelt; Lawrence S Wilkinson Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Kennerly S Patrick; Arthur B Straughn; Owen T Reeves; Hilary Bernstein; Robert Malcolm Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Harold L Haun; Anne C K Olsen; Katharina E Koch; Lauryn N Luderman; Christina E May; William C Griffin Journal: Alcohol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 2.558