Justin N Siemian1, Zhaoxia Xue2, Bruce E Blough3, Jun-Xu Li4. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 2. Department of Medical Psychology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. 3. Center for Drug Discovery, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. junxuli@buffalo.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Both l- and d-methamphetamine (l- and d-MA) are more potent to release norpepinephrine (NE) than dopamine, and the selectivity is greater for l-MA than d-MA. Little is known of the in vivo pharmacology of l-MA. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of l-MA and d-MA in assays of nociception, behavioral disruption, and impulsivity. METHODS: Antinociceptive effects of d- and l-MA were examined in two pain assays: the warm water tail withdrawal test for acute nociception and the von Frey test in complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA)-treated rats for chronic inflammatory pain. Food-maintained operant responding and locomotion tests were used to assess generalized behavioral disruption. The 5-choice serial reaction time test (5-CSRTT) was used to assess drug-induced effects on impulse control. A delay discounting procedure was used to determine drug-induced changes in sensitivity to reinforcer delay (impulsive choice). RESULTS: l-MA (3.2-10 mg/kg) produced dose-dependent antinociception in both pain assays, decreased the rate of food-maintained operant responding, and decreased locomotor activity at a higher dose (17.8 mg/kg). In contrast, d-MA (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) did not produce antinociception in either assay, produced biphasic effects on response rate, and increased locomotor activity. In the 5-CSRTT, d-MA but not l-MA produced significant increase in premature responses. In the delay discounting procedure, both drugs did not affect the delay function at doses that did not increase omissions. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that d- and l-MA have different behavioral profiles. Consideration should be given to these differences in future studies when l-MA is proposed for potential therapies.
RATIONALE: Both l- and d-methamphetamine (l- and d-MA) are more potent to release norpepinephrine (NE) than dopamine, and the selectivity is greater for l-MA than d-MA. Little is known of the in vivo pharmacology of l-MA. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of l-MA and d-MA in assays of nociception, behavioral disruption, and impulsivity. METHODS: Antinociceptive effects of d- and l-MA were examined in two pain assays: the warm water tail withdrawal test for acute nociception and the von Frey test in complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA)-treated rats for chronic inflammatory pain. Food-maintained operant responding and locomotion tests were used to assess generalized behavioral disruption. The 5-choice serial reaction time test (5-CSRTT) was used to assess drug-induced effects on impulse control. A delay discounting procedure was used to determine drug-induced changes in sensitivity to reinforcer delay (impulsive choice). RESULTS:l-MA (3.2-10 mg/kg) produced dose-dependent antinociception in both pain assays, decreased the rate of food-maintained operant responding, and decreased locomotor activity at a higher dose (17.8 mg/kg). In contrast, d-MA (0.32-3.2 mg/kg) did not produce antinociception in either assay, produced biphasic effects on response rate, and increased locomotor activity. In the 5-CSRTT, d-MA but not l-MA produced significant increase in premature responses. In the delay discounting procedure, both drugs did not affect the delay function at doses that did not increase omissions. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that d- and l-MA have different behavioral profiles. Consideration should be given to these differences in future studies when l-MA is proposed for potential therapies.
Authors: Marcel M van Gaalen; Reinhild J Brueggeman; Patricia F C Bronius; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; Louk J M J Vanderschuren Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Smriti Iyengar; Amy A Webster; Susan K Hemrick-Luecke; Jimmy Yu Xu; Rosa Maria A Simmons Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2004-07-13 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Hugo Leite-Almeida; António Melo; José M Pêgo; Sara Bernardo; Nuno Milhazes; Fernanda Borges; Nuno Sousa; Armando Almeida; João J Cerqueira Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Justin R Yates; Nicholas A Prior; Marissa R Chitwood; Haley A Day; Jonah R Heidel; Sarah E Hopkins; Brittany T Muncie; Tatiana A Paradella-Bradley; Alexandra P Sestito; Ashley N Vecchiola; Emily E Wells Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: M T Bardo; E D Denehy; L R Hammerslag; L P Dwoskin; B E Blough; A Landavazo; J Bergman; S J Kohut Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 4.530