Dong-Hyun Youn1, Jin Mook Kim1, Young-Ki Hong1, Seo-In Park1, Jin-Moo Lee1, Young-Hoon Kim1, Chang Won Park1, Mi Sun Kang2. 1. Pharmacological Research Division, Toxicological Evaluation and Research Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osong Saengmyeong 2-ro, Heungdeok-gu, Chungju-shi, 28159, Korea. 2. Pharmacological Research Division, Toxicological Evaluation and Research Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osong Saengmyeong 2-ro, Heungdeok-gu, Chungju-shi, 28159, Korea. mskkang@korea.kr.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Methamnetamine (MNA; PAL-1046) is a new psychoactive substance that acts as a full biogenic amine transporter (BAT) substrate. BAT substrates promote neurotransmitter release from the nerve terminal and can be abused as stimulants. However, scientific information on the abuse potential of methamnetamine is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the abuse liability of methamnetamine. METHODS: The effective dose range of methamnetamine was determined using a climbing behavior test. The rewarding effect and reinforcing effect of the test compound were evaluated in mice by conditioned place preference (CPP) testing and self-administration (SA) testing at the selected doses. Dopamine level changes were analyzed using synaptosomes and in vivo microdialysis to investigate the effects of methamnetamine on the central nervous system. Drug discrimination experiments were used to examine the potential similarity of the interoceptive effects of methamnetamine and cocaine. RESULTS: A significant response was observed in the climbing behavior test with 10 and 40 mg/kg intraperitoneally administered methamnetamine. In the CPP test, mice intraperitoneally administered methamnetamine (10 and 20 mg/kg) showed a significant preference for the drug-paired compartment. In the SA test, mice that intravenously received 1 mg/kg/infusion showed significant active-lever responses. Dopamine was significantly increased in synaptosomes and in in vivo microdialysis tests. Furthermore, methamnetamine showed cross-generalization with cocaine in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: Methamnetamine exhibits interceptive stimulus properties similar to those of cocaine and induces rewarding and reinforcing effects, suggesting its dependence liability potential.
RATIONALE: Methamnetamine (MNA; PAL-1046) is a new psychoactive substance that acts as a full biogenic amine transporter (BAT) substrate. BAT substrates promote neurotransmitter release from the nerve terminal and can be abused as stimulants. However, scientific information on the abuse potential of methamnetamine is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the abuse liability of methamnetamine. METHODS: The effective dose range of methamnetamine was determined using a climbing behavior test. The rewarding effect and reinforcing effect of the test compound were evaluated in mice by conditioned place preference (CPP) testing and self-administration (SA) testing at the selected doses. Dopamine level changes were analyzed using synaptosomes and in vivo microdialysis to investigate the effects of methamnetamine on the central nervous system. Drug discrimination experiments were used to examine the potential similarity of the interoceptive effects of methamnetamine and cocaine. RESULTS: A significant response was observed in the climbing behavior test with 10 and 40 mg/kg intraperitoneally administered methamnetamine. In the CPP test, mice intraperitoneally administered methamnetamine (10 and 20 mg/kg) showed a significant preference for the drug-paired compartment. In the SA test, mice that intravenously received 1 mg/kg/infusion showed significant active-lever responses. Dopamine was significantly increased in synaptosomes and in in vivo microdialysis tests. Furthermore, methamnetamine showed cross-generalization with cocaine in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS:Methamnetamine exhibits interceptive stimulus properties similar to those of cocaine and induces rewarding and reinforcing effects, suggesting its dependence liability potential.
Authors: Michael H Baumann; Ernesto Solis; Lucas R Watterson; Julie A Marusich; William E Fantegrossi; Jenny L Wiley Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Kristopher M Kahlig; Francesca Binda; Habibeh Khoshbouei; Randy D Blakely; Douglas G McMahon; Jonathan A Javitch; Aurelio Galli Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: W C Drevets; C Gautier; J C Price; D J Kupfer; P E Kinahan; A A Grace; J L Price; C A Mathis Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: June Bryan I de la Peña; Hae Chang Lee; Ike C de la Peña; Tae Soon Woo; Seo Young Yoon; Hye Lim Lee; Jin Soo Han; Jeong Ik Lee; Yoon Ju Cho; Chan Young Shin; Jae Hoon Cheong Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 3.332