Differential neurochemical consequences of an escalating dose-binge regimen followed by single-day multiple-dose methamphetamine challenges

Molecular Neuropsychiatry Branch, DHHS/NIH/NIDA Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA.
Journal of Neurochemistry (Impact Factor: 4.24). 07/2008; 105(5):1873-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05269.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Chronic intake of methamphetamine (METH) causes tolerance to its behavioral and subjective effects. To better mimic human patterns of drug abuse, the present study used a rodent model that took into account various facets of human drug administration and measured METH-induced effects on brain monoamine levels. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were injected with METH or saline according to an escalating dose schedule for 2 weeks. This was followed by a challenge regimen of either saline or one of two doses of METH (3 x 10 mg/kg every 2 h or 6 x 5 mg/kg given every hour, both given within a single day). Both challenge doses of METH caused significant degrees of depletion of dopamine in the striatum and norepinephrine and serotonin in the striatum, cortex, and hippocampus. Animals pre-treated with METH showed significant attenuation of METH-induced striatal dopamine depletion but not consistent attenuation of norepinephrine and serotonin depletion. Unexpectedly, METH pre-treated animals that received the 3 x 10 mg/kg challenge showed less increases in tympanic temperatures than saline pre-treated rats whereas METH pre-treated animals that received the 6 x 5 mg/kg METH challenge showed comparable increases in temperatures to saline pre-treated rats. Therefore, pre-treatment-induced partial protection against monoamine depletion is probably not because of attenuated METH-induced hyperthermia in those rats.

Download full-text


Available from: Jean Lud Cadet, Sep 22, 2014
  • Source
    • "The exact neurobiological mechanisms by which meth SA decreased cortical NET remain unknown. One possibility could be a generalized degradative effect on monoamine terminals (Graham et al., 2008). However, this notion is inconsistent with the lack of overt toxicity in the meth SA animals and the lack of a similar NET downregulation in the non-contingent meth rats. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic methamphetamine (meth) can lead to persisting cognitive deficits in human addicts and animal models of meth addiction. Here, we examined the impact of either contingent or non-contingent meth on memory performance using an object-in-place (OIP) task, which measures the ability to detect an object relative to its location and surrounding objects. Further, we quantified monoamine transporter levels and markers of neurotoxicity within the OIP circuitry and striatum. Male Long-Evans rats received an acute meth binge (4 × 4 mg/kg i.p., 2 h intervals) or self-administered meth (0.02 mg/infusion, i.v.; 7 days for 1 h/day, followed by 14 days for 6 h/day). Rats were tested for OIP recognition memory following one week of withdrawal. Subsequently, transporters for serotonin (SERT) and norepinephrine (NET) were quantified using Western blot in tissue obtained from the hippocampus, perirhinal cortex, and prefrontal cortex. In addition, striatal dopamine transporters, tyrosine hydroxylase, and glial fibrillary acidic protein were measured to assess potential neurotoxicity. Control (saline-treated) rats spent more time interacting with the objects in the changed locations. In contrast, contingent or non-contingent meth resulted in disrupted OIP performance as seen by similar amounts of time spent with all objects, regardless of location. While only acute meth binge produced signs of neurotoxicity, both meth regimens decreased SERT in the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus. Only meth self-administration resulted in a selective decrease in NET. Meth-induced changes in SERT function in the OIP circuitry may underlie memory deficits independently of overt neurotoxic effects. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder'.
    Neuropharmacology 11/2011; 62(2):1119-26. DOI:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.11.003 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Following habituation, rats were injected intraperitoneally with either (±)-METH-hydrochloride (NIDA, Baltimore, MD) or an equivalent volume of 0.9% saline for a period of three weeks as described elsewhere (Graham et al. 2008; Cadet et al. 2009a). The saline-or METH-pretreated animals received either saline or METH (5 mg/kg x 8 at 1 h intervals) challenges 72 hours after the preconditioning period. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methamphetamine (METH) is a toxic drug of abuse, which can cause significant decreases in the levels of monoamines in various brain regions. However, animals treated with progressively increasing doses of METH over several weeks are protected against the toxic effects of the drug. In the present study, we tested the possibility that this pattern of METH injections might be associated with transcriptional changes in the rat striatum, an area of the brain which is known to be very sensitive to METH toxicity and which is protected by METH preconditioning. We found that the presence and absence of preconditioning followed by injection of large doses of METH caused differential expression in different sets of striatal genes. Quantitative PCR confirmed METH-induced changes in some genes of interest. These include small heat shock 27 kD proteins 1 and 2 (HspB1 and HspB2), brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and heme oxygenase-1 (Hmox-1). Our observations are consistent with previous studies which have reported that ischemic or pharmacological preconditioning can cause reprogramming of gene expression after lethal ischemic insults. These studies add to the growing literature on the effects of preconditioning on the brain transcriptome.
    Dose-Response 01/2011; 9(2):165-81. DOI:10.2203/dose-response.10-011.Cadet · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Generalizations from this research may have limited applicability to this study, which was concerned with the impact of widely spaced administrations on longer-term effects. For example, when administrations are closely spaced, as dose increases, the rate of tolerance can increase (Fernstrom and Choi, 2008; Graham et al, 2008). This dose-tolerance relationship may result, in part, because higher doses produce larger impairments in the mechanisms that underlie normal responsiveness, and with closely spaced administrations these mechanisms may not have sufficient time to normalize before the next administration. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rats are hypophagic approximately 1-3 and 13-27h after receiving amphetamine (2.0mg/kg). This study examined how these short- and longer-term phases of hypophagia were affected by repeated administration of different amphetamine doses. Throughout eight five-day tests, the rats could lever press for food pellets for 1-hour periods beginning every three hours. On test day 1, the rats were treated with saline, and on test day 3, they were treated with a dose of amphetamine. Across tests, for one group, treatment on day 3 alternated between 0.0 (saline) and 0.5mg/kg amphetamine; for a second, group treatment on day 3 alternated between 1.0 and 2.0mg/kg amphetamine; and for a third group, treatment on day 3 was always 1.0mg/kg amphetamine. The patterns of food intake following day 1 saline and day 3 treatment were compared. Short-term food intake was abolished by 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0mg/kg amphetamine, and no tolerance was observed to this effect. Longer-term hypophagia was produced by 1.0 and 2.0 but not by 0.5mg/kg. Tolerance to longer-term hypophagia was seen when 1.0mg/kg alone was used as the day 3 treatment, but not when 1.0 and 2.0mg/kg were alternated across tests as the day 3 treatment. Short- and longer-term hypophagia were dissociated by threshold doses for elicitation and by differential tolerance. Occasional receipt of a higher amphetamine dose may sometimes increase the longer-term hypophagia produced by a lower dose.
    Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 12/2010; 97(2):384-91. DOI:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.09.008 · 2.82 Impact Factor
Show more