A comparison of amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced locomotor activity in rats: evidence for qualitative differences in behavior
A comparison of amphetamine- and methamphetamine-induced locomotor activity in rats: evidence for qualitative differences in behavior
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00213-007-0923-8
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Gulley, Joshua M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hall, Darien A.;Stanis, Jessica J.;Gulley, Joshua M.
基本原理甲基苯丙胺（Methamphetamine，METH）是一种比苯丙胺（amphetamine，AMPH）更有效的精神兴奋剂，但很少有研究直接比较这些药物在低剂量、行为激活剂量下的作用，这些剂量往往不会产生集中的刻板印象。目的本研究的目的是比较AMPH或METH治疗对开放场地竞技场中运动活性的影响，材料和方法成年雄性大鼠给予AMPH或METH（0.5或1.0 mg/kg）5天，其中一半的大鼠在注射后期间呈现离散的突出刺激（S+）。停药3天后，连续几天给予3种不同的注射：生理盐水挑战，以评估条件反应，药物挑战，以评估致敏性，和交叉致敏试验，以相同剂量的药物，他们没有pretreated.Results在某些条件下，AMPH和METH是等效的激活自发活动。例外情况包括在急性和药物激发日以及交叉致敏试验中向大鼠提供S+。有没有一致的差异，由AMPH或甲基产生的致敏的幅度，和两种药物产生类似量的条件运动后，盐水injection.Conclusions我们已经发现了具体的条件下，甲基是更有效的比AMPH，但这项研究和其他使用更高剂量的这些药物是不一致的广义表征甲基作为一个更有效的精神兴奋剂。
Rationale Methamphetamine (METH) is typically characterized as a more potent psychostimulant than amphetamine (AMPH), but few studies have directly compared the effects of these drugs at low, behaviorally activating doses that tend not to produce focused stereotypy.Objective The objective of the study was to compare the effects of AMPH or METH treatment on locomotor activity in an open-field arena, focusing on their ability to produce conditioned locomotor activity, sensitization, and cross-sensitization.Materials and methods dult male rats were given AMPH or METH (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg) for 5 days, with half of the rats presented with discrete, salient stimuli (S+) during the postinjection period. After a 3-day withdrawal, they were given three different injections on successive days: a saline challenge to assess conditioned responding, a drug challenge to assess sensitization, and a cross-sensitization test to the same dose of the drug with which they were not pretreated.Results n certain conditions, AMPH and METH were equipotent at activating locomotor activity. The exceptions included when rats were presented with S+ on acute and drug challenge days and in tests of cross-sensitization. There were no consistent differences in the magnitude of sensitization produced by AMPH or METH, and both drugs produced similar amounts of conditioned locomotion after a saline injection.Conclusions We have found specific conditions where METH is more potent than AMPH, but this study and others that used higher doses of these drugs are not consistent with the generalized characterization of METH as a more potent psychostimulant.