Lipopolysaccharide, central in vivo biogenic amine variations, and anhedonia
Lipopolysaccharide, central in vivo biogenic amine variations, and anhedonia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00001756-199812010-00006
复制
发表时间：
1998-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Anisman, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Borowski, T;Kokkinidis, E;Anisman, H
内毒素是一种从巨噬细胞释放促炎细胞因子的非特异性激活剂，全身给药会引起以食欲减退、安眠效应、运动活动和探索障碍为特征的疾病。此外，内毒素治疗可能会引发非享乐性反应。然而，在食欲范例中对快感缺乏症的评估受到了由治疗评估的厌食症引发的最新调查的影响。内毒素对刺激下丘脑性快感效应的奖赏作用。用同步判别电流滴定方法评价颅内自刺激(ICSS)，发现急性全身注射脂多糖(50、100或200 mU g)可降低ICSS，但对一系列下行电流的反应影响不大。在一项平行的实验中，外周注射脂多糖(100毫克)增加了体内伏隔核多巴胺(DA)的外流，该区域被认为参与了对积极强化刺激的目标定向反应。提示内毒素改变ICSS的方式不同于应激源暴露或外周IL-2治疗后观察到的改变。此外，内毒素可能会产生一种非享乐效应(可能继发于疾病)，反应的下降反映了面对疾病时给予反应的成本与因反应而获得的奖励之间的关系。神经报告9：3797-3802(C)1998 Lippincott Williams&Wilkins.
SYSTEMIC administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a non-specific activator of proinflammatory cytokine release from macrophages, provokes sickness characterized by anorexia, soporific effects, and disturbances of locomotor activity and exploration. In addition, endotoxin treatment may provoke an anhedonic response. Assessment of anhedonia in appetitive paradigms, however, is compromised by the anorexia provoked resent investigation assessed by the treatment. The LPS on rewarding lateral the anhedonic effects hypothalamic brain stimulation. Using a simultaneous discrimination, current titration procedure in the assessment of intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS), it was found that acute systemic administration of LPS (50 mu g, 100 mu g or 200 mu g) reduced ICSS during the ascending sequence of current presentations, but had little effect on responding to a series of descending currents. In a parallel experiment, peripheral administration of LPS (100 mu g) increased in vivo dopamine (DA) efflux from the nucleus accumbens, a region thought to be involved in goal-directed responding to positively reinforcing stimuli. It is suggested that LPS alters ICSS in a manner different than that observed following stressor exposure or peripheral IL-2 treatment. Furthermore, LPS may engender an anhedonic effect (possibly secondary to sickness), and the decline of responding reflects the relation between the cost of responding given in the face of sickness and the reward received for responding. NeuroReport 9: 3797-3802 (C) 1998 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.