Cn. Haile et Ta. Kosten, Differential effects of D1- and D2-like compounds on cocaine self-administration in Lewis and Fischer 344 inbred rats, J PHARM EXP, 299(2), 2001, pp. 509-518
Citations number
40
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
Genetic factors influence behavioral responses to cocaine as seen in compar
isons of Lewis and Fischer 344 inbred rats. Lewis rats have lower D2-like r
eceptor and Gi(alpha) levels in nucleus accumbens, an important area in beh
avioral responses to cocaine. This study assessed the effects of manipulati
ng D2- and D1 levels pharmacologically in these strains. Experiment 1 inves
tigated how the D2-like antagonist eticlopride (0.01-0.1 mg/kg), the D1-lik
e antagonist SCH 23390 (0.005-0.05 mg/kg), the D2/D3 agonist quinpirole (0.
001-0.1 mg/kg), and the partial D1 agonist SKF 38393 (0.1-10 mg/kg) affecte
d responding for food under a fixed ratio 15 schedule. Quinpirole disrupted
rates more readily in Lewis versus Fischer 344 rats. In experiment 2, the
effects of these agents on cocaine discrimination (10 mg/ kg) were examined
. Quinpirole substituted and SCH 23390-attenuated cocaine discrimination in
both strains. Doses of the drugs that did not disrupt responding in these
experiments were tested in cocaine self-administration in experiment 3. Coc
aine self-ad ministration (0.25-1.0 mg/kg) was increased by eticlopride (0.
03 mg/kg) in Lewis rats but had no effect in Fischer 344 rats, whereas SCH
23390 (0.01 mg/kg) led to greater increased cocaine self-administration in
Fischer 344 versus Lewis rats. The dopamine agonists had differential effec
ts on cocaine self-administration in the strains. Cocaine self-administrati
on was decreased in Lewis rats and increased in Fischer 344 rats by SKF 383
93 (1 mg/kg). These data show that manipulating D1- and D2-like receptor av
ailability has strain-selective effects on the reinforcing, but not discrim
inative stimulus, effects of cocaine that are predicted by inherent differe
nces in nucleus accumbens receptor populations.