Search

Sensation seeking is frequently observed among drug addicts. This behaviour has been modelled in non-primate animals as novelty seeking. We previously determined that novelty preference did not predict amphetamine-induced place conditioning but was positively correlated with the consumption of a low concentrated amphetamine solution. Here, we studied the relationship between novelty seeking and the vulnerability to rewarding and reinforcing effects of morphine. Wistar rats were selected according to their novelty preference. In this model, animals have free choice between a new compartment and a "familiar" compartment to which they were previously exposed during two 30-min sessions, 24 h apart. We measured oral morphine consumption when this drug was presented in tap water (25 or 50 mg/l) in free choice with water or when it was presented (50 mg/l) in a 5% (w/v) sucrose solution in free choice with a sucrose solution. The oral consumption of quinine was also measured. The rewarding effect of morphine (1.25 and 5 mg/kg; i.p.) was determined in a conditioned place preference paradigm. Whereas high and low novelty seekers did not differ in reactivity to the aversive taste of quinine, preference for novelty was associated with a greater oral morphine consumption as well as an increased conditioned place preference induced by the 5 mg/kg dose of morphine. The present results support the hypothesis that novelty preference predisposes to drug abuse.

Two lines of mice, previously selected for their sensitivity (BS) or their resistance (BR) to an anxiogenic benzodiazepine (BZ) receptor inverse agonist, methyl beta-carboline-3-carboxylate (beta-CCM), have recently been shown to present several differences in anxiety. In the present study, attempt was made to extend their behavioral profile in two situations classically used for testing antidepressant drugs. Reassessment of locomotor performance of these new populations confirmed that the motor activity of BR mice was lower than that of BS mice. In both the forced-swimming and the tail suspension tests, the immobility time of BS mice was significantly higher than that of BR mice. In the tail suspension test, two administrations of imipramine (30 mg/kg i.p., 5 h and 30 min before testing) significantly reduced the immobility time of BS mice but not of BR mice. From these data, it appears that BS mice are more "depressed" than BR mice. Thus, these selectively bred lines may represent potentially useful animal models to investigate behavioral, neurochemical and neuroendocrine correlates of antidepressant action.

We investigated whether the antidepressant tianeptine shares the dopamine uptake inhibitory properties of the chemically related antidepressant amineptine. Tianeptine dose dependently (5, 10, 20, 40 mg/kg IP) increased locomotor activity in mice. This stimulant effect (20 mg/kg IP) was dose dependently prevented not only by the D1 dopamine receptor antagonist SCH 23390 (7.5. 15, 30 microg/kg SC), but also by the D2 dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol (50, 100, 200 microg/kg IP), in contrast to that elicited by dopamine uptake inhibitors. Where the latter prevent dexamphetamine-induced (3 mg/kg SC) reversion of akinesia in mice pretreated with reserpine (4 mg/kg SC, 5 h before test), tianeptine (20 mg/kg IP, 30 min before test) did not. Tested up to a concentration of 10-4 M, tianeptine did neither inhibit the [3H]dopamine uptake into mouse striatal synaptosomes nor compete in vitro with the specific binding of [3H]WIN 35,428 at dopamine transporters from striatal membranes. Finally, in mice injected IV with a tracer dose of [3H]WIN 35,428 (1 microCi), the highest tested dose of tianeptine (40 mg/kg IP) did not reduce the specific binding of the radioligand to striatal dopamine transporters. It is concluded that the antidepressant effect of tianeptine does not depend upon a blockade of the neuronal dopamine transporter.

Prepronociceptin contains, in addition to nociceptin, other potentially excisable peptides which may have physiological significance. We have here considered NocII, a heptadecapeptide whose sequence lies immediately downstream of that of nociceptin in the precursor polypeptide, as well as NocIII which corresponds to NocII extended by a stretch of three arginine residues. When i.c.v.-administered in mice, NocII (10-10,000 ng) stimulated horizontal locomotor activity and decreased the latency to paw licking but neither to rearing nor escape jumping in the hot plate test (55 degrees C). When nociceptin (100 ng) and NocII (100 ng) were simultaneously intracerebroventricularly injected, each peptide produced its own effect without modifying the effect of the other. NocII was ineffective in the tail flick and writhing tests. NocIII (NocII-Arg-Arg-Arg) was inactive in all tests, even when assayed as long as 40 min following i.c.v. administration. The fact that NocII, but not its very close structural analogue NocII, is biologically active indicates that their may exist a specific receptor to NocII.

Both dexamphetamine and the pure dopamine reuptake inhibitor GBR 12783 elicit a stimulation of locomotion and increase swimming activity in the behavioral despair test in mice. The dopamine D1 dopamine receptor antagonist SCH 23390 dose dependently (7.5-30 micrograms/kg s.c.) antagonized the stimulant locomotor effect on both drugs but did not prevent their antiimmobility effect on the behavioral despair test. The D2 dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol dose dependently (12.5-50 micrograms/kg i.p.) antagonized the effects of dexamphetamine on both locomotor activity and behavioral despair test. By contrast, haloperidol inhibited the effects of GBR 12783 in the forced swimming test but not on locomotion. It is concluded that indirect dopamine agonists are effective on the behavioral despair test independently of a stimulation of locomotor activity. Their effects on the despair test depend on the stimulation of D2 but not D1 dopamine receptors.

Previously established dose-response curves indicated that modafinil 20-40 mg/kg i.p. elicited in mice an obvious stimulation of locomotor activity roughly similar to that induced by (+)amphetamine 2-4 mg/kg. The effects of various agents modifying dopamine transmission were compared on the locomotor response to both drugs. The preferential D2 dopamine receptor antagonist haloperidol 37.5-150 micrograms/kg i.p. suppressed the stimulant effect of (+)amphetamine in a dose dependent manner, but not that of modafinil. The D1 dopamine receptor antagonist SCH 23390 (7.5-30 micrograms/kg s.c.) reversed the (+)amphetamine but not the modafinil induced hyperactivity. The tyrosine hydroxylase inhibitor alpha-methyl-para-tyrosine (200 mg/kg) suppressed the hyperactivity induced by 4 mg/kg dexamphetamine but not that induced by 20 mg/kg modafinil. Associating L-DOPA 150 mg/kg and benserazide 37.5 mg/kg with (+)amphetamine 2 mg/kg resulted in stereotyped climbing behavior, that was not observed with modafinil 10-80 mg/kg. The profound akinesia induced by reserpine (4 mg/kg s.c.; 5 h before testing) was reversed by (+)amphetamine 2 mg/kg but not by modafinil 40 mg/kg. Finally, on synaptosomes prepared from mouse striata preloaded with [3H]dopamine, modafinil 10(-5) M did not increase the spontaneous [3H]dopamine release whereas (+)amphetamine, at the same concentration, doubled it. From all these differences between the two drugs, it is concluded that the mechanism underlying the modafinil induced stimulant locomotor effect differs completely from that of (+)amphetamine.

A continuous 8-day s.c. administration of morphine (450 microgram/kg/h) sensitized rats to the morphine-induced stimulation of locomotion (morphine test dose = 3 mg/kg, s.c.) but not to the acetorphan (5 mg/kg, i.v.)-induced stimulation of locomotion. On the other hand, a continuous 10-day intracerebroventricular infusion of the enkephalinase inhibitor, thiorphan (25 micrograms/rat/h), known to desensitize the acetorphan-induced stimulation of locomotion, also desensitized the morphine (3 mg/kg, s.c.)-induced stimulation of locomotion. The continuous 10-day, s.c. administration of morphine desensitized to the morphine (3 mg/kg, s.c.)-but not acetorphan (5 mg/kg, i.v.)-induced analgesia, as measured by the latency to jump from a hot plate (55 degrees C). On the other hand, the continuous 10-day intracerebroventricular infusion of thiorphan did not desensitize to morphine (3 mg/kg, s.c.)-induced analgesia. Thus, the chronic actions of morphine and thiorphan, according to the tested function, did not result in cross-sensitization (locomotion) or cross-tolerance (nociception). These differences could depend on the involvement of different opioid receptors (mu vs. delta) and/or on different functional organizations.

We considered the increase in latency for entering into a white-lightened compartment from a black one as an index of anxiety for Swiss albino mice. This has been validated with several reference anxiogenic drugs [pentylenetetrazole, yohimbine, dexamphetamine, and methyl-beta-carboline-3-carboxylate (beta-CCM)]. On this test, the effects of various indirect or direct dopamine (DA) agonists have been investigated, as well as the respective involvement of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors. Dexamphetamine, the specific DA uptake inhibitor 1-[2-(diphenylmethoxy)-ethyl]4-(3-phenyl propenyl)-piperazine (GBR 12783), and the mixed DA/norepinephrine uptake inhibitor N-[1-(2-benzo(b)thiophenyl)-cyclohexyl]piperidine (GK 13) dose dependently increased the entering latency. This effect was shared by the D2 DA agonist RU 24926. The partial agonist of D1 DA receptors SK&F38393 had a significant although moderate efficacy. Their association led at best to an additive synergy. The antagonist of D1 DA receptors SCH23390 shortened the entering latency. The anxiogenic effect of GBR 12783 was antagonized by haloperidol and SCH23390. It is concluded that an anxiogenic-like effect is linked to an increase in dopaminergic transmission involving both D1 and D2 dopamine receptors.

In the present study we report the effects of inhibitors of enkephalin-degrading peptidases on spontaneous locomotion in mice and the involvement of delta opioid receptors in these effects. Animals received intracerebroventricularly (i.c.v.) or intravenously (i.v.) enkephalinase inhibitors (thiorphan and acetorphan), aminopeptidase inhibitors (bestatin and carbaphethiol) or mixed peptidase inhibitors (kelatorphan). The i.c.v. co-administration of bestatin and thiorphan (50 micrograms + 50 micrograms) induced an increase in both the horizontal and vertical components of locomotion. A similar pattern was observed after the i.c.v. administration of kelatorphan (8.5-50 micrograms) or the i.v. co-administration of acetorphan and carbaphethiol (5 mg/kg + 10 mg/kg). The opiate antagonist naltrexone (1 mg/kg, s.c.) failed to reverse the excitolocomotor effects of kelatorphan or of bestatin and thiorphan and antagonized only partially the effects of acetorphan and carbaphethiol. Naloxone (2 mg/kg-10 mg/kg, s.c.) partially reversed the increase in locomotion elicited by bestatin and thiorphan. The pretreatment with the delta opioid antagonists ICI 154,129 (20 micrograms, i.c.v.) or ICI 174,864 (2-4 micrograms, i.c.v.) strongly decreased the effects of all the peptidase inhibitors we tested. These results suggest that endogenous enkephalins may control via delta opioid receptors the horizontal and vertical components of locomotor activity in mice.

The present study investigated the role of mu and delta opioid receptors in the control of the horizontal and vertical components of locomotion. Mice received intracerebroventricularly (i.c.v.) enkephalin analogs specific for either the mu or delta opioid receptors. The administration of the specific mu agonist [D-Ala2-NMePhe4-Gly5(ol)] enkephalin (DAGO) induced a dose-dependent increase in horizontal activity and a decrease in vertical activity. The specific delta agonist [D-Pen2,D-Pen5] enkephalin (DPDPE) increased both components of motor activity. The opiate antagonist naltrexone reversed the effects of DAGO, but did not influence the effects of DPDPE on motor activity. The pretreatment with the delta opiate antagonist ICI 154, 129 completely reversed the effects of DPDPE on locomotion but antagonized only partially the effects of DAGO on locomotion. These results indicate that the two components of locomotor activity--horizontal and vertical activity--are modulated differently by the stimulation of mu or delta opioid receptors.