Chloe J. Jordan

Understanding differences in neurotypical and autism spectrum special interests through Internet forums.

Special interests are frequently developed by individuals with autism spectrum disorder, expressed as an intense focus on specific topics. Neurotypical individuals also develop special interests, often in the form of hobbies. Although past research has focused on special interests held by children with autism spectrum disorder, little is known about their role in adulthood. The current study investigated differences in the content, number, and specificity of the special interests held by adult individuals with autism spectrum disorder and neurotypical individuals, using Internet discussion forums as a data source. Quantitative analysis of forum posts revealed significant differences between the diagnostic groups. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder reported having more interests in systemizing domains, more specific interests, and a greater number of interests overall than neurotypical individuals. Understanding special interests can lead to the development of educational and therapeutic programs that facilitate the acquirement of other important social and communication skills.

Performance on a strategy set shifting task during adolescence in a genetic model of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Methylphenidate vs. atomoxetine treatments

Research examining medication effects on set shifting in teens with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is lacking. An animal model of ADHD may be useful for exploring this gap. The spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) is a commonly used animal model of ADHD. SHR and two comparator strains, Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) and Wistar (WIS), were evaluated during adolescence in a strategy set shifting task under conditions of a 0s or 15s delay to reinforcer delivery. The task had three phases: initial discrimination, set shift and reversal learning. Under 0s delays, SHR performed as well as or better than WKY and WIS. Treatment with 0.3mg/kg/day atomoxetine had little effect, other than to modestly increase trials to criterion during set shifting in all strains. Under 15s delays, SHR had longer lever press reaction times, longer latencies to criterion and more trial omissions than WKY during set shifting and reversal learning. These deficits were not reduced systematically by 1.5mg/kg/day methylphenidate or 0.3mg/kg/day atomoxetine. Regarding learning in SHR, methylphenidate improved initial discrimination, whereas atomoxetine improved set shifting but disrupted initial discrimination. During reversal learning, both drugs were ineffective in SHR, and atomoxetine made reaction time and trial omissions greater in WKY. Overall, WIS performance differed from SHR or WKY, depending on phase. Collectively, a genetic model of ADHD in adolescent rats revealed that neither methylphenidate nor atomoxetine mitigated all deficits in SHR during the set shifting task. Thus, methylphenidate or atomoxetine monotherapy may not mitigate all set shift task-related deficits in teens with ADHD.

Cocaine-seeking behavior in a genetic model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following adolescent methylphenidate or atomoxetine treatments

BACKGROUND Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often comorbid with cocaine abuse. Controversy exists regarding long-term consequences of ADHD medications on cocaine abuse liability. Whereas childhood methylphenidate treatment may be preventative, methylphenidate in teens appears to further increase later cocaine abuse risk. In rodents, adolescent methylphenidate treatment further increases adult cocaine self-administration in the Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat (SHR) model of ADHD, whereas adolescent atomoxetine treatment does not. Effects of ADHD medications on cocaine cue reactivity, a critical component of addiction, are unknown. METHODS To investigate this, SHR, Wistar-Kyoto (inbred control) and Wistar (outbred control) rats received therapeutically relevant doses of methylphenidate (1.5 mg/kg, oral) and atomoxetine (0.3 mg/kg, intraperitoneal), or respective vehicles from post-natal day 28-55. Cocaine seeking, reflecting cue reactivity, was measured in adulthood during self-administration maintenance and cue-induced reinstatement tests conducted under a second-order schedule. RESULTS Compared to control strains, SHR earned more cocaine infusions, emitted more cocaine-seeking responses during maintenance and reinstatement testing, and required more sessions to reach the extinction criterion. Compared to vehicle, adolescent methylphenidate, but not atomoxetine, further increased cocaine intake during maintenance testing in SHR. Adolescent atomoxetine, but not methylphenidate, decreased cocaine seeking during reinstatement testing in SHR. Neither medication had effects on cocaine intake or cue reactivity in control strains. CONCLUSIONS The SHR successfully model ADHD and cocaine abuse comorbidity and show differential effects of adolescent ADHD medications on cocaine intake and cue reactivity during adulthood. Thus, SHR have heuristic value for assessing neurobiology underlying the ADHD phenotype and for evaluating pharmacotherapeutics for ADHD.

Adolescent Atomoxetine Treatment in a Rodent Model of ADHD: Effects on Cocaine Self-Administration and Dopamine Transporters in Frontostriatal Regions

Cocaine abuse and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are often comorbid. Preclinical research indicates that medial prefrontal (mPFC) and orbitofrontal (OFC) cortices are important neural substrates for both disorders. Using the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) model of ADHD, we reported that adolescent treatment with the stimulant methylphenidate, a dopamine (DAT) and norepinephrine (NET) transporter inhibitor, enhanced cocaine self-administration during adulthood, and was associated with increased DAT function in mPFC. This study investigates the effects of atomoxetine ((R)-N-methyl-γ-(2-methylphenoxy)-benzenepropanamine hydrochloride) treatment, a selective NET inhibitor, during adolescence on cocaine self-administration and on DAT function and cell-surface expression in mPFC and OFC during adulthood. SHR acquired cocaine self-administration faster than Wistar–Kyoto and Wistar. Across cocaine doses, SHR earned more cocaine infusions and had higher progressive-ratio breakpoints than Wistar–Kyoto and Wistar, demonstrating that the SHR phenotype models comorbid ADHD and cocaine abuse. Prior atomoxetine treatment did not augment cocaine self-administration in SHR, but acquisition was enhanced in Wistar–Kyoto. No strain differences were found for DAT kinetic parameters or cellular localization in the vehicle controls. Atomoxetine did not alter DAT kinetic parameters or localization in SHR mPFC. Rather, atomoxetine decreased Vmax and DAT cell surface expression in SHR OFC, indicating that inhibition of NET by atomoxetine treatment during adolescence indirectly reduced DAT function and trafficking to the cell surface in OFC, specifically in the ADHD model. Thus, atomoxetine, unlike methylphenidate, does not enhance vulnerability to cocaine abuse in SHR and may represent an important alternative for teens with ADHD when drug addiction is a concern.

Adolescent d-amphetamine treatment in a rodent model of ADHD: Pro-cognitive effects in adolescence without an impact on cocaine cue reactivity in adulthood

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is comorbid with cocaine abuse. Whereas initiating ADHD medication in childhood does not alter later cocaine abuse risk, initiating medication during adolescence may increase risk. Preclinical work in the Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat (SHR) model of ADHD found that adolescent methylphenidate increased cocaine self-administration in adulthood, suggesting a need to identify alternatively efficacious medications for teens with ADHD. We examined effects of adolescent d-amphetamine treatment on strategy set shifting performance during adolescence and on cocaine self-administration and reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior (cue reactivity) during adulthood in male SHR, Wistar-Kyoto (inbred control), and Wistar (outbred control) rats. During the set shift phase, adolescent SHR needed more trials and had a longer latency to reach criterion, made more regressive errors and trial omissions, and exhibited slower and more variable lever press reaction times. d-Amphetamine improved performance only in SHR by increasing choice accuracy and decreasing errors and latency to criterion. In adulthood, SHR self-administered more cocaine, made more cocaine-seeking responses, and took longer to extinguish lever responding than control strains. Adolescent d-amphetamine did not alter cocaine self-administration in adult rats of any strain, but reduced cocaine seeking during the first of seven reinstatement test sessions in adult SHR. These findings highlight utility of SHR in modeling cognitive dysfunction and comorbid cocaine abuse in ADHD. Unlike methylphenidate, d-amphetamine improved several aspects of flexible learning in adolescent SHR and did not increase cocaine intake or cue reactivity in adult SHR. Thus, adolescent d-amphetamine was superior to methylphenidate in this ADHD model.

Neural regulation of the time course for cocaine-cue extinction consolidation in rats

Sites within the hippocampus, amygdala and prefrontal cortex may regulate how responses maintained by cues associated with cocaine are extinguished. To test the role of various brain sites in the consolidation of cocaine‐cue extinction learning, the dorsal subiculum (dSUB), rostral basolateral amygdala (rBLA) and infralimbic prefrontal cortex (IL) were manipulated in rats. Following cocaine self‐administration training (cues present, cocaine available), responding was assessed during 1‐h extinction tests (cues present, no cocaine available). To study extinction consolidation specifically, the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin or vehicle was infused bilaterally into the dSUB, rBLA or IL either immediately following or 6 h after the first two of three extinction training sessions. With manipulations made immediately after extinction sessions, infusions of anisomycin into the dSUB or the rBLA deterred extinction. Rats maintained elevated levels of cocaine seeking relative to vehicle despite the absence of cocaine delivery. Manipulations of IL had no effect. Control studies showed that bilateral protein synthesis inhibition in dSUB and rBLA 6 h after the extinction sessions ended was unable to deter extinction. Rats reduced cocaine seeking in the usual manner in the absence of cocaine delivery. Collectively, these findings suggest that the dSUB and rBLA are neural substrates important for consolidation of cocaine‐cue extinction learning and have time‐dependent roles. Understanding the contribution of individual neural substrates for cocaine‐cue extinction consolidation may help guide treatment strategies aimed at enhancing cue exposure therapy in cocaine‐dependent people.