Marinete Pinheiro Carrera

Behavioral sensitization produced by a single administration of apomorphine: Implications for the role of Pavlovian conditioning in the mediation of context-specific sensitization

The present study examined the minimal number of exposures to the D1/D2 agonist apomorphine capable of producing behavioral sensitization. Rats received one (experiment 1) or two administrations on two successive days (experiment 2) of apomorphine (0.5 and 2.0 mg/kg) paired or unpaired to an open-field environment. After 2 days of drug withdrawal, the rats received a challenge injection with the same dose of apomorphine (sensitization test) and locomotion, rearing and sniffing were measured. The results of the first experiment showed that locomotor sensitization occurred after a single acute exposure to apomorphine and that 0.5 and 2.0 mg/kg treatments were equally effective. This sensitization effect was context-specific and was limited to locomotion. The second experiment revealed a differential dose effect on the sensitization test. Two treatments with 2.0 mg/kg potentiated locomotor sensitization as compared with a single treatment but two treatments with 0.5 mg/kg did not increase the sensitization effect more than the single 0.5 mg/kg treatment. This result indicates an interaction between drug dose and frequency of drug treatment for the induction of apomorphine locomotor sensitization. In that the sensitization effects are considered to be a core contributor to psychostimulant addiction, the present findings are of importance to understanding addiction because they indicate that sensitization processes can be initiated with a single drug experience and amplified with exposure to higher drug dosage levels.

Low dose apomorphine induces context-specific sensitization of hypolocomotion without conditioning: Support for a new state dependent retrieval hypothesis of drug conditioning and sensitization

High doses of apomorphine induce sensitization to locomotor stimulant effects whereas low doses induce locomotor inhibition. We examined whether repeated low dose apomorphine induced sensitization and conditioning to the locomotor inhibitory effect. Three doses of the D1/D2 agonist, apomorphine, were used in a Pavlovian conditioning protocol: 0.05 mg/kg (autoreceptor level), 0.5 and 2.0 mg/kg (post-synaptic level). Rats received 5 daily apomorphine treatments paired or unpaired to an open-field environment (conditioning phase) followed by a saline test (conditioning test) and an apomorphine challenge test (sensitization test). Locomotion was measured for 30 min. During the acquisition phase, the 0.05 mg/kg paired treatment decreased locomotion while the high dose paired treatments increased locomotion. The 0.05 mg/kg paired treatment did not induce conditioning but induced inhibitory locomotor sensitization. The post-synaptic paired treatments produced conditioned and sensitized locomotor stimulation. For the low dose results, we propose an expanded contextual stimulus, which includes interoceptive drug cues. In the sensitization test, the same interoceptive drug cues and test environment cues are present as those during acquisition. In the conditioning test, normative dopaminergic activity is present which generates internal cues that may or may not generalize to the drug-induced cues and, permit or prevent retrieval of conditioning.

Behavioral sensitization to dopaminergic inhibitory and stimulatory effects induced by low vs. high dose apomorphine treatments: An unconventional dose and response reversal sensitization challenge test reveals sensitization mechanisms

Low dose apomorphine treatments preferentially activate dopamine autoreceptors and inhibit dopamine neurons as well as behavior. In contrast, high doses of apomorphine induce locomotor stimulation by activating dopamine postsynaptic receptors. We compared the effects of low (0.05 mg/kg) vs. high (2.0 mg/kg) repeated apomorphine treatments (5) using paired/unpaired protocols upon the development of Pavlovian conditioned drug responses and upon drug sensitization effects. In addition to the conventional challenge test for sensitization, we also conducted a treatment reversal sensitization test in which low dose groups received the high dose treatment and vice versa. The high dose treatment produced the expected Pavlovian conditioned locomotor stimulant response as well as a sensitization effect in the high dose challenge test; but in the low dose challenge test, the effect was desensitization. The low dose apomorphine regimen induced an inhibitory sensitization effect in the low dose challenge test. In the high dose reversal challenge test, there was a sensitization effect to the locomotor stimulant effect. The low dose apomorphine treatments, however, did not produce a Pavlovian conditioned locomotor inhibitory effect. Surprisingly, the dose reversal challenge test revealed context-independent as well as context-specific sensitization/desensitization effects. These findings demonstrate that Pavlovian drug conditioned effects and drug sensitization effects are independent phenomena and that sensitization effects are not response specific. Moreover, context-specific vs. context-independent sensitization effects were protocol dependent but not drug dose dependent.

Apomorphine conditioning and sensitization: the paired/unpaired treatment order as a new major determinant of drug conditioned and sensitization effects.

Repeated treatments with psychostimulant drugs generate behavioral sensitization. In the present study we employed a paired/unpaired protocol to assess the effects of repeated apomorphine (2.0 mg/kg) treatments upon locomotion behavior. In the first experiment we assessed the effects of conditioning upon apomorphine sensitization. Neither the extinction of the conditioned response nor a counter-conditioning procedure in which we paired an inhibitory treatment (apomorphine 0.05 mg/kg) with the previously established conditioned stimulus modified the sensitization response. In the second experiment, we administered the paired/unpaired protocol in two phases. In the second phase, we reversed the paired/unpaired protocol. Following the first phase, the paired group alone exhibited conditioned locomotion in the vehicle test and a sensitization response. In the second phase, the initial unpaired group which received 5 paired apomorphine trials during the reversal phase did not develop a conditioned response but developed a potentiated sensitization response. This disassociation of the conditioned response from the sensitization response is attributed to an apomorphine anti-habituation effect that can generate a false positive Pavlovian conditioned response effect. The potentiated sensitization response induced by the treatment reversal protocol points to an important role for the sequential experience of the paired/unpaired protocol in behavioral sensitization.

Conditioned locomotion induced by unilateral intrastriatal administration of Apomorphine : D2 receptor activation is critical but not the expression of the unconditioned response

The present study examined the role of D(1) and D(2) receptors in the conditioning of apomorphine-induced locomotor behavior. A Pavlovian conditioning protocol was used in which rats received 5 daily intrastriatal apomorphine treatments paired or unpaired to an open-field environment followed, 2 days later, by a saline test for conditioning. In the conditioning induction phase, the intrastriatal apomorphine treatment increased locomotor activity expressed as an increased number of sectional crossings and rearings. In the conditioning test, the apomorphine-paired group had significantly higher locomotor activity than the unpaired and vehicle groups, consistent with the development of a conditioned locomotor response. The concomitant blockade of D(1) and D(2) receptors with D(1) (SCH23390) and D(2) (sulpiride) antagonists prevented the apomorphine-induced behavioral response during the induction phase and in the conditioning test. Pretreatment with the D(1) antagonist SCH 23390 also blocked the apomorphine-induced behavioral response during the induction phase but did not block the apomorphine conditioned response. Pretreatment with the selective D(2) antagonist sulpiride blocked the apomorphine behavioral response during the induction phase and in the conditioning test. Altogether, these results indicate that antagonism of either the D(1) or D(2) receptors in the dorsal striatum can block apomorphine-induced locomotor activation but that D(2) but not D(1) antagonism can prevent the development of the apomorphine conditioned response. Altogether, these findings indicate a key role for the D(2) receptor site in the mediation of apomorphine conditioned behavior; and, in addition, that apomorphine conditioned locomotor response can develop without the expression of the locomotor stimulant response during the induction phase of conditioning.

Reversal of apomorphine locomotor sensitization by a single post-conditioning trial treatment with a low autoreceptor dose of apomorphine: A memory re-consolidation approach

Sensitization is a common feature of psychostimulants and sensitization effects are generally considered to be linked to the addictive properties of these drugs. We used a conventional paired/unpaired Pavlovian protocol to induce a context specific sensitization to the locomotor stimulant effect of a high dose of apomorphine (2.0mg/kg). Two days following a 5 session sensitization induction phase, a brief 5min non-drug test for conditioning was conducted. Only the paired groups exhibited locomotor stimulant conditioned response effects. Immediately following this brief test for conditioning, the paired and the unpaired groups received injections of 0.05mg/kg apomorphine, 2.0mg/kg apomorphine or vehicle designed to differentially impact memory re-consolidation of the conditioning. Two days later, all groups received a sensitization challenge test with 2.0mg/kg apomorphine. The 2.0mg/kg apomorphine post-trial treatment potentiated sensitization while the 0.05mg/kg eliminated sensitization. These effects were only observed in the paired groups. The activation of dopaminergic systems by the high dose of apomorphine strengthened the drug/environment association whereas the inhibition of dopamine activity by the low auto-receptor dose eliminated this association. The results point to the importance of conditioning to context specific sensitization and targeting memory re-consolidation of conditioning as a paradigm to modify sensitization.

The expression of locomotor sensitization to apomorphine is dependent on time interval between injection and testing

This study examined the onset of locomotor sensitization induced by apomorphine as a function of the temporal delay between drug injection and testing. In experiment 1, rats received three daily administrations of 2.0 mg/kg apomorphine or vehicle either immediately (0 min) or 20 min before being placed into the test environment for 20 min test sessions. Apomorphine given immediately before testing induced a stimulant effect during the first session and sensitization by the second session. However, when testing was delayed 20 min, apomorphine induced stimulant effects only after the third injection. In experiment 2, separate groups received a single 2.0 (mg/kg) apomorphine/vehicle injection immediately before being placed into the test environment for 60 min. In this experiment, apomorphine induced a stimulant effect at 0-20 and 20-40 min. However, the 20-40 interval increase in locomotion was relative to the low level of activity in the vehicle group and was not greater than the 0-20 min locomotion of the vehicle group. Thus, sensitization depends both on peak drug concentration and habituation state of the control group. The variable post-injection delays could be a useful method to study sensitization because it can avoid ceiling effects and changing baselines in the control groups.

Opposite effects of low versus high dose haloperidol treatments on spontaneous and apomorphine induced motor behavior: evidence that at a very low dose haloperidol acts as an indirect dopamine agonist.

Anti-psychotic drugs are antagonists at the dopamine D2 receptors and repeated administration can lead to the development of dopamine receptor supersensitivity. In two experiments, separate groups of rats were administered 10 daily low or high doses of the typical anti-psychotic drug haloperidol (0.03 or 1.0 mg/kg). The high dose decreased locomotion whereas, the low dose increased locomotion. After 5 days of withdrawal, all groups received 2.0 mg/kg apomorphine on 5 successive days. The apomorphine treatments given to the vehicle group generated a progressive locomotion sensitization effect and this effect was potentiated by pre-exposure to 0.03 mg/kg haloperidol. Initially, the prior high dose of haloperidol exaggerated the apomorphine locomotor stimulant effect but with repeated apomorphine treatments desensitization developed. Following a 5-day withdrawal period an apomorphine challenge test was conducted and apomorphine sensitization was absent in the haloperidol high dose pre-exposure group but potentiated in the low dose pre-exposure group. In the second replication experiment a conditioning test instead of a sensitization challenge test was conducted 5 days after completion of the 5-day apomorphine treatment protocol. The repeated apomorphine treatments induced conditioned hyper- locomotion and this conditioned effect was prevented by the prior high dose haloperidol pre-exposure but enhanced by the prior low dose haloperidol pre-exposure. Two new key findings are (a) that a low dose haloperidol regimen can function as a dopamine agonist and these effects persist after withdrawal and (b) that repeated apomorphine treatments can desensitize D2 receptors previously sensitized by a high dose haloperidol treatment regimen.

Post-trial apomorphine at an autoreceptor dose level can eliminate apomorphine conditioning and sensitization: Support for the critical role of dopamine in re-consolidation

Re-exposure to conditioned drug stimuli triggers re-consolidation processes. In the present study post-trial apomorphine treatments were administered in order to interact with the re-consolidation of an apomorphine conditioned/sensitized locomotor response. A low (0.05 mg/kg) and a high (2.0mg/kg) dose were used to inhibit or to enhance dopamine activity, respectively. Initially, groups received 5 daily apomorphine (2.0mg/kg)/vehicle treatments either paired or unpaired to open-field placement. The paired treatments generated a progressive locomotor response. Subsequently, all groups received a 5 min non-drug test for conditioning and a conditioned locomotor response was observed in the paired group. The groups received another apomorphine (2.0mg/kg)/vehicle treatment as a re-induction treatment. At this stage the post-trial protocol was initiated. One set of paired, unpaired and vehicle groups were given a low dose of apomorphine (0.05 mg/kg) post-trial; another set received a high dose of apomorphine (2.0mg/kg) post-trial. The remaining group set received vehicle post-trial. The low dose post-trial treatment eliminated the conditioned and sensitized locomotor response and the high dose post-trial treatment enhanced the conditioned and sensitized locomotor response. The efficacy of the post-trial apomorphine treatments to modify the conditioned and the sensitized response after a brief non-drug exposure to test cues supports the proposition that exteroceptive cues control conditioning and sensitization and that the interoceptive drug cues make little or no associational contribution to apomorphine conditioning and sensitization. In addition, the findings point to the importance of dopamine activation in both the acquisition and re-consolidation of conditioning processes.

Drug conditioning induced by intrastriatal apomorphine administration

The present study examined (1) whether the neostriatum is involved in a drug-induced conditioned locomotor response and; (2) whether this structure participates in the development of behavioral sensitization. Moreover, the present study addressed the question whether the development of behavioral sensitization is necessary for the induction of conditioning. Rats received injections of either apomorphine (2 microg) or vehicle (solution of 0.1% ascorbate/saline) into the dorsal neostriatum daily for 7 days. These treatments were performed immediately prior to (apomorphine-paired group and vehicle group) or 30 min following (apomorphine-unpaired group) 10-min placement in an open field which served as the test environment. After a 3-day drug withdrawal period, the animals were given a 10-min non-drug vehicle test trial in the test environment. Three days later, a drug test with apomorphine was administered to the animals of the paired and unpaired treatment groups; the vehicle group again received an injection of vehicle. The analysis of locomotor activity in the open field (measured as the distance traversed) revealed that locomotor activity in the apomorphine-paired group was higher than in the other groups. There were no indications for behavioral sensitization to intrastriatal apomorphine, since the locomotor response in the apomorphine-paired group did not increase, but rather decreased with daily repeated injections of apomorphine. Furthermore, only the apomorphine-paired animals showed a higher locomotor response when tested after an intrastriatal injection of vehicle in the previously apomorphine-paired environment, which is indicative of a conditioned drug effect. These results suggest that the neostriatum is directly involved in the development of drug-induced conditioning of locomotor behavior but not in the establishment of behavioral sensitization.