Rodentlerde nikotine gelişen duyarlılıkta türe bağlı farklılıklar

Bu çalışmada, nikotinin farelerde ve sıçanlarda akut lokomotor (LM) etkisinde ve tekrarlayan dozları sonucu gelişen LM duyarlılıkta türe bağlı farklılıkların incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Çalışmada yetişkin, erkek Swiss-Webster fareler ve Wistar sıçanlar kullanıldı. Deneklere nikotin (1 mg/kg) yada salin (kontrol gurubu), intraperitoneal olarak enjekte edildi ve hemen ardından, 5 dakikalık periyotlarla, toplam 30 dk LM aktiviteleri ölçüldü. Enjeksiyonlara arka arkaya 5 gün devam edildi. Sonuçlar: Nikotin (1 mg/kg) ilk gün uygulamada, hem farelerde hem de sıçanlarda 30 dakikalık toplam LM aktivite üzerine anlamlı etki oluşturmadı. Beşer dakikalık ölçüm intevallerinde ise sadece sıçanlarda nikotin grubunda anlamlı fark saptandı. Uygulamanın 5. gününde 30 dakikalık LM aktivite, sadece sıçanlarda, nikotin (1 mg/kg) alan gurupta, hem kontrol gurubuna hem de ilk güne göre istatistikçe anlamlı ölçüde arttı. Bu artış beşer dakikalık aralıklı ölçümlerde de anlamlı düzeydeydi. Değerlendirme: Fare ve sıçanlara aynı doz ve protokolde nikotin verilmesi sadece sıçanlarda duyarlılaşmaya yol açmıştır. Bulgularımız rodentlerde nikotine duyarlılaşma gelişmesinde türe bağlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermektedir.

Strain dependent differences between rodents in nicotine-induced locomotor sensitization

Object: In the present study, strain dependent differences between mice and rats were investigated in the acute locomotor (LM) effect of nicotine, and LM sensitization produced by repeated administration of nicotine. Method: Adult male Swiss-Webster mice and Wistar rats were subjects. Nicotine (1 mg/kg) or saline (control group) were injected to mice or rats intraperitoneally, and LM activities were recorded immediately by intervals of 5 min for total 30 min. Nicotine and saline injections were lasted once a day for 5 days repeatedly. Results: Nicotine (1 mg/kg) had no significant effect on total LM activity (30 min) of both mice and rats at the first injection. When the data were analyzed by 5 min intervals, a significant increase in LM activity was only determined in rats treated with nicotine. On the 5th day, only the LM activity (30 min) of nicotine treated rats was increased significantly compared to both control (saline treated) group and the 1st day of the same group. That increase was also significant in 5 min intervals of LM activity. Discussion: Nicotine administration to mice and rats by the same protocol resulted in sensitization only in rats. Results showed that sensitization development to nicotine in rodents has strain dependent variations.

PDF

___

1. Uzbay, İ.T.; “İlaç Bağımlılığı ve Suistimali” Farmakoloji Ders Kitabı, Bölüm 12.5, Eds: Bökesoy, T.A., Çakıcı, İ., Melli, M., Ankara, Gazi Kitabevi Ltd., 2000, 659-670.
2. Wise, R.A., Bozarth, M.A.; “A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction.”, Psychol Rev 1987; 94:469-492.
3. Hollister, L.; “Drugs of abuse”, Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 3rd Edition. Ed: Katzung, B.G., Connecticut: Appleton & Lange Medical Publications, 1987, 353.
4. Çelik, T., Zağlı, Ü., Kayır, H., Uzbay, İ.T.; “Nitric oxide synthase inhibition blocks amphetamine-induced locomotor activity in mice.”, Drug Alcohol Depend 1999; 56: 109-113.
5. Garrett, B.E., Holtzman, S.G.; “D1 and D2 dopamine receptor antagonists block caffeine-induced stimulation of locomotor activity in rats.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1994; 47:89-94.
6. Karler, R., Calder, L.D.; “Excitatory amino acids and the actions of cocaine.”, Brain Res 1992; 582: 143-146.
7. Lopez, F., Miller, L.G., Greenblatt, D.J., Paul, S.M., Shader, R.I.; “Low-Dose alprazolam augments motor activity in mice.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1988; 30: 511-513.
8. Phillips, T.J., Shen, E.H.; “Neurochemical bases of locomotion and ethanol stimulant effects.”, Int Rev Neurobiol 1996; 39: 243-82.
9. Kiianmaa, K., Tuomainen, P., Makova, N., Seppa, T., Mikkola, J.A., Petteri, P.T., Ahtee, L., Hyytia, P.; “The effects of nicotine on locomotor activity and dopamine overflow in the alcohol-preferring AA and alcohol-avoiding ANA rats.”, Eur J Pharmacol 2000; 407: 293-302.
10. Domino, E. F.; “Nicotine Induced Behavioral Locomotor Sensitization.”, Neuro- Psychopharmacol and Psychiatry 2000; 25: 59-71.
11. Itzhak, Y., Martin, J.L.; “Effects of cocaine, nicotine, dizlocipline and alcohol on mice locomotor activity: cocaine-alcohol cross-sensitization involves upregulation of striatal dopamine transporter binding sites.”, Brain Res 1999; 818: 204-211.
12. Stewart, J., Badiani, A.; “Tolerance and sensitization to the behavioral effects of drugs.”, Behav Pharmacol 1993; 4: 289-312.
13. Robinson, T.E., Berridge, K.C.; “The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: An incentive-sensitization view.”, Addiction 2000; 95(Suppl 2) : 91-117.
14. Hunt, W.A., Lands, W.E.M.; “A role for behavioral sensitization in uncontrolled ethanol intake.” Alcohol 1992; 9: 327-328.
15. Nesse, R.M. and Berridge K.C.; “Psychoactive drug use in evolutionary perspective.”, Science 1997; 278: 63-66.
16. Hakan, R.L., Ksir, C.J.; “Nicotine induced locomotor activity in rats: The role of Pavlovian conditioning.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1988; 29: 661-665.
17. Marks, M.J.,Stitzel, J.A., Collins, A.C.; “Genetic influences on nicotine responses.”; Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav 1988; 33: 667-678.
18. Kuribara, H.; “Does nicotine modify the psychotoxic effect of methamphetamine? Assessment in terms of locomotor sensitization in mice.”, J Toxicol Sci 1999; 24: 55-62.
19. Pelissier, A.L., Gantenbein, M., Bruguerolle, B.; “Nicotine-induced perturbations on heart rate, body temperature and locomotor activity daily rhythms in rats.”, J Pharm Pharmacol 1998; 50: 929-934.
20. Schaefer, G.J., Michael, R.P.; “Task-specific effects of nicotine in rats. Intracranial self-stimulation and locomotor activity”, Neuropharmacology 1986; 25: 125-131.
21. Goshima, Y., Miyamae, T., Nakamura, S., Miki, K., Kosaka, K., Misu, Y.; “Ventral tegmental injection of nicotine induces locomotor activity and L-DOPA release from nucleus accumbens.”, Eur J Pharmacol 1996; 309: 229-233.
22. Perkins, K.A.; “Individual variability in responses to nicotine.”, Behav Genet 1995; 25: 119-132.
23. Battig, K., Driscoll, P., Schlatter, J., Uster, H.J.; “Effects of nicotine on the exploratory locomotion patterns of female Roman high- and low-avoidance rats.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1976; 4: 435-439.
24. Booze, R.M., Welch, M.A., Wood, M.L., Billings, K.A., Apple, S.R., Mactutus, C.F.; “Behavioral sensitization following repeated intravenous nicotine administration: gender differences and gonadal hormones.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1999; 64: 827-839.
25. Bevins, R.A., Besheer, J.; “Individual differences in rat locomotor activity are diminished by nicotine through stimulation of central nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.”, Physiol Behav 2001; 72: 237-244.
26. Sziraki, L.M.N., Hashim, A., Sershen, H., Allen, D., Cooper, T., Czobor, P., Lajtha, A.; "Differences in nicotine-induced dopamine release and nicotine pharmacokinetics between Lewis and Fischer 344 rats.", Neurochem Res 2001; 26: 609-617.
27. Shim, I., Javaid, J.I., Wirtshafter, D., Jang, S.Y., Shin, K.H., Lee, H.J., Chung, Y.C., Chun, B.G.; “Nicotine-induced behavioral sensitization is associated with extracellular dopamine release and expression of c-Fos in the striatum and nucleus accumbens of the rat.”, Behav Brain Res 2001; 121: 137-147.
28. Pierce R.C., Kalivas P.W. “A circiutry model of the expression of behavioral sensitization to amphetamine-like psychostimulants.” Brain Res Rev 1997; 25: 192-216.
29. Mathieu-Kia, A.M., Pages, C., Besson, M.J.; “.Inducibility of c-Fos protein in visuo-motor system and limbic structures after acute and repeated administration of nicotine in the rat.”, Synapse 1998; 29: 343-354.
30. Freeman, G.B., Sherman, K.A., Gibson, G.E.; “Locomotor activity as a predictor of times and dosages for studies of nicotine'sneurochemical actions.”, Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1987; 26: 305-312.

ISSN: 1302-5570
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2000
Yayıncı: Galenos Yayınevi

Arşiv