Studies on the regulation of sensitivity to the narcotic cue

Drug discrimination learning: Interoceptive stimulus control of behavior and its implications for regulated and dysregulated drug intake

Drug discrimination research has generated rich evidence for the capacity of interoceptive drug stimuli to control behavior by serving as discriminative cues. Owing to its neuropharmacological specificity, drug discrimination learning has been widely used to characterize the stimulus effects and neuropharmacological underpinning of drugs. Apart from such utility, discriminative drug stimuli may help regulate drug use by disambiguating conditioned associations and post-intake outcomes. First, this review summarizes the evidence supporting interoceptive regulation of drug intake from the literature of exteroceptive discriminative control of drug-related behavior, effects of drug priming, and self-titration of drug intake. Second, an overview of interoceptive control of reward-seeking and the animal model of discriminated goal-tracking is provided to illustrate interoceptive stimulus control of the initiation and patterning of drug intake. Third, we highlight the importance of interoceptive control of aversion-avoidance in the termination of drug-use episodes and describe the animal model of discriminated taste avoidance that supports such a position. In bridging these discriminative functions of drug stimuli, we propose that interoceptive drug stimuli help regulate intake by disambiguating whether intake will be rewarding, nonrewarding, or aversive. The reflection and discussion on current theoretical formulations of interoceptive control of drug intake may further scientific advances to improve animal models to study the mechanisms by which interoceptive stimuli regulate drug intake, as well as how alterations of interoceptive processes may contribute to the transition to dysregulated drug use.

Drug discrimination in neurobiology

Areas of neurobiological interest are identified towards which drug discrimination (DD) studies have made important contributions. DD allows ligand actions to be analyzed at the whole organism level, with a neurobiological specificity that is exquisite and often unrivalled. DD analyses have thus been made of a vast array of CNS agents acting on receptors, enzymes, or ion channels, including most drugs of abuse. DD uniquely offers access to the study of subjective drug effects in animals, using a methodology that also is transposable to humans and has generated unprecedented models of pathology (e.g., chronic pain, opiate addiction). Parametric studies of such independent variables as training dose and reinforcement provide refined insights into the dynamic psychophysiological mechanisms of both drug effects and behavior. Three different mechanisms have been identified by which discriminative, and perhaps other behaviors, can come about. DD also is superbly sensitive to small, partial activation of molecular substrates; this has enabled DD analyses to pioneer the unravelling of molecular mechanisms of drug action (attributing, f.ex., LSD's particular subjective effects to an unusual, partial activation of 5-HT, and perhaps other receptors). DD has both oriented and served as a tool to conduct drug discovery research (e.g., pirenperone-risperidone, loperamide). The DD response arguably constitutes a quantal, rather than graded, variable, and as such allows a comprehension of molecular, pharmacological, and behavioral mechanisms that would have been otherwise inaccessible. Perhaps most important are the following further contributions. One is the notion that particular, different levels of receptor activation are associated with qualities of neurobiological actions that also differ and are unique, this notion arguably constituting the most significant addition to affinity and intrinsic activity since the earliest theoretical conceptions of molecular pharmacology. Another contribution consists of studies that render redundant the notion of tolerance and identify fundamental mechanisms of signal transduction; these mechanisms account for apparent tolerance, dependence, addiction, and sensitization, and appear to operate ubiquitously in a bewildering array of biological systems.

The role of dopamine in drug abuse viewed from the perspective of its role in motivation

Drugs of abuse share with conventional reinforcers the activation of specific neural pathways in the CNS that are the substrate of their motivational properties. Dopamine is recognized as the transmitter of one such neural pathway, being involved in at least three major aspects of motivation: modulation of motivational state, acquisition (incentive learning) and expression of incentive properties by motivational stimuli. Drugs of abuse of different pharmacological classes stimulate in the low dose range dopamine transmission particularly in the ventral striatum. Apart from psychostimulants, the evidence that stimulation of dopamine transmission by drugs of abuse provides the primary motivational stimulus for drug self-administration is either unconvincing or negative. However, stimulation of dopamine transmission is essential for the activational properties of drugs of abuse and might be instrumental for the acquisition of responding to drug-related incentive stimuli (incentive learning). Dopamine is involved in the induction and in the expression of behavioural sensitization by repeated exposure to various drugs of abuse. Sensitization to the dopamine-stimulant properties of specific drug classes leading to facilitation of incentive learning of drug-related stimuli might account for the strong control over behaviour exerted by these stimuli in the addiction state. Withdrawal from drugs of abuse results in a reduction in basal dopamine transmission in vivo and in reduced responding for conventional reinforcers. Although these changes are likely to be the expression of a state of dependence of the dopamine system their contribution to the motivational state of drug addiction is unclear.

An investigation into the discriminative stimulus and reinforcing properties of the CCKB-receptor antagonist, L-365,260 in rats

The discriminative stimulus properties of the selective CCKB-receptor antagonist, L-365,260 were evaluated in rats trained to discriminate diazepam (2 mg/kg) or morphine (5 mg/kg) from vehicle, using a two-lever food reinforced technique. In the diazepam drug discrimination, the benzodiazepine-receptor agonist FG8205 (0.063-2 mg/kg) produced dose-related drug associated responding, whereas L-365,260 (0.125-4 mg/kg) treated animals showed vehicle appropriate behaviour. In rats trained to discriminate morphine from saline, L-365,260 (0.063-4 mg/kg) produced saline lever responding. When a dose of 1 mg/kg L-365,260 was administered in combination with morphine, the dose response curve for drug lever responding was not significantly affected. This was in contrast to the effect produced by the opiate antagonist naloxone (0.3 mg/kg) which shifted the dose-response curve to the right. Another group of rats underwent training to discriminate a dose of 6 mg/kg L-365,260 from vehicle. None of the animals learned the discrimination within 50 daily training sessions. In addition, unlike morphine (3 mg/kg), or changing the training dose of cocaine, intravenous administration of L-365,260 (0.3-10 mg/kg) did not modify lever pressing or the number of injections received by rats trained to self administer cocaine (0.25 mg/injection). L-365,260 (0.1-3 mg/kg) produced a dose-related inhibition of pentagastrin-stimulated gastric acid secretion in vivo. When administered dissolved in a mixture of ethanol/propylene glycol/saline, the ID50 was 0.83 mg/kg, and when suspended in an ethanol/carboxymethylcellulose vehicle, it was 0.7 mg/kg. It was concluded: 1) that L-365,260 does not produce discriminative stimuli similar to either diazepam or morphine; 2) that the potentiation of morphine-induced behaviour by L-365,260 does not extend to the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine; 3) that L-365,260 itself does not produce readily discriminable interoceptive stimuli in rats; and 4) that L-365,260 does not substitute for the reinforcing drug cocaine.

Tolerance, withdrawal, and supersensitivity to dopamine mediated cues in a drug-drug discrimination

Rats were trained to discriminate between 0.25 mg/kg amphetamine (AMPH) and 0.03 mg/kg haloperidol (HAL) in a two-lever drug discrimination task. In order to test for a drug-induced withdrawal state, animals were assigned to one of three chronic treatment groups and given injections of AMPH, HAL, or distilled water (DW) for 10 consecutive days. Subjects from each treatment condition were then tested at 24, 48, or 72 h after the final injection. At the 24 h retest interval, subjects injected with AMPH responded as though administered an acute dose of HAL (0.028 mg/kg) and subjects injected with chronic HAL responded as though administered an acute dose of AMPH (0.15 mg/kg). By 72 h choice behavior had returned to pretreatment values. To determine whether the rebound observed after 10 days of drug treatment was present after a single injection, independent groups of subjects were injected with single doses of either 10 mg/kg AMPH or 1.0 mg/kg HAL and then retested from 4 h to 48 h later. Single doses of both AMPH and HAL produced significant rebounds that peaked between 20 h (AMPH) and 24 h (HAL) following administration. In a third experiment, animals were tested with or without acute doses of drug following pretreatment with either HAL or AMPH. Receptor supersensitivity accounts for the tolerance observed to HAL 24 h after treatment with 1.0 mg/kg HAL, whereas receptor subsensitivity accounts for the tolerance observed 20 h after treatment with 10 mg/kg AMPH.

Substitution and cross-tolerance profiles of anorectic drugs in rats trained to detect the discriminative stimulus properties of cocaine

Rats were trained to discriminate cocaine, 10.0 mg/kg, using a two-lever operant procedure. Dose-effect data were determined for the substitution of cocaine, diethylpropion, methylphenidate, phenmetrazine, phentermine, and fenfluramine for the cocaine stimulus. All of these drugs, except fenfluramine, substituted fully for the cocaine stimulus. Subsequently, training was halted and cocaine, 20 mg/kg/8 h, was administered for 9 days, and dose-effect data were redetermined for all of these drugs on days 7-9 of chronic administration. Chronic administration of cocaine produced tolerance to the stimulus properties of cocaine, and cross-tolerance to the stimulus properties of methylphenidate, phenmetrazine, and phentermine, such that doses approximately two-fold higher than those used acutely were necessary to reproduce the original effect; the potency for the substitution of diethylpropion for the cocaine stimulus was decreased greater than four-fold; and fenfluramine still failed to substitute for the cocaine stimulus. These data suggest that 1) a common mechanism may mediate tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of cocaine, methylphenidate, phenmetrazine, and phentermine, and 2) tolerance in the drug discrimination procedure may have potential for establishing a comprehensive evaluation of dependence liability of CNS stimulants.

Environmental modification of tolerance to morphine discriminative stimulus properties in rats

The development of tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine was examined in rats trained to discriminate saline and 3.2 mg/kg morphine under a multiple timeout 15 min, 5 min fixed-ratio 30 schedule of food delivery. Generalization gradients were generated by administering increasing doses of morphine before successive timeout periods within the experimental session. Over the course of the study, the minimal discriminable dose (MDD) of morphine under control conditions fluctuated but did not systematically increase or decrease. Acute pretreatments of 3.2-17.8 mg/kg morphine 4-24 h before a generalization test resulted in minor changes in the MDD. To examine development of tolerance, supplemental doses of morphine (17.8 mg/kg) or saline were administered twice daily while discrimination training was either suspended or continued. Tolerance was assessed by weekly generalization tests. Greater tolerance developed to the morphine stimulus when training was suspended than when training was continued. For both training conditions, response rates during generalization tests were markedly suppressed during supplemental morphine administration, and original generalization gradients were recaptured within 2 weeks after termination of supplemental morphine administration. Supplemental saline administration did not alter the discriminative or rate-altering effects of morphine under either training condition. Thus, the magnitude of tolerance to a morphine discriminative stimulus reflected an interaction of supplemental drug treatment with the training conditions imposed during that treatment.

Drug discrimination in rats: evidence for amphetamine-like cue state following chronic haloperidol

Two groups of male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate which of two levers to press for milk reinforcement on a VI-20 sec schedule of reinforcement on the basis of whether they were injected intraperitoneally with d-amphetamine (0.50 mg/kg or 1.50 mg/kg) or saline 15 min prior to daily 30 min training sessions. Following acquisition of the discrimination, dose-response functions were generated for both training-dose groups during 5 min test sessions. All subjects were then injected with 1.0 mg/kg of haloperidol for ten consecutive days and retested on either saline or intermediate doses of amphetamine on days 1, 2, 4 and 7 following the final haloperidol injection. The results indicated that chronic haloperidol enhanced the discriminative stimulus properties of amphetamine in both training groups. More importantly, when tested on saline, subjects in both training groups made significantly more responses on the d-amphetamine lever than observed prior to chronic haloperidol. On the basis of linear regression analysis of the dose-response curves it was shown that rats in both groups responded as though they had been injected with 0.18 mg/kg of d-amphetamine. In a second experiment this increase in amphetamine-lever responding when animals were tested with saline following chronic haloperidol was replicated and in addition it was observed that chronic amphetamine had the opposite effect on this measure.

Acute tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine

Two pigeons were trained to discriminate intramuscular injections of 1.0 mg/kg morphine from water by presenting food after keypeck responses on one key when morphine was administered and after responses on a second key when water was administered. Following training, close to 100% of responses occurred on the appropriate key following administration of 1.0 mg/kg morphine or water. Morphine (0.1-5.6 mg/kg) produced dose-dependent increases in the percentage of morphine-appropriate responses (discriminative stimulus properties) and decreases in the rate of responding. A shift to the right of the morphine dose-effect curve for the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine resulted from a single injection of morphine (10.0 mg/kg) 24 hrs prior to testing (i.e., acute tolerance) but not from a single injection of pentobarbital (17.0 mg/kg). Tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of morphine was reversible within five days of the single injection. Tolerance did not develop to the effects of morphine on response rate. Naloxone antagonized both the discriminative stimulus properties and the response rate-decreasing effects of morphine. Thus, a single administration of morphine can alter morphine discriminability without affecting other aspects of behavior.