A partial habituation method to test for anterograde and retrograde amnestic treatment effects: Evidence that antagonism of the NMDA receptor can induce anterograde but not retrograde amnestic effects.

BACKGROUND: A progressive decrease in spontaneous locomotion with repeated exposure to a novel environment has been assessed using both within and between-session measures. While both are well-established and reliable measurements, neither are useful alone as methods to concurrently assess treatment effects on acquisition and retention of habituation. NEW METHOD: We report a behavioral method that measures habituation by combining the within and between measurements of locomotion. We used a 30 min session divided into 6 five min blocks. In the first novel environment session activity was maximal in the first 5 min block but was reduced to a low level by the sixth block, indicative of within-session habituation. Using 8 daily sessions, we showed that this terminal block low level of activity progressed incrementally to the first block to achieve complete habituation. RESULTS/COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Within-session activity across sessions was used to identify different stages of between session habituation. It was then possible to assess drug treatment effects from partial to complete habituation, so that treatment effects on retention of the previously acquired partial habituation, expressed as a reversion to an earlier within session habituation pattern (retrograde amnesia assessment), as well as the effects on new learning by the failure in subsequent sessions to acquire complete between-session habituation (anterograde amnesia assessment). CONCLUSIONS: The use of spontaneous motor activity to assess learning and memory effects provides the opportunity to assess direct treatment effects on behavior and motor activity in contrast to many learning and memory models.

Post-trial dopaminergic modulation of conditioned catalepsy: A single apomorphine induced increase/decrease in dopaminergic activation immediately following a conditioned catalepsy response can reverse/enhance a haloperidol conditioned and sensitized catalepsy response.

Haloperidol can induce catalepsy and this drug effect can be conditioned as well as sensitized to contextual cues. We used a paired/unpaired Pavlovian conditioning protocol to establish haloperidol catalepsy conditioned and sensitized responses. Groups of rats were given 10 daily catalepsy tests following administration of vehicle (n=24) or haloperidol (1.0mg/kg) either paired (n=18) or unpaired (n=18) to testing. Subsequently, testing for conditioning was conducted and conditioning and sensitization of catalepsy were observed selectively in the paired group. Immediately following a second test for catalepsy conditioning, the groups were subdivided into 4 vehicle groups, 3 unpaired haloperidol groups and 3 paired haloperidol groups and were given one of three post-trial treatments (vehicle, 0.05mg/kg or 2.0mg/kg apomorphine). One day later the conditioned catalepsy test 3 was carried out and on the next day, a haloperidol challenge test was performed. The post-trial apomorphine treatments had major effects on the paired groups upon both conditioning and the haloperidol challenge test. The low dose apomorphine post-trial treatment enhanced both the conditioned and the haloperidol sensitized catalepsy responses. The high dose apomorphine post-trial treatment eliminated conditioned catalepsy and eliminated the initial acute catalepsy response to haloperidol that was induced in the vehicle control groups. These results demonstrate the sensitivity of conditioned drug cues to modification by increases/decreases in activity of the dopamine system in the immediate post-trial interval after a conditioning trial. This demonstration that post-trial dopaminergic drug treatments can modify conditioned drug behavior has broad implications for conditioned drug effects.

Reciprocal activation/inactivation of ERK in the amygdala and frontal cortex is correlated with the degree of novelty of an open-field environment.

RATIONALE: Phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) has been used to identify brain areas activated by exogenous stimuli including psychostimulant drugs. OBJECTIVE: Assess the role of the amygdala in emotional responses. METHODS: Experimental manipulations were performed in which environmental familiarity was the variable. To provide the maximal degree of familiarity, ERK was measured after removal from the home cage and re-placement back into the same cage. To maximize exposure to an unfamiliar environment, ERK was measured following placement into a novel open field. To assess whether familiarity was the critical variable in the ERK response to the novel open field, ERK was also measured after either four or eight placements into the same environment. ERK quantification was carried out in the amygdala, frontal cortex, and the nucleus accumbens. RESULTS: After home cage re-placement, ERK activation was found in the frontal cortex and nucleus accumbens but was absent in the amygdala. Following placement in a novel environment, ERK activation was more prominent in the amygdala than the frontal cortex or nucleus accumbens. In contrast, with habituation to the novel environment, ERK phosphors declined markedly in the amygdala but increased in the frontal cortex and nucleus accumbens to the level observed following home cage re-placement. CONCLUSIONS: The differential responsiveness of the amygdala versus the frontal cortex and the nucleus accumbens to a novel versus a habituated environment is consistent with a reciprocal interaction between these neural systems and points to their important role in the mediation of behavioral activation to novelty and behavioral inactivation with habituation.

Increase in medial frontal cortex ERK activation following the induction of apomorphine sensitization.

Repeated high dose injections of the direct acting D1/D2 agonist apomorphine (APO) induces context specific behavioral sensitization. We assessed the effects of 2.0 mg/kg APO on open-field locomotor responses of rats over a 30 min period following either single or five daily APO injections. Acute injections increased locomotor activity, which was markedly increased in rats given 5 daily APO injections. This progressive increase in locomotion during the repeated APO treatments is indicative of behavioral sensitization. Immediately following the open-field test for the acute and the fifth apomorphine injection, the animals were euthanized and their brain tissue was prepared for immunohistochemistry. ERK immunoreactive nuclei in the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), nucleus accumbens (NAcc), amygdala (AMYG) and lateral hypothalamus (LH) were quantified. The acute apomorphine injections increased ERK in all brain areas as compared to vehicle. Following the fifth apomorphine injection, ERK significantly increased in the PFC, decreased in the amygdala but was unchanged in the LH and NAcc. The selective increase in ERK activity in the PFC associated with behavioral sensitization, points to a possible pivotal role of the dopamine projection to the medial frontal cortex in the mediation of neural plasticity, considered to underlie the sensitization processes induced by dopaminergic drugs.

Drug memory substitution during re-consolidation: a single inhibitory autoreceptor apomorphine treatment given during psychostimulant memory re-consolidation replaces psychostimulant conditioning with conditioned inhibition and reverses psychostimulant sensitization.

Psychostimulant conditioning and sensitization effects have proven to be difficult to eliminate using behavioral methods. We used a low autoreceptor dose of apomorphine in counter-conditioning and memory re-consolidation protocols to modify conditioned and sensitized responses induced by a high dose of apomorphine. Rats received five daily treatments of apomorphine (2.0mg/kg) and were tested in an arena for 30 min to induce conditioning and sensitization. Conditioning was validated in a brief 5 min non-drug conditioning test and sensitization by a 2.0 apomorphine challenge test. Next, the counter-conditioning and memory re-consolidation protocols were initiated. In counter-conditioning, vehicle or 0.05 mg/kg apomorphine was given either 15 min or immediately before a 5 min arena test. In the memory re-consolidation protocol, the vehicle and 0.05 apomorphine treatments were administered post-trial either immediately after or 15 min after the 5 min arena test. Effects were assessed with a 5 min saline conditioning test and a second 2.0mg/kg apomorphine challenge test. The counter-conditioning protocol induced hypolocomotion and but did not induce a conditioned hypo-locomotion and did not alter the sensitized response. The 15 min post-trial treatment did not affect either the conditioned or the sensitized responses. The immediate post-trial treatment eliminated sensitization and induced a conditioned hypoactivity response. These results highlight the memory re-consolidation period as a critical target for drug memory substitution and suggest the potential utility of the pharmacological inhibition of dopamine activity given as a therapeutic drug memory replacement during addictive drug memory re-consolidation.

Opposite effects of typical and atypical anti-psychotic drugs on sensitized dopamine receptors: sub-chronic low dose Olanzapine exposure reverses sensitization but a similar regimen of low dose haloperidol potentiates sensitization effects.

RATIONALE: Both typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs are D2 receptor antagonists but yet appear to have markedly different effects upon the induction of dopamine sensitization. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effects of subchronic regimens of low-dose olanzapine and haloperidol administered to rats previously sensitized to apomorphine. METHODS: Initially, rats received apomorphine (2.0 mg/kg) or vehicle treatments for five consecutive days followed by a conditioning test and an apomorphine challenge test. Next, there was an antipsychotic exposure phase in which three vehicle groups and three apomorphine groups received 10 daily injections of either vehicle, haloperidol (0.03 mg/kg) or olanzapine (0.01 mg/kg). In the final phase, all groups were given a second conditioning test and apomorphine challenge test. RESULTS: Apomorphine induced sensitization and conditioning effects. Following haloperidol exposure, apomorphine conditioned and sensitization effects were potentiated but, in contrast, olanzapine exposure eliminated apomorphine sensitization effects. In addition, the sensitization induced by apomorphine transformed the low-dose haloperidol treatment into a potent locomotor stimulant treatment. In the vehicle groups, haloperidol and olanzapine exposure effects were equivalent and not different from vehicle treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The profound differences observed between typical and atypical antipsychotic exposure in animals with an upregulated dopamine system are consistent with clinical evidence for lower risk of psychomotor disturbances with chronic treatment with atypical antipsychotic. Importantly, the finding that a very low dose of olanzapine reversed sensitization effects suggests that low-dose olanzapine may have clinical utility in a variety of disorders linked to sensitization of the dopamine system.

Residual dopamine receptor desensitization following either high- or low-dose sub-chronic prior exposure to the atypical anti-psychotic drug olanzapine.

RATIONALE: Anti-psychotic drugs are antagonists of dopamine D2 receptors and repeated administration may lead to the development of dopamine receptor supersensitivity. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of sub-chronic olanzapine treatments upon the induction of dopamine receptor supersensitivity. METHODS: Rats were administered ten daily low or high doses of the atypical anti-psychotic drug olanzapine (0.01 or 1.0 mg/kg). After 5 days of withdrawal, all groups received 2.0 mg/kg apomorphine on five successive days. Five days after the apomorphine sensitization protocol, in separate experiments, either a conditioning test or an apomorphine sensitization test was conducted. RESULTS: During the anti-psychotic treatment the high dose of olanzapine induced profound locomotion suppression, whereas the low dose had no effect upon locomotion. The apomorphine treatments given to the vehicle control group generated locomotor sensitization. This sensitization effect was attenuated by the same degree for both the low or high dose prior olanzapine treatments. Also, the low and high-dose olanzapine pre-treatments diminished subsequent apomorphine-conditioned and apomorphine-sensitized locomotor responses. CONCLUSIONS: The equivalent attenuation of the apomorphine sensitization produced by both olanzapine doses indicates that this effect was unrelated to the direct effects of olanzapine upon locomotion. Furthermore, the persistence of the desensitization effects well after the termination of the olanzapine treatments is indicative of a residual desensitization of the dopamine system. These findings are of importance when considering the use of atypical anti-psychotic drugs in the treatment of psychoses and other disorders in which overactivity of the dopamine system is considered a contributory factor.

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.

Memory re-consolidation and drug conditioning: an apomorphine conditioned locomotor stimulant response can be enhanced or reversed by a single high versus low apomorphine post-trial treatment.

RATIONALE: Psychostimulant sensitization can have transformative effects upon contextual stimuli such as acquired conditioned stimuli and conditioned incentive motivational properties. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to induce apomorphine sensitization and conduct non-drug exposures to the contextual cues followed by post-trial treatments designed to associate increases/decreases in dopamine activity with re-consolidation of the contextual cue conditioned stimulus. METHODS: Separate groups received five daily apomorphine (2.0 mg/kg) treatments, paired or unpaired to the test environment. Two days later, a 30-min non-drug conditioning test was performed. Subsequently, there were three brief (5 min) conditioning tests on successive days. After removal from the test environment on the three test days, all groups received post-trial treatment with vehicle, 0.05, and 2.0 mg/kg apomorphine. One day later, a second 30-min conditioning test was conducted. RESULTS: There was a sensitized and a conditioned locomotor stimulant response in the paired groups. After the first and second post-trial treatments with 0.05 mg/kg apomorphine, the conditioned stimulant response in the paired group was transformed into a conditioned inhibitory response. In contrast, the conditioned stimulant response of the paired group administered with apomorphine 2.0 mg/kg post-trial was amplified. The apomorphine post-trial treatments administered to the unpaired groups or 2 h post-trial to paired groups were without effect. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that sensitization substantially enhances the associative sensitivity of contextual stimuli and imply that brief exposure to cues linked to drugs of addiction followed by treatments that inhibit neurotransmitter systems may provide a new direction in drug abuse treatment.

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.

Apomorphine-induced context-specific behavioural sensitization is prevented by the D1 antagonist SCH-23390 but potentiated and uncoupled from contextual cues by the D2 antagonist sulpiride.

RATIONALE: In the study of behavioural sensitization induced by dopamine agonists, D1 and D2 receptors have a critical, but a puzzling role. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the effects of the D1 antagonist SCH-23390 and the D2 antagonist sulpiride given repeatedly alone or in combination with apomorphine upon apomorphine conditioning and sensitization. METHODS: Apomorphine-induced (2.0 mg/kg) conditioning and sensitization were assessed following five paired/unpaired treatments. Sulpiride (10, 30 and 100 mg/kg) and SCH-23390 (0.01, 0.02 and 0.05 mg/kg) were administered alone or in combination with apomorphine. In experiment 1, the effect of 5 days of sulpiride and SCH-23390 treatments given alone were assessed on apomorphine reactivity. In experiment 2, sulpiride and SCH-23390 were co-administered with apomorphine for 5 days and subsequently, conditioning and sensitization tests were performed. In experiment 3, following five apomorphine treatment sessions, sulpiride and SCH-23390 were administered prior to the conditioning and sensitization tests. RESULTS: SCH-23390 and sulpiride induced hyper-reactivity to apomorphine. SCH-23390 when given after the induction of apomorphine sensitization, blocked the expression of apomorphine sensitization. When given in combination with apomorphine, SCH-23390 blocked the apomorphine conditioning and sensitization, whereas low-dose sulpiride permitted conditioning and enhanced apomorphine sensitization and high-dose sulpiride blocked conditioning but permitted apomorphine sensitization. Both sulpiride doses transformed apomorphine sensitization from context-specific to context-independent sensitization. CONCLUSION: The SCH-23390 findings are supportive of a critical role for D1 receptors in apomorphine effects whereas the sulpiride effects diminish the importance of conditioning and dopamine autoreceptor subsensitivity mechanisms in the mediation of apomorphine sensitization.

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.

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.

Conditioned locomotion induced by unilateral intrastriatal administration of apomorphine: D(2) 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.