» Articles » PMID: 17874316

A Comparison of Amphetamine- and Methamphetamine-induced Locomotor Activity in Rats: Evidence for Qualitative Differences in Behavior

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2007 Sep 18
PMID 17874316
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Rationale: Methamphetamine (METH) is typically characterized as a more potent psychostimulant than amphetamine (AMPH), but few studies have directly compared the effects of these drugs at low, behaviorally activating doses that tend not to produce focused stereotypy.

Objectives: The objective of the study was to compare the effects of AMPH or METH treatment on locomotor activity in an open-field arena, focusing on their ability to produce conditioned locomotor activity, sensitization, and cross-sensitization.

Materials And Methods: Adult male rats were given AMPH or METH (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg) for 5 days, with half of the rats presented with discrete, salient stimuli (S+) during the postinjection period. After a 3-day withdrawal, they were given three different injections on successive days: a saline challenge to assess conditioned responding, a drug challenge to assess sensitization, and a cross-sensitization test to the same dose of the drug with which they were not pretreated.

Results: Except in certain conditions, AMPH and METH were equipotent at activating locomotor activity. The exceptions included when rats were presented with S+ on acute and drug challenge days and in tests of cross-sensitization. There were no consistent differences in the magnitude of sensitization produced by AMPH or METH, and both drugs produced similar amounts of conditioned locomotion after a saline injection.

Conclusions: We have found specific conditions where METH is more potent than AMPH, but this study and others that used higher doses of these drugs are not consistent with the generalized characterization of METH as a more potent psychostimulant.

Citing Articles

Locomotion changes in methamphetamine and amphetamine withdrawal: a systematic review.

Kumar J, Naina Mohamed I, Mohamed R, Ugusman A, Muzaimi M, Mohamed W Front Pharmacol. 2024; 15:1428492.

PMID: 39086393 PMC: 11288965. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1428492.


Vesicular monoamine transporter-2 inhibitor JPC-141 prevents methamphetamine-induced dopamine toxicity and blocks methamphetamine self-administration in rats.

Chandler C, Nickell J, George Wilson A, Culver J, Crooks P, Bardo M Biochem Pharmacol. 2024; 228:116189.

PMID: 38580165 PMC: 11546627. DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116189.


A reinforcement learning model with choice traces for a progressive ratio schedule.

Ihara K, Shikano Y, Kato S, Yagishita S, Tanaka K, Takata N Front Behav Neurosci. 2024; 17:1302842.

PMID: 38268795 PMC: 10806202. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1302842.


Dopamine Signaling in Substantia Nigra and Its Impact on Locomotor Function-Not a New Concept, but Neglected Reality.

Salvatore M Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(2).

PMID: 38256204 PMC: 10815979. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25021131.


An overview of the methamphetamine effect on male sexual behavior and reproductive system.

Mihalcikova L, Slamberova R Physiol Res. 2024; 72(S5):S445-S459.

PMID: 38165750 PMC: 10861257. DOI: 10.33549/physiolres.935266.


References
1.
Hooks M, Jones G, Smith A, Neill D, Justice Jr J . Individual differences in locomotor activity and sensitization. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1991; 38(2):467-70. DOI: 10.1016/0091-3057(91)90308-o. View

2.
Hooks M, Jones G, Neill D, Justice Jr J . Individual differences in amphetamine sensitization: dose-dependent effects. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1992; 41(1):203-10. DOI: 10.1016/0091-3057(92)90083-r. View

3.
Lamb R, Henningfield J . Human d-amphetamine drug discrimination: methamphetamine and hydromorphone. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994; 61(2):169-80. PMC: 1334405. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-169. View

4.
Kuczenski R, Segal D, Cho A, Melega W . Hippocampus norepinephrine, caudate dopamine and serotonin, and behavioral responses to the stereoisomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. J Neurosci. 1995; 15(2):1308-17. PMC: 6577819. View

5.
Melega W, Williams A, Schmitz D, Distefano E, Cho A . Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of the actions of D-amphetamine and D-methamphetamine on the dopamine terminal. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1995; 274(1):90-6. View