Abstract
A pairing paradigm was employed to explore the contribution of associational mechanisms to the expression of sensitization to the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Rats received ten quinpirole injections in the test environment (Group Paired) or in the home cage (Group Unpaired), and saline in the alternate environment. A third group received saline injections in both environments (Group Acute). Subjects received quinpirole on the 11th injection as a test for locomotor sensitization, and saline on the next injection as a test for conditioned activity. The range of discriminative stimuli predicting a drug versus a non-drug injection was increased across three independent experiments in an effort to detect a possible associational effect. Regardless of the strength of discriminative stimuli, both Paired and Unpaired groups showed locomotor sensitization to 0.5 mg/kg quinpirole compared with the Acute group. However, the Paired group showed more locomotion than the Unpaired group in the last minutes of the sensitization test. With a lower sensitizing dose of quinpirole (0.1 mg/kg) used in one experiment, only the Paired group showed locomotor sensitization. For both doses, the Paired, but not the Unpaired groups showed conditioned locomotion. It is suggested that with moderate doses of quinpirole, expression of locomotor sensitization does not require drug-signalling cues though such signals may have a modulatory influence. With lower quinpirole doses, however, quinpirole sensitization is context-dependent.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ahmed SH, Stinus L, Le Moal M, Cador M (1993) Controlling interindividual differences in the unconditioned response to amphetamine in the study of environment-dependent sensitization. Behav Pharmacol 4: 355–365
Angrist B (1983) Psychosis induced by central nervous system stimulants and related drugs. In: Creese I (ed) Stimulants: neurochemical, behavioral and clinical perspectives. Raven Press, New York, pp 1–30
Antelman SM (1988a) Stressor-induced sensitization to subsequent stress: implications for the development and treatment of clinical disorders. In: Kalivas PW, Barnes CD (eds) Sensitization in the nervous system. Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J., pp. 227–254
Badiani A, Browman KE, Robinson TE (1995) Influence of novel versus home environments on sensitization to the psychomotor stimulant effects of cocaine and amphetamine. Brain Res 674: 291–298
Baker TB, Tiffany ST (1985) Morphine tolerance as habituation. Psychol Rev 92: 78–108
Chaudry IA, Turkanis SA, Karler R (1988) Characteristics of “reverse tolerance” to amphetamine-induced locomotor stimulation in mice. Neuropharmacology 27: 777–781
Druhan JP, Jakob A, Stewart J (1993) The development of behavioral sensitization to apomorphine is blocked by MK-801. Eur J Pharmacol 243: 73–77
Eilam D, Szechtman H (1989) Biphasic effect of D-2 agonist quinpirole on locomotion and movements. Eur J Pharmacol 161: 151–157
Eilam D, Clements KV, Szechtman H (1991) Differential effects of D1 and D2 dopamine agonists on stereotyped locomotion in rats. Behav Brain Res 45: 117–124
Eilam D, Talangbayan H, Canaran G, Szechtman H (1992) Dopaminergic control of locomotion, mouthing, snout contact, and grooming: opposing roles of D1 and D2 receptors. Psychopharmacology 106: 447–454
Einat H, Szechtman H (1993a) Environmental modulation of both locomotor response and locomotor sensitization to the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Behav Pharmacol 4: 399–403
Einat H, Szechtman H (1993b) Longlasting consequences of chronic treatment with the dopamine agonist quinpirole for the undrugged behavior of rats. Behav Brain Res 54: 35–41
Ellinwood EH (1968) Amphetamine psychosis. II. Theoretical implications. J Neuropsychiatr 4: 45–54
Ellinwood EH, Jr, Sudiloski A, Nelson L (1972) Behavioral analysis of chronic amphetamine intoxication. Biol Psychiatry 4: 215–230
Ellison GD (1979) Animal models of psychopathology: studies in naturalistic colony environments. In: Keehn JD (ed) Psychopathology in animals. Academic Press, New York, pp 81–101
Hoffman DC, Wise RA (1992) Locomotor-activating effects of the D2 agonist bromocriptine show environment-specific sensitization following repeated injections. Psychopharmacology 107: 277–284
Kokkinidis L, Anisman H (1980) Amphetamine models of amphetamine paranoid schizophrenia: an overview and elaboration of animal experimentation. Psychol Bull 88: 551–579
Mattingly BA, Gotsick JE (1989) Conditioning and experimental factors affecting the development of sensitization to apomorphine. Behav Neurosci 103: 1311–1317
Mazurski EJ, Beninjer RJ (1991) Effects of selective drugs for dopaminergic D1 and D2 receptors on conditioned locomotion in rats. Psychopharmacology 105: 107–112
Post RM, Contel NR (1981) Cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization: a model for recurrent manic illness. In: Perris C, Struwe G, Jansson B (eds) Biological psychiatry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 746–749
Post RM, Lockfeld A, Squillace KM, Contel NR (1981) Drug-environment interaction: context dependency of cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization. Life Sci 28: 755–760
Post RM, Weiss SRB (1988) Sensitization and kindling: implications for the evolution of psychiatric symptomatology. In: Kalivas PW, Barnes CD (eds) Sensitization in the nervous system. Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ, pp 257–291
Robinson TE, Becker JB (1986) Enduring changes in brain and behavior produced by chronic amphetamine administration: a review and evaluation of animal models of amphetamine psychosis. Brain Res Rev 11: 157–198
Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addition. Brain Res Rev 18: 247–291
Segal DS, Schuckit MA (1983) Animal models of stimulant-induced psychosis. In: Creese I (ed) Stimulants: neurochemical, behavioral and clinical perspectives. Raven Press, New York, pp 131–167
Silverman PB (1991) Sensitization and conditioned rotation: apomorphine, quinpirole and SKF-38393 compared. Neuroreport 2: 669–672
Stewart J, Badiani A (1993) Tolerance and sensitization to the behavioral effects of drugs. Behav Pharmacol 4 289–312
Stewart J, Vezina P (1991) Extinction procedures abolish conditioned stimulus control but spare sensitized responding to amphetamine. Behav Pharmacol 2: 65–71
Szechtman H, Talangbayan H, Eilam D (1993) Environmental and behavioral components of sensitization induced by the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Behav Pharmacol 4: 405–410
Szechtman H, Dai H, Mustafa S, Einat H, Sullivan RM (1994a) Effects of dose and interdose interval on locomotor sensitization to the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 48: 921–928
Szechtman H, Talangbayan H, Canaran G, Dai H, Eilam D (1994b) Dynamics of behavioral sensitization induced by the dopamine agonist quinpirole and a proposed central energy control mechanism. Psychopharmacology 115: 95–104
Tilson HA, Rech RH (1973) Conditioned drug effects and absence to tolerance tod-amphetamine induced motor activity. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1: 149–153
Wagner AR (1978) Expectencies and the priming of STM. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig KW (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale N.J., pp 177–209
Willner P, Papp S, Cheeta S, Muscat R (1992) Environmental influences on behavioural sensitization to the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Behav Pharmacol 3: 43–50
Zhou LW, Qin ZH, Weiss B (1991) Down-regulation of stereo-typed behavior and production of latent locomotor behaviors in mice treated continuously with quinpirole. Neuropharmacology 4: 47–55
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Einat, H., Einat, D., Allan, M. et al. Associational and nonassociational mechanisms in locomotor sensitization to the dopamine agonist quinpirole. Psychopharmacology 127, 95–101 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02805980
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02805980