Abstract
Rationale
3-((2-Methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl)pyridine hydrochloride (MTEP) is a metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) antagonist that may alter drug sensitivity in differentially reared rats due to its involvement in the psychostimulant reward pathway and plasticity.
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of MTEP on acute amphetamine-induced hyperactivity, conditioned hyperactivity, and sensitization.
Methods
Rats were reared in an enriched (EC), isolated (IC), or standard (SC) condition after which rats were either administered MTEP (1.0 mg/kg, ip) or saline prior to an acute (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg, sc) or repeated (0.3 mg/kg, sc) amphetamine exposure. Rats undergoing repeated amphetamine exposure were administered MTEP prior to conditioned hyperactivity and sensitization tests.
Results
EC and SC rats administered with MTEP prior to acute amphetamine demonstrated attenuated amphetamine-induced locomotor activity compared to controls, while IC rats administered MTEP following repeated amphetamine exposure demonstrated attenuated amphetamine-induced locomotor activity. Interestingly, MTEP treatment only altered conditioned hyperactivity in EC rats, as MTEP pretreatment resulted in conditioned hyperactivity in EC rats while conditioned hyperactivity was not observed in EC rats pretreated with saline.
Conclusions
Glutamatergic pathways are altered during differential rearing, which differentially alters the role of mGluR5 in EC, IC, and SC rats when administered psychostimulant acutely versus repeatedly. These findings suggest that differential rearing alters glutamatergic function, which reduces sensitivity to psychostimulants.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Several environmental factors influence drug abuse, and one environmental factor that appears to influence drug abuse during adolescence is differential rearing. The enrichment paradigm is used to study the effects of differential rearing on drug abuse, and typically consists of three environmental contexts, an enriched condition (EC), an isolated condition (IC), and a standard condition (SC; Renner and Rosenzweig 1987). Typically, rearing conditions differ in the number of rats housed together, the amount of handling, and the number and type of novel objects in the cage (Bardo and Dwoskin 2004; Renner and Rosenzweig 1987). While numerous studies have demonstrated that environmental enrichment protects against both the acute and chronic effects of a variety of drugs of abuse (Bardo and Dwoskin 2004; Simpson and Kelly 2011; Stairs and Bardo 2009), the neurobiological mechanism for this protective effect remains unclear.
Rearing rats in EC, IC, or SC contexts alters amphetamine-induced hyperactivity and sensitization in a dose-dependent manner. EC rats display greater amphetamine-induced hyperactivity than IC rats following exposure to a moderate (1.0 mg/kg) dose of amphetamine, but no differences are observed following a low unit dose (0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg; Bardo et al. 1995; Bowling and Bardo 1994). Differential rearing also alters amphetamine-induced sensitization in a dose-dependent manner. A high dose of amphetamine produces sensitization in EC and IC rats, but a low dose only produces sensitization in IC rats (Bardo et al. 1995). Consistent with the observation that differential rearing alters amphetamine-induced hyperactivity and sensitization in a dose-dependent manner, changes in learning and memory (Renner and Rosenzweig 1987), and specifically Pavlovian conditioning (Barbelivien et al. 2006; Duffy et al. 2001; Woodcock and Richardson 2000) are also dose dependent. Differences in conditioned place preference (CPP) between EC and IC rats are apparent at low to moderate doses of psychostimulants, but not at high doses (Bowling and Bardo 1994; Solinas et al. 2008).
Differential rearing causes several neuroanatomical changes in EC compared to IC and SC rats that may contribute to the behavioral response to psychostimulants (Renner and Rosenzweig 1987; Simpson and Kelly 2011). As glutamate influences both synaptic transmission and plasticity (Giorgetti et al. 2001; Melendez et al. 2004; Wolf 1998; Wolf and Xue 1999), it may be involved in the synaptic changes associated with differential rearing (Altschuler 1979; Duffy et al. 2001; Green and Greenough 1986). EC rats have greater levels of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) dimers in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) compared to IC rats, though there are no differences in mGluR5 monomers (Melendez et al. 2004). In the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), EC rats have reduced NMDA receptors compared to IC rats, but there are no differences in AMPA receptors (Wood et al. 2005). Rahmen and Bardo (2008) demonstrated that EC rats have greater levels of glutamate compared to IC rats in the NAcc following amphetamine, but glutamate levels do not differ between rearing groups following saline. While it is clear that differential rearing alters glutamatergic systems, the role of these changes in mediating psychostimulant sensitivity is not clear.
Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 is a viable candidate for contributing to the differences in drug sensitivity between EC and IC rats due to its involvement in the psychostimulant reward pathway, plasticity, and differential rearing (McGeehan and Olive 2003; Rahman and Bardo 2008; Schwendt and McGinty 2007; van Praag et al. 2001). Both the stimulant function of amphetamine and the reinforcing effects of amphetamine are reduced by two different mGluR5 antagonists, 3-((2-Methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl)pyridine hydrochloride (MTEP; Kumaresan et al. 2009; Martin-Fardon et al. 2009) and 2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine hydrochloride (MPEP; Bäckström and Hyytiä 2007). MTEP attenuates methamphetamine-induced reinstatement (Gass et al. 2009), as well as methamphetamine (Gass et al. 2009) and cocaine (Hao et al. 2010; Martin-Fardon et al. 2009) self-administration in a dose-dependent manner. Importantly, MTEP does not attenuate spontaneous locomotor activity or lever pressing for food (Gass et al. 2009). Despite the effects of MTEP on psychostimulant self-administration, it is not clear if it attenuates acute psychostimulant-induced hyperactivity. A recent study suggests that MTEP does not attenuate the acute psychostimulant-induced hyperactivity effects of a high dose of cocaine (30 mg/kg; Veeneman et al. 2011). The role of mGluR5 in psychostimulant-induced sensitization is also unclear. Dravolina et al. (2006) did not observe an effect of MTEP on cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization (10 mg/kg); however, rats were not rested for the standard 1–4 weeks following training. In contrast, a recent experiment rested the rats for 3 weeks following training and observed that MTEP did attenuate cocaine-induced sensitization when a high dose of cocaine (30 mg/kg) was administered (Veeneman et al. 2011).
Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 also contributes to a variety of Pavlovian-conditioned processes related to drug abuse. MTEP and MPEP both attenuate cue-induced reinstatement (Martin-Fardon et al. 2009). However, the effects of MTEP and MPEP on cocaine-induced CPP are inconsistent. Several studies have suggested that MPEP blocks the acquisition of cocaine-induced CPP (Herzig and Schmidt 2004; McGeehan and Olive 2003). In contrast, recent studies suggest that MPEP enhances the acquisition of cocaine-induced CPP when low doses of cocaine are administered (Rutten et al. 2010) and neither MPEP or MTEP block the acquisition of cocaine-induced CPP when moderate doses of cocaine are administered (Rutten et al. 2010; Veeneman et al. 2011).
The current experiment was designed to provide initial support for our hypothesis that changes in the glutamatergic system, specifically mGluR5, contributes to the ability of environmental enrichment to protect against drug use. We investigated the effect of mGluR5 antagonism on acute amphetamine-induced hyperactivity, as well as the expression of amphetamine-induced conditioned hyperactivity and sensitization in differentially reared rats. To determine the role of mGluR5 in both amphetamine-induced contextual conditioning and sensitization, we have included a group of standard-housed rats in the current experiments. We hypothesized that MTEP would attenuate amphetamine-induced hyperactivity, conditioned hyperactivity, and sensitization when moderate, but not high doses, of amphetamine were administered. We also hypothesized that differential rearing would alter the effects of MTEP due to the changes that arise in glutamatergic systems as a result of differential rearing.
Method
Subjects
Male Sprague Dawley rats were obtained from Charles River (Portage, MI, USA), and housed in one of three environments described below. Rats had ad libitium access to food and water throughout the experiment. The colony was maintained at 22°C and humidity ranged from 30% to 45% with a 12-h light–dark cycle (lights on from 0700 to 1900 hours). Behavioral testing was conducted during the light portion of the cycle. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Kansas State University, and complied with NIH guidelines (National Research Council 1996).
Differential rearing
Rats arrived in the lab at 21 days of age and were randomly assigned to one of three environmental rearing conditions. EC rats were reared in groups of 12 in large metal cages (60 × 120 × 45 cm) that were lined with paper pulp bedding. Fourteen novel objects (children's toys and PVC pipe) were placed in each cage. Seven of the novel objects were changed daily, and all novel objects were changed twice weekly. EC rats were also handled daily throughout rearing. IC rats were reared individually in hanging wire cages (17 × 24 × 20 cm). IC cages had wire mesh on the front and bottom, and solid sides. IC rats were not handled during the rearing period. SC rats were housed in pairs in standard shoebox cages (20 × 43 × 20 cm). SC cages were lined with paper pulp bedding and had wire tops. SC rats were only handled during the scheduled weekly cage change. Rats were reared in their respective conditions for 30 days and remained in their housing condition for the duration of the experiment.
Apparatus
Experiments were conducted using six locomotor chambers. The chambers were 40.64 × 40.64 × 40.64 cm (Coulbourn Instruments, TruScan 2.01) and had clear plexiglass walls and a stainless steel floor covered with either pine-chip bedding or pelleted paperchip bedding. Photobeams were arranged in a 16 (X-axis) photocell array, spaced 2.54 cm apart (center to center). Locomotor activity was measured by recording the total distance traveled (centimeter). Throughout the session a 70-db white noise was generated to mask background noise.
Drugs
D-amphetamine (Sigma Aldrich Dallas, TX, USA) was dissolved in 0.9% saline (0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/mL) and injected subcutaneously. MTEP (Tocris Bioscience, MO, USA and Ascent Scientific, Princeton, NJ, 08450) was dissolved in 0.9% saline (1.0 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/mL) and injected intraperitoneally. The current study used the mGluR5 antagonist MTEP as it is more potent and specific than MPEP (Cosford et al. 2003; Mathiesen et al. 2003).
Behavioral procedures
Experiment 1: acute amphetamine
Following 30 days of rearing, EC, IC, and SC rats (n = 36; 12 per group) underwent a 1-h habituation session. Rats were transferred to the locomotor room and all rats received a saline injection (subcutaneously, s.c.) immediately prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber. Following the initial habituation session, rats underwent four test sessions. Rats received a low dose of amphetamine (0.5 mg/kg) across the first two test sessions and a high dose of amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg) across the last two test sessions. Prior to the test session, rats received an MTEP (1 mg/kg, intraperitoneally, i.p.) or saline injection. Thirty minutes later (Palmatier et al. 2008), rats received either an amphetamine (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg, s.c.) or saline challenge injection immediately prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber for 1 h. Rats were assigned to MTEP and amphetamine treatment groups in a counterbalanced manner. Thus, over the four tests, each rat was administered each of the four pairings (MTEP–AMP, Saline–AMP, MTEP–Saline, or Saline–Saline). Rats rested in their respective home cages for several days following each testing session. Intervening between each test session, rats received an additional habituation session resulting in two habituation sessions for each dose tested.
Data analysis
The total distance traveled (centimeter) was analyzed separately across the two test sessions for each dose of amphetamine tested. During each block of test sessions, the total distance traveled (centimeter) was analyzed using a 2 × 3 × 4 mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each amphetamine dose. Environmental condition (EC, IC, SC) and treatment order (four possible orders) served as the between-subjects factors and test session served as the within-subjects factor. Once it was confirmed that the order of MTEP and amphetamine administration did not alter responding across the test sessions, separate 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVAs were performed for each amphetamine dose. Environmental condition and MTEP treatment served as between-subjects factors. Session served as a within-subjects factor. The total distance traveled (centimeters) during the block of two habituation sessions for each dose was analyzed using a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA to ensure that spontaneous locomotor activity did not change across the test sessions. Multiple comparisons were used to probe any significant interactions. Alpha was deemed significant at p < 0.05.
Experiment 2: repeated amphetamine
Acquisition
Following 30 days of rearing, EC, IC, and SC naïve rats (n = 108) were assigned to either paired, unpaired, or control groups (n = 36 per group) in a counterbalanced manner. Experiments were performed in three separate groups, with each group consisting of rats from every rearing and treatment condition. Rats underwent a 1-hr locomotor session for five sessions on alternating days. Rats rested in their home cages on alternating days. Paired rats received an amphetamine injection (0.3 mg/kg, s.c.) prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber, and a saline injection in their home cage on alternating days. Unpaired rats received a saline injection prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber, and amphetamine on alternating days in their home cage. Control rats received saline in both locations. During acquisition sessions, no MTEP was administered.
Conditioned hyperactivity test
After acquisition, rats underwent a conditioned hyperactivity test. Rats were administered an MTEP (1 mg/kg, i.p.) or saline injection. Thirty minutes later, all rats received a saline injection immediately prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber for a 1-h session.
Sensitization training
Rats received five additional 1-h training sessions in the locomotor chambers during which they received amphetamine or saline injections. Procedures and drug treatments were identical to those during acquisition. Following sensitization training, rats rested in their home cages for 14 days.
Sensitization test
After the 2-week rest period, rats received an MTEP (1 mg/kg, i.p.) or saline injection 30 min prior to the sensitization test. Treatment groups were pseudorandomly assigned, to ensure that rats only received one MTEP injection during the experiment. Immediately prior to being placed in the locomotor chamber for a 1-h session all rats received an amphetamine (0.3 mg/kg, s.c.) challenge injection. In the current study, sensitization is defined as greater amphetamine-induced locomotor activity following repeated psychostimulant administration compared to repeated saline administration.
Data analysis
The total distance traveled (centimeters) during each training phase was analyzed using a 3 × 3 × 5 mixed subjects ANOVA. Environmental condition and amphetamine treatment group served as between-subjects factors. Session served as a within-subjects factor. Multiple comparisons were used to probe any significant interactions. The conditioned hyperactivity and sensitization tests were analyzed using two separate between-subjects ANOVAs. For both between-subjects ANOVAs, environmental condition, amphetamine treatment group, and MTEP treatment group served as between-subjects factors. Multiple comparisons were used to probe any significant interactions. Alpha was deemed significant at p < 0.05.
Results
Experiment 1: acute amphetamine
Low dose (0.5 mg/kg amphetamine)
To ensure that there were no changes in spontaneous locomotor activity across the two low-dose test sessions, habituation sessions were compared using a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA. The results confirmed that there were no changes in the total distance traveled across habituation sessions. However, results did indicate a main effect of environmental condition [F(2, 30) = 21.23, p < 0.001]. Across the habituation sessions, EC rats had a significantly less locomotor activity than both IC [Fs(1, 30) > 4.92, ps < 0.05] and SC [Fs(1, 30) > 8.63, ps < 0.05] rats.
In order to confirm that the order of MTEP and amphetamine administration across the two low-dose test sessions did not affect locomotor activity, we conducted a 2 × 3 × 4 mixed factorial ANOVA. While main effects for session [F(1, 24) = 173.86, p < 0.001] and environmental conditions [F(2, 24) = 25.50, p < 0.001] were observed, there was no effect of test order. This indicates that the order of MTEP administration did not alter responding across sessions. Therefore, the treatment order was not included in subsequent ANOVAs.
Results of a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA indicate that differential rearing alters the ability of MTEP to significantly attenuate amphetamine-induced hyperactivity (Fig. 1). An ANOVA revealed the main effects for session [F(1, 30) = 135.09, p < 0.001] and environmental conditions [F(2, 30) = 22.04 p < 0.001], as well as a significant session × MTEP treatment interaction [F (1, 30) = 31.35, p < 0.001].
Simple effects analyses indicate that MTEP attenuated amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in EC [F(1, 30) = 5.71, p < 0.05] and SC [F(1, 30) = 22.04, p < 0.05] but not IC rats. MTEP pretreatment did not have an effect on the total distance traveled in rats administered saline. In the absence of MTEP pretreatment, SC rats displayed greater amphetamine-induced hyperactivity than both IC [F(1, 30) = 5.09, p < 0.05] and EC [F(1, 30) = 16.44, p < 0.05] rats. Additionally, SC saline–saline rats had greater locomotor activity than EC rats [F(1, 30) = 5.66, p < 0.05].
High dose (1.0 mg/kg amphetamine)
To ensure there were no changes in spontaneous locomotor activity across the two high-dose test sessions, habituation sessions were compared using a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA. Results confirmed that there were no changes in the total distance traveled across the habituation sessions. However, results did indicate a main effect of environmental condition [F(2, 30) = 15.63, p < 0.001]. Across the habituation sessions, EC rats had significantly less locomotor activity than both IC [Fs(1, 30) > 7.94, ps < 0.05] and SC [Fs(1, 30) > 11.46, ps < 0.05] rats.
In order to confirm that the order of MTEP and amphetamine administration across the two high-dose test sessions did not affect locomotor activity, we conducted a 2 × 3 × 4 mixed factorial ANOVA. Main effects of session [F(1, 24) = 457.83, p < 0.001] and environmental condition [F(2, 24) = 15.59, p < 0.001] were observed. There was not a main effect of test order, indicating that the order of MTEP and amphetamine administration did not alter responding across sessions. Therefore, the treatment order was not included in subsequent ANOVAs.
Results of a 2 × 2 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA indicate that MTEP does not significantly attenuate amphetamine-induced hyperactivity when a higher dose of amphetamine is administered (Fig. 2). There were main effects for session [F(1, 30) = 319.48, p < 0.001] and environmental conditions [F(2, 30) = 14.14, p < 0.001], as well as a significant interaction between session and environmental conditions [F(1, 30) = 3.58, p < 0.05]. Simple effect analyses only indicated a significant difference in amphetamine-induced hyperactivity between EC and SC rats pretreated with saline [F(1, 30) = 8.95, p < 0.05]. MTEP pretreatment had no effect on the total distance traveled in rats administered a high dose of amphetamine or saline.
Experiment 2: repeated amphetamine
Acquisition
During acquisition sessions, rats received amphetamine or saline treatments prior to locomotor sessions. No MTEP was administered during this phase. Overall, results of acquisition revealed that locomotor activity was attenuated in EC compared to IC and SC rats. Additionally, paired rats within each environmental condition demonstrated greater locomotor activity than unpaired and control rats.
A 3 × 3 × 5 ANOVA showed a main effect of environmental condition [F(2, 99) = 84.93, p < 0.001] and a main effect of amphetamine treatment [F(2, 99) = 169.99, p < 0.001]. Analysis also revealed a session × environmental condition [F(8, 396) = 4.20, p < 0.001] and a session × amphetamine treatment interaction [F(8, 396) = 28.76, p < 0.001].
For all amphetamine treatment conditions, locomotor activity was attenuated in EC compared to IC and SC rats during acquisition. During all 5 sessions of acquisition, EC paired rats demonstrated attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC paired [Fs(1, 396) > 6.36, ps < 0.05] and SC paired [Fs(1, 396) > 39.17, ps < 0.001] rats (Fig. 3a). Results revealed that IC paired rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to SC paired rats during sessions 1, 3, and 5 [Fs(1, 396) > 6.13, ps < 0.05]. In unpaired and control rats administered with saline immediately prior to the session, EC rats tended to have less locomotor activity than IC and SC rats (Fig. 3b).
Conditioned hyperactivity test
Prior to the conditioned-hyperactivity test, rats were administered MTEP or saline prior to a saline injection. A 2 × 3 × 3 ANOVA revealed a main effect for MTEP treatment [F(1, 90) = 26.63, p < 0.001], environmental condition [F(2, 90) = 47.80, p < 0.001], and amphetamine treatment [F(2, 90) = 22.66, p < 0.001]. Results also showed an environmental condition × MTEP treatment interaction [F(2, 90) = 5.35, p < 0.01].
Saline pretreatment
When pretreated with saline, and treated with saline in substitution for amphetamine during the conditioned hyperactivity test, IC and SC rats demonstrated conditioned hyperactivity while EC rats did not (Fig. 4a). Paired IC and SC saline rats had significantly greater locomotor activity than unpaired IC [F(1, 90) = 6.54, p < 0.05] and SC [F(1, 90) = 14.15, p < 0.001] rats, as well as control IC [F(1, 90) = 8.62, p < 0.01] and SC [F(1, 90) = 4.59, p < 0.05] saline rats, respectively.
All EC treatment groups displayed decreased locomotor activity compared to IC and SC rats. During the conditioned hyperactivity test, EC paired saline rats had decreased locomotor activity compared to SC [F(1, 90) = 34.87, p < 0.001] and IC [F(1, 90) = 41.62, p < 0.001] paired saline rats. Additionally, EC unpaired and control saline rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to SC and IC unpaired [Fs(1, 90) > 8.98, ps < 0.01], as well as SC and IC control [Fs(1, 90) > 10.24, ps < 0.01] saline rats.
MTEP pretreatment
When pretreated with MTEP, all of the environmental conditions displayed conditioned hyperactivity as paired rats had greater locomotor activity than unpaired and control rats (Fig. 4b). This was demonstrated as paired EC, IC, and SC MTEP rats had greater locomotor activity compared to unpaired EC [F(1, 90) = 5.48, p < 0.05], IC [F(1, 90) = 4.23, p < 0.05], and SC [F(1, 90) = 18.33, p < 0.001] MTEP rats, respectively. Additionally, EC paired and SC paired MTEP rats demonstrated significantly greater locomotor activity compared to control EC [F(1, 90) = 4.20, p < 0.05] and SC [F(1, 90) = 11.68, p < 0.001] MTEP rats, respectively.
There were also significant differences in locomotor activity between environmental groups pretreated with MTEP, as EC rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC and SC rats. EC paired MTEP rats demonstrated decreased locomotor activity compared to SC [F(1, 90) = 15.10, p < 0.001] paired MTEP rats. IC paired MTEP rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to SC paired MTEP rats [F(1, 90) = 3.96, p < 0.05]. In general, EC unpaired and control MTEP rats had decreased locomotor activity compared to SC and IC unpaired and control MTEP rats (Fig. 4b).
MTEP vs. saline pretreatment
Pretreatment with MTEP significantly attenuated locomotor activity primarily in IC rats, but not EC rats compared to saline pretreatment. This was demonstrated as MTEP pretreatment attenuated locomotor activity in paired [F(1, 90) = 13.38, p < 0.001], unpaired [F(1, 90) = 9.97, p < 0.01], and control [F(1, 90) = 5.54, p < 0.05] IC rats compared to pretreated saline rats (Fig. 4a, b). Additionally, MTEP pretreatment attenuated locomotor activity in SC control rats compared to SC saline pretreated control rats [F(1, 90) = 5.74, p < 0.05], but had no effect on SC paired and unpaired rats.
Sensitization training
During the sensitization training sessions, rats were administered with amphetamine or saline prior to locomotor sessions. No MTEP was administered during this phase. Results of sensitization training were similar to acquisition results as EC rats displayed attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC and SC rats. Additionally, paired rats within each environmental condition had greater locomotor activity than unpaired and control rats.
A 3 × 3 × 5 ANOVA showed a main effect of environmental condition [F(2, 99) = 49.76, p < 0.001] and a main effect of amphetamine treatment [F(2, 99) = 198.88, p < 0.001]. Analysis also revealed a main effect of session [F(4, 396) = 2.54, p < 0.05] and a session × amphetamine treatment interaction [F(8, 396) = 3.51, p < 0.001].
Locomotor activity was attenuated in EC compared to IC and SC rats in all treatment conditions. During all five sessions of sensitization training, EC paired rats demonstrated attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC paired [Fs(1, 396) > 85.69, ps < 0.001] and SC paired [Fs(1, 396) > 79.54, ps < 0.001] rats (Fig. 5a). IC paired rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to SC paired rats during session 5 [F(1, 396) = 6.09, p < 0.05]. Additionally, during all five sessions of sensitization training, EC unpaired and control rats displayed attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC and SC unpaired [Fs(1, 396) > 26.97, ps < 0.001] and control [Fs(1, 396) > 42.64, p < 0.001] rats (Fig. 5b).
Sensitization test
Prior to the sensitization test, rats were administered MTEP or saline 30 min prior to an amphetamine challenge. A 2 × 3 × 3 ANOVA revealed a main effect for MTEP treatment [F(1, 90) = 15.10, p < 0.001], environmental condition [F(2, 90) = 9.49, p < 0.001], and amphetamine treatment [F(2, 90) = 5.60, p < 0.01].
Saline pretreatment
When pretreated with saline and treated with amphetamine during the sensitization test, simple effects revealed no effect of treatment. There was a significant effect of environmental condition when rats were pretreated with saline, as EC control rats displayed attenuated locomotor activity compared to SC control rats [F(1, 90) = 4.91, p < 0.05] (Fig. 6a).
MTEP pretreatment
Similar to saline pretreatment, when rats were pretreated with MTEP, none of the rats displayed sensitization, and there was no effect of treatment during the sensitization test. There was a significant effect of MTEP in EC and SC rats, as paired EC and unpaired EC rats had attenuated locomotor activity compared to paired [F(1, 90) = 4.65, p < 0.05] and unpaired [F(1, 90) = 5.28, p < 0.05] SC rats (Fig. 6b).
MTEP vs. saline pretreatment
Pretreatment with MTEP significantly attenuated locomotor activity in the majority of IC rats, but not EC or SC rats, compared to saline pretreatment. This was demonstrated as MTEP pretreatment attenuated locomotor activity in IC paired [F(1, 90) = 4.11, p < 0.05] and IC unpaired [F(1, 90) = 4.65, p < 0.05] rats compared to saline pretreatment (Fig. 5a, b).
Discussion
Results of the current study indicate that MTEP attenuates amphetamine-induced hyperactivity following acute, but not repeated injections, and does not alter the expression of conditioned hyperactivity in standard-housed rats. Further, the results support our hypothesis that changes within the glutamatergic system contribute to the ability of environmental enrichment to protect against drug abuse. In the current study, MTEP significantly attenuates acute amphetamine-induced hyperactivity when a low dose of amphetamine is administered in EC and SC, but not IC rats. In contrast, MTEP only attenuates amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in IC rats following repeated amphetamine administration. While MTEP administration attenuated locomotor activity in IC rats, it did not alter expression of conditioned hyperactivity. Interestingly, MTEP administration did alter conditioned hyperactivity in EC rats, as it resulted in the expression of conditioned hyperactivity. Taken together, these findings suggest that glutamatergic changes occur in EC, IC, and SC rats during rearing, which alter the behavioral effects of MTEP.
When rats are repeatedly administered amphetamine during acquisition, results reveal that EC rats have attenuated locomotor activity compared to IC and SC rats. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that EC rats are less sensitive than IC rats to repeated amphetamine administrations (Bardo et al. 1995). Data also revealed that SC paired rats have similar locomotor activity compared to IC paired rats. The results of the current study are consistent with recent findings that show similar psychostimulant-induced locomotor activity in SC and IC rats when administered a moderate to high dose of amphetamine or methylphenidate (Gill et al. 2011; Wooters et al. 2011). In the current study, we hypothesized that administration of MTEP prior to conditioned hyperactivity would attenuate the expression of conditioned hyperactivity in EC paired rats compared to IC and SC paired rats. Interestingly, EC rats did not express conditioned hyperactivity, but MTEP administration resulted in the expression of conditioned hyperactivity in EC rats. MTEP did not enhance or prevent the expression of conditioned hyperactivity in IC and SC rats. While MTEP decreased activity in IC rats during the conditioned hyperactivity test, IC paired rats still expressed conditioned hyperactivity when compared to unpaired rats. Thus, the current study suggests that rearing rats in different environmental conditions alters the pathways involved in Pavlovian conditioning and thus, drug-paired contextual conditioning.
Several studies using the CPP paradigm have demonstrated differences in context-specific learning in differentially reared rats, as enrichment appears to influence conditioned hyperactivity, and thus, one's vulnerability to relapse. Previous research reveals that EC rats demonstrate greater amphetamine CPP than IC rats at a low, but not a high dose of amphetamine (Bowling and Bardo 1994). However, a few studies did not observe an effect of differential rearing on psychostimulant CPP immediately following conditioning (Schenk et al. 1986; Solinas et al. 2008). In the current study, we observed conditioned hyperactivity following a 0.3 mg/kg dose of amphetamine in IC, but not EC rats. Additionally, when investigating the role of MTEP administration prior to conditioned hyperactivity, results revealed that MTEP effectively attenuated locomotor activity in all IC treatment groups; however, it did not attenuate locomotor activity in SC paired or unpaired treatment groups. Interestingly, MTEP had the opposite effect in EC rats, as treatment with MTEP resulted in the expression of conditioned hyperactivity. These findings suggests that environmental enrichment may have a protective effect against conditioned hyperactivity, and thus, may protect against Pavlovian conditioned cue-induced relapse when trained using low to moderate doses of psychostimulants. As the current study only observed conditioned hyperactivity in EC rats when MTEP was administered, it suggests that conditioned hyperactivity may rely on mGluR5 function in EC rats.
The current results suggest that MTEP does not attenuate the expression of Pavlovian psychostimulant-paired contextual conditioning in standard-housed rats. While the majority of previous research has focused on the effects of mGluR5 antagonists on the acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning (McGeehan and Olive 2003; Rutten et al. 2010; Veeneman et al. 2011), the current results are consistent with a previous study that did not observe an attenuation of cocaine-CPP expression following MPEP (Herzig and Schmidt 2004). Further, infusion of a group I antagonist, AIDA, into the NAcc does not alter the expression of amphetamine-induced conditioned hyperactivity (Kim et al. 2008). Therefore, while mGluR5 receptors may be critical for the acquisition of psychostimulant contextual conditioning, they do not appear to be critical for the expression of this Pavlovian conditioned response in standard-housed rats.
Results of the acute amphetamine experiment reveal that MTEP attenuates amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in EC and SC rats when a low dose of amphetamine is administered, but there is no effect of MTEP when a moderate dose of amphetamine is administered. These results are consistent with the recent findings that MTEP does not attenuate psychostimulant-induced hyperactivity, following a high dose of cocaine administered acutely (Veeneman et al. 2011). The current experiment and Veeneman et al. (2011) both used the same dose of MTEP (1.0 mg/kg); therefore, it is possible that a higher dose of MTEP is necessary to attenuate acute amphetamine-induced hyperactivity when a higher dose of psychostimulant is administered. The current results contrast with those of Gormley and Rompere (2010) as they observed an attenuation of amphetamine-induced hyperactivity following pretreatment of MPEP, when a moderate dose of amphetamine was used. However, as MPEP has less specificity than MTEP, and as the authors observed an overall attenuation of locomotor activity in the same study, the differences observed may be due to an overall locomotor attenuation that is not specific to mGluR5 function. Interestingly, while MTEP attenuated amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in EC and SC rats when a low dose of amphetamine was administered, it had no effect on hyperactivity in IC rats. The inability of MTEP to attenuate hyperactivity in the IC rats may be due to differences in glutamatergic function between EC and IC rats. IC rats have reduced mGluR function in the PFC (Melendez et al. 2004) and reduced amphetamine-induced glutamate release in the NAcc (Rahman and Bardo 2008).
In contrast to the MTEP-induced attenuation in EC and SC rats when psychostimulant was administered acutely, following repeated psychostimulant administration, MTEP only attenuated psychostimulant-induced locomotor activity in IC paired and unpaired rats. These findings may indicate that rearing specific changes of mGluR5 are differentially influenced by acute versus repeated psychostimulant administration. Interestingly, these findings are consistent with differences in amphetamine-induced locomotor activity of EC and IC rats as EC rats are more sensitive to the rewarding effects of acute amphetamine compared to IC rats. However, following repeated amphetamine administration EC rats exhibit less sensitization than IC rats (Bardo et al. 1995).
In the current study, the absence of an MTEP-induced effect in standard-housed rats during the sensitization test is consistent with previous research, as Dravolina et al. (2006) did not observe an effect of MTEP on cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization. The inability of MTEP to attenuate sensitization may be due to repeated psychostimulant exposure as Hao et al. (2010) demonstrated that mGluR5 expression decreased as rats became cocaine dependent. However, Veeneman et al. (2011) did observe an effect of MTEP on cocaine sensitization with a very high cocaine dose (30 mg/kg, ip).
The results suggest that mGluR5 impacts acute amphetamine-induced hyperactivity to a greater extent than amphetamine-induced sensitization in standard-housed rats. The current results also suggest that mGluR5 is involved in amphetamine-induced locomotor activity, conditioned hyperactivity, and sensitization in differentially reared rats. MTEP attenuated amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in EC and SC rats when amphetamine was administered acutely and hyperactivity in IC rats when amphetamine was administered repeatedly. The effects of MTEP in differentially reared rats support our hypothesis that differential rearing alters glutamatergic pathways, including mGluR5; however, further studies are needed to pinpoint the exact neurobiological mechanisms involved to confirm this hypothesis. These results have important clinical implications as they suggest that the ability of environmental enrichment to protect against drug abuse may be due to enrichment-induced changes in mGluR5 function. With further research, we may be able to determine how and where mGluR5 function is altered, thus, assisting in the development of better pharmacotherapies to alleviate drug dependence.
References
Altschuler RA (1979) Morphometry of the effect of increased experience and training on synaptic density in area CA3 of the rat hippocampus. J Histochem Cytochem 27:1548–50
Bäckström P, Hyytiä P (2007) Involvement of AMPA/kainate, NMDA, and mGlu5 receptors in the nucleus accumbens core in cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats. Psychopharmacology 192:571–80
Barbelivien A, Herbeaux K, Oberling P, Kelche C, Galani R, Majchrzak M (2006) Environmental enrichment increases responding to contextual cues but decreases overall conditioned fear in the rat. Behavioural Brain Research 169:231–8
Bardo MT, Dwoskin LP (2004) Biological connection between novelty- and drug-seeking motivational systems. Nebr Symp Motiv 50:127–58
Bardo MT, Bowling SL, Rowlett JK, Manderscheid P, Buxton ST, Dwoskin LP (1995) Environmental enrichment attenuates locomotor sensitization, but not in vitro dopamine release, induced by amphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 51:397–405
Bowling SL, Bardo MT (1994) Locomotor and rewarding effects of amphetamine in enriched, social, and isolate reared rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 48:459–64
Cosford ND, Tehrani L, Roppe J, Schweiger E, Smith ND, Anderson J, Bristow L, Brodkin J, Jiang X, McDonald I, Rao S, Washburn M, Varney MA (2003) 3-[(2-Methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]-pyridine: a potent and highly selective metabotropic glutamate subtype 5 receptor antagonist with anxiolytic activity. J Med Chem 46:204–6
Dravolina OA, Danysz W, Bespalov AY (2006) Effects of group I metabotropic glutamate receptor antagonists on the behavioral sensitization to motor effects of cocaine in rats. Psychopharmacology 187:397–404
Duffy SN, Craddock KJ, Abel T, Nguyen PV (2001) Environmental enrichment modifies the PKA-dependence of hippocampal LTP and improves hippocampus-dependent memory. Learn Mem 8:26–34
Gass JT, Osborne MP, Watson NL, Brown JL, Olive MF (2009) mGluR5 antagonism attenuates methamphetamine reinforcement and prevents reinstatement of methamphetamine-seeking behavior in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:820–33
Gill M, Weiss M, Cain M (2011) Effects of differential rearing on amphetamine-induced c-fos expression in rats
Giorgetti M, Hotsenpiller G, Ward P, Teppen T, Wolf ME (2001) Amphetamine-induced plasticity of AMPA receptors in the ventral tegmental area: effects on extracellular levels of dopamine and glutamate in freely moving rats. J Neurosci 21:6362–9
Gormley S, Rompre PP (2010) Blockade of mGLUR5 receptors differentially alters amphetamine-induced enhancement of locomotor activity and of brain stimulation reward. J Psychopharmacol 25(3):393–401
Green EJ, Greenough WT (1986) Altered synaptic transmission in dentate gyrus of rats reared in complex environments: evidence from hippocampal slices maintained in vitro. J Neurophysiol 55:739–50
Hao Y, Martin-Fardon R, Weiss F (2010) Behavioral and functional evidence of metabotropic glutamate receptor 2/3 and metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 dysregulation in cocaine-escalated rats: factor in the transition to dependence. Biol Psychiatry 68:240–248
Herzig V, Schmidt WJ (2004) Effects of MPEP on locomotion, sensitization and conditioned reward induced by cocaine or morphine. Neuropharmacology 47:973–84
Kim W, Vezina P, Kim J (2008) Blockade of group II, but not group I, mGluRs in the rat nucleus accumbens inhibits the expression of conditioned hyperactivity in an amphetamine-associated environment. Behavioural Brain Research 191:62–66
Kumaresan V, Yuan M, Yee J, Famous KR, Anderson SM, Schmidt HD, Pierce RC (2009) Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) antagonists attenuate cocaine priming- and cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking. Behavioral Brain Research 202:238–44
Martin-Fardon R, Baptista MAS, Dayas CV, Weiss F (2009) Dissociation of the effects of MTEP [3-[(2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]piperidine] on conditioned reinstatement and reinforcement: comparison between cocaine and a conventional reinforcer. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 329:1084–1090
Mathiesen J, Svendsen N, Bruner-Osborne H, Thomsen C, Ramirez MT (2003) Positive allosteric modulation of the human metabotropic glutamate receptor 4 (hmGluR4) by SIB-1893 and MPEP. Br J Pharmacol 138:1026–30
McGeehan AJ, Olive MF (2003) The mGluR5 antagonist MPEP reduces the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine but not other drugs of abuse. Synapse 47:240–2
Melendez RI, Gregory ML, Bardo MT, Kalivas PW (2004) Impoverished rearing environment alters metabotropic glutamate receptor expression and function in the prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1980–7
National Research Council (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory rats. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Palmatier MI, Liu X, Donny EC, Caggiula AR, Sved AF (2008) Metabotropic glutamate 5 receptor (mGluR5) antagonists decrease nicotine seeking, but do not affect the reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:2139–47
Rahman S, Bardo MT (2008) Environmental enrichment increases amphetamine-induced glutamate neurotransmission in the nucleus accumbens: a neurochemical study. Brain Research 1197:40–46
Renner MJ, Rosenzweig MR (1987) Enriched and impoverished environments: effects on brain and behavior. Springer, New York
Rutten K, Van der Kam E, De Vry J, Bruckmann W, Tzschentke T (2010) The mGluR5 antagonist 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)-pyridine (MPEP) potentiates conditioned place preference induced by various addictive and non-addictive drugs in rats. Addictive Biology 16:108–115
Schenk S, Hunt T, Malovechko R, Robertson A, Klukowski G, Amit Z (1986) Differential effects of isolation housing on the conditioned place preference produced by cocaine and amphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:1793–6
Schwendt M, McGinty JF (2007) Regulator of G-protein signaling 4 interacts with metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 in rat striatum: relevance to amphetamine behavioral sensitization. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 323:650–7
Simpson J, Kelly JP (2011) The impact of environmental enrichment in laboratory rats—behavioural and neurochemical aspects. Behavioural Brain Research 222:246–64
Solinas M, Chauvet C, Thiriet N, El Rawas R, Jaber M (2008) Reversal of cocaine addiction by environmental enrichment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:17145–50
Stairs DJ, Bardo MT (2009) Neurobehavioral effects of environmental enrichment and drug abuse vulnerability. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 92:377–82
van Praag H, Kempermann G, Gage F (2001) Neural consequences of environmental enrichment. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:191–198
Veeneman M, Boleig H, Broekhoven M, Snoeren E, Guitart Masip M, Cousign J, Spooren W, Vanderschuren L (2011) Dissociable roles of mGlu5 and dopamine receptors in the rewarding and sensitizating properties of morphine and cocaine. Psychopharmacology 214:863–876
Wolf ME (1998) The role of excitatory amino acids in behavioral sensitization to psychomotor stimulants. Prog Neurobiol 54:679–720
Wolf ME, Xue CJ (1999) Amphetamine-induced glutamate efflux in the rat ventral tegmental area is prevented by MK-801, SCH 23390, and ibotenic acid lesions of the prefrontal cortex. J Neurochem 73:1529–38
Wood DA, Buse JE, Wellman CL, Rebec GV (2005) Differential environmental exposure alters NMDA but not AMPA receptor subunit expression in nucleus accumbens core and shell. Brain Research 1042:176–83
Woodcock E, Richardson R (2000) Effects of environmental enrichment on rate of contextual processing and discriminative ability in adult rats. Neurobiol Learn Mem 73:1–10
Wooters TE, Bardo MT, Dwoskin LP, Midde NM, Gomez AM, Mactutus CF, Booze RM, Zhu J (2011) Effect of environmental enrichment on methylphenidate-induced locomotion and dopamine transporter dynamics. Behav Brain Res 219(1):98–107
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gill, M.J., Arnold, J.C. & Cain, M.E. Impact of mGluR5 during amphetamine-induced hyperactivity and conditioned hyperactivity in differentially reared rats. Psychopharmacology 221, 227–237 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2565-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2565-0