Cited by 134Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Therapeutic doses of amphetamine or methylphenidate differentially increase synaptic and extracellular dopamine

Schiffer, W.K., Volkow, N.D., Fowler, J.S., Alexoff, D.L., Logan, J., Dewey, S.L.·2006·Synapse

Abstract

Methylphenidate (MP) and amphetamine (AMP) are first-line treatments for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although both drugs have similar therapeutic potencies, the stimulatory effect of AMP on extracellular dopamine (ECF DA) is greater than that of MP. We compared extracellular effects directly against synaptic changes. ECF DA was assessed by microdialysis in freely moving rodents and synaptic dopamine (DA) was measured using PET and [11C]-raclopride displacement in rodents and baboons. Microdialysis data demonstrated that MP (5.0 mg/kg, i.p.) increased ECF DA 360% +/- 31% in striatum, which was significantly less than that by AMP (2.5 mg/kg, i.p.; 1398% +/- 272%). This fourfold difference was not reflected by changes in synaptic DA. In fact, rodent PET studies showed no difference in striatal [11C]-raclopride binding induced by AMP (2.5 mg/kg, i.p.; 25% +/- 4% reduction) compared with that by MP (5.0 mg/kg, i.p.; 21% +/- 4% reduction). Primate PET experiments also showed no differences between AMP (0.5 mg/kg, i.v.; 24% +/- 4% reduction) and MP (1.0 mg/kg, i.v.; 25% +/- 7% reduction) induced changes in [11C]-raclopride binding potential. The similar potencies of MP and AMP to alter synaptic DA, despite their different potencies in raising ECF DA, could reflect their different molecular mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/syn.20235

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schiffer, W. K., Volkow, N. D., Fowler, J. S., Alexoff, D. L., Logan, J., & Dewey, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory (US)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
Corresponding author
Schiffer, W.K.
Venue
Synapse
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12-29
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
243-251
ISSN
  • 0887-4476 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2396
OpenAlex
W2075962139
Cited by
134
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Synapse (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32-DA07316, T32DA007316, DA-06278, F31-DA01587, R01DA006278)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
amphetamine, methylphenidate, extracellular dopamine, synaptic dopamine, striatum, dopamine transporter, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, microdialysis, positron emission tomography
MeSH terms
Amphetamine, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Animals, Brain, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid, Dopamine, Female, Male, Methylphenidate, Papio, Synapses, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Microdialysis, Extracellular Fluid, Positron-Emission Tomography, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review