CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 165

Psychostimulant abuse and neuroinflammation: emerging evidence of their interconnection.

Clark, Kenneth H., Wiley, Clayton A., Bradberry, Charles W.·2013·Neurotoxicity Research
DOI 10.1007/s12640-012-9334-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

During the past two decades, there has been a tremendous expansion of knowledge regarding the neurobiological effects of substance abuse and how these effects impact behavior. At the same time, there has been a profound change in our understanding of the way in which the central nervous system responds to noxious stimuli. Most often referred to as the innate immune response (IIR), this defense mechanism is activated by a number of agents (toxic, microbial, ischemic) and has been implicated in the progression of a number of neurodegenerative diseases. We review evidence that psychostimulants of abuse (cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy) are associated with activation of the IIR. We first present background on what is currently known about the IIR including some of the cellular elements involved (microglia, astrocytes, vascular endothelial cells), key receptor pathways, and primary inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α). We then present a variety of protein and gene expression data taken from animal studies that show increased expression of various components of the IIR following acute or repeated psychostimulant administration. Collectively the data indicate an association of psychostimulant use with IIR activation in the brain even at exposures not traditionally associated with neurotoxicity. Thus, the gradually escalating deleterious effects of psychostimulant use could in part involve neuroinflammatory mechanisms. Finally, we offer one hypothesis of a possible mechanism…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12640-012-9334-7

Cites

18 of 18 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
Clark, K. H., Wiley, C. A., & Bradberry, C. W.
Venue
Neurotoxicity Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-06-20
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
174-188
ISSN
  • 1029-8428
  • 1476-3524
DOI
10.1007/s12640-012-9334-7
Cited by
165
References
18
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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