Cited by 65Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Evidence for opiate-dopamine cross-sensitization in nucleus accumbens: Studies of conditioned reward

Cunningham, S.Tiffany, Kelley, Ann E.·1992·Brain Research Bulletin

Abstract

We investigated opiate-amphetamine interactions within the nucleus accumbens in responding for conditioned reward. Separate groups of animals received 4-day intra-accumbens treatment with either saline, morphine (0.5 microgram/0.5 microliter), [D-Ala2 NMe-Phe4 Gly-ol5]-Enkephalin (DAMGO; 1.0 micrograms/0.5 microliter), or [D-Pen2,5]-Enkephalin (DPEN; 2.0 micrograms/0.5 microliter). One two subsequent test days, these rats were given a challenge of d-amphetamine (2.0 and 10.0 micrograms/0.5 microliter) and responding for conditioned reward was measured. In the conditioned reinforcement (CR) procedure, food-deprived animals were trained in an initial phase to associate a food reward (primary reinforcement) with a compound stimulus (light/click). In the next phase, a lever was introduced and responding on the lever produced the compound stimulus alone (secondary reinforcement). Previous evidence shows that psychostimulants but not opiates markedly potentiate responding for conditioned reward. In the present design, animals previously treated with either morphine or DAMGO (preferential mu agonists) showed potentiated lever responding following amphetamine challenges, relative to either DPEN- or saline-treated animals. These findings show that prior exposure of nucleus accumbens neurons to mu-selective opiates induces sensitization to the effects of amphetamine. The results are discussed in terms of opioid effects on dopamine transmission and second messenger systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0361-9230(92)90137-m

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 65

Authors
Cunningham, S. T., & Kelley, A. E.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Kelley, Ann E.
Venue
Brain Research Bulletin
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1992-11
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
675-680
ISSN
0361-9230 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989682213
Cited by
65
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-04788)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
nucleus accumbens, conditioned reward, morphine, DAMGO, mu-opioid receptor agonists, amphetamine, conditioned reinforcement, second messenger signaling
MeSH terms
Animals, Conditioning, Operant, Dextroamphetamine, Dopamine, Enkephalins, Male, Morphine, Narcotics, Nucleus Accumbens, Reward, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Enkephalin, Ala(2)-MePhe(4)-Gly(5)-, Enkephalin, D-Penicillamine (2,5)-, 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