Evidence for opiate-dopamine cross-sensitization in nucleus accumbens: Studies of conditioned reward
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Rats given intra-accumbens treatment of certain opiates (such as morphine) later proved to be sensitized to the behavioral effects of amphetamine.
“Similarly, a study by Cunningham et al. found that rats who were given intra-accumbens treatment of certain opiates (such as morphine) later proved to be sensitized to the behavioral effects of amphetamine (Cunningham & Kelley, 1992).”
From Cued for Risk: Evidence for an Incentive Sensitization Framework to Explain the Interplay between Stress and Anxiety, Substance Abuse, and Reward Uncertainty in Disordered Gambling Behavior (2019) · cites this paper as Cunningham & Kelley, 1992
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