Cited by 298Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Effects of dopamine D-1 and D-2 antagonists on cocaine self-administration under different schedules of reinforcement in the rat.

Caine, S B, Koob, G F·1994·The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Abstract

The effects of three dopamine D-1 receptor antagonists (SCH23390, SCH39166 and A69024) and three dopamine D-2 antagonists (raclopride, eticlopride and spiperone) on cocaine self-administration maintained under different schedules of reinforcement were examined in the rat. Intravenous cocaine self-administration was maintained under a fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule with a 20-sec timeout (TO) after each reinforcement or a FR 15 with a 2-min TO multiple schedule of cocaine (0.25 mg i.v.) and food (45 mg) reinforcement. With the exception of raclopride, all of the antagonists altered the self-administration of cocaine in a manner similar to decreasing the unit dose of cocaine under the schedule in effect, reflected by increased self-administration under the FR 5 TO 20-sec schedule and decreased self-administration under the FR 15 TO 2-min multiple schedule. Moreover, a low dose of either of the benzazepine dopamine D-1 antagonists SCH23390 or SCH39166, but not the other compounds, selectively reduced cocaine self-administration without altering responding for food under the multiple schedule. Conversely, a low dose of raclopride or A69024 selectively decreased food-reinforced responding without altering cocaine self-administration under the multiple schedule. These results suggest that benzazepine dopamine D-1 antagonists, at low doses, may attenuate the reinforcing properties of cocaine more selectively than other dopamine receptor antagonists. The results also demonstrate the advantages of using different schedules to investigate the effects of dopamine D-1 and D-2 antagonists on cocaine self-administration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3565(25)22355-2

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?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caine, S. B., & Koob, G. F.
Affiliations
Scripps Research Institute (US)
Venue
The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-07
Volume
270
Issue
1
Pages
209-218
ISSN
0022-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1943544645
Cited by
298
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1f31da005478-01)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA07348, DA 05478, DA04398, R01DA004398)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
cocaine self-administration, SCH 23390, raclopride, eticlopride, spiperone, reinforcement schedules, fixed-ratio schedules, multiple schedules, food reinforcement
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Cocaine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Interactions, Male, Reinforcement, Psychology, Self Administration, Rats, Wistar, Receptors, Dopamine D1, Rats, Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists

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