Cited by 101Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

Nucleus accumbens dopamine mediates amphetamine-induced impairment of social bonding in a monogamous rodent species

Open access
Liu, Yan, Aragona, Brandon J., Young, Kimberly A., Dietz, David M., Kabbaj, Mohamed, Mazei-Robison, Michelle, Nestler, Eric J., Wang, Zuoxin·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The prairie vole ( Microtus ochrogaster ) is a socially monogamous rodent species that forms pair bonds after mating, a behavior in which central dopamine (DA) has been implicated. Here, we used male prairie voles to examine the effects of drug exposure on pair bonding and related neural circuitry. In our first experiment, amphetamine (AMPH) motivated behavior was examined using a conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm and was shown to be mediated by activation of D1-like DA receptors. Next, we examined the effects of repeated AMPH exposure on pair bonding. Intact and saline pretreated control males displayed mating-induced partner preferences, whereas males pretreated with AMPH at the doses effective to induce CPP failed to show mating-induced partner preferences. Such AMPH treatment also enhanced D1, but not D2, DA receptor expression in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). Furthermore, pharmacological blockade of D1-like DA receptors in the NAcc rescued mating-induced partner preferences in AMPH-treated males. Together, our data indicate that repeated AMPH exposure may narrow the behavioral repertoire of male prairie voles via a DA receptor-specific mechanism in the NAcc, resulting in the impairment of pair bond formation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0911998107

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • SPECT investigations in TS have found higher DAT binding in the right caudate, the striatum, the putamen after amphetamine challenge, and the basal ganglia.

    “Single-photon emission computed tomography investigations in TS have found higher DAT binding in the right caudate [635], the striatum [636-639], the putamen after amphetamine challenge [640], and the basal ganglia [641].”
  • Sexually naïve male prairie voles that receive this treatment reject potential female partners and fail to bond with them, exactly as is observed in pair-bonded males.

    “Sexually naïve male prairie voles that receive this treatment reject potential female partners and fail to bond with them, exactly as is observed in pair-bonded males (Liu et al 2010).”
  • Administering amphetamines to prairie voles daily for 3 days causes an upregulation of D1R in the nucleus accumbens that mimics the upregulation seen in pair bonding.

    “More directly, administering amphetamines to prairie voles daily for 3 days causes an upregulation of D1R in the NAC that mimics the upregulation seen in pair bonding (Liu et al 2010).”
  • These same males are able to form a pair bond if D1R in the nucleus accumbens shell is blocked with an antagonist, a manipulation that prevents the expression of selective aggression in drug-naïve, pair bonded males.

    “These same males are able to form a pair bond if D1R in the NAC shell is blocked with an antagonist, a manipulation that prevents the expression of selective aggression in drug-naïve, pair bonded males (Aragona et al 2006; Liu et al 2010).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Aragona, B. J., Young, K. A., Dietz, D. M., Kabbaj, M., Mazei-Robison, M., Nestler, E. J., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Fishberg Department of Neuroscience, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-12-29
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
1217-1222
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2032569537
Cited by
101
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (DAK02-23048, DAR01-19627, MHR01-58616)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
nucleus accumbens, dopamine, amphetamine, pair bonding, social monogamy, Microtus ochrogaster, dopamine D1 receptor, dopamine D2 receptor, conditioned place preference, mate preferences, dopamine receptor expression
MeSH terms
Amphetamine, Animals, Arvicolinae, Dopamine, Female, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Social Behavior, Blotting, Western

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