Age‐dependent induction and maintenance of sensitization to methamphetamine‐induced hyperactivity in mice

Abstract Repeated administrations of methamphetamine (2 mg/kg, s.c), 10 times at 3‐day intervals, induced ambulatory sensitization in all groups of mice that were 13‐, 15‐, 19‐, 23‐ and 36‐weeks‐old at the start of methamphetamine administration. The most prominent sensitization was observed in the 19‐week‐old mice. Among five groups of mice, even though the mice of 36 weeks old showed the highest sensitivity to methamphetamine at the first administration, they exhibited the lowest sensitization during the latter stage of repeated methamphetamine administration. Methamphetamine sensitization once established was well reproduced by the post‐sensitization period of 8 weeks. Furthermore, the group of mice given methamphetamine with post‐sensitization interval of 8 weeks (19‐week‐old mice) exhibited further enhancement of the sensitization. In contrast, the groups of mice given methamphetamine with post‐sensitization intervals of 12 and 25 weeks (the 23‐ and 36‐week‐old, respectively) showed a significant reduced sensitization, and the latter group failed to reach the level of sensitization previously established. These results suggest that the induction of and maintenance of methamphetamine sensitization are dependent on the age of the mice, and that methamphetamine sensitization once established completely persists for up to 8 weeks.

[1]  H. Kuribara,et al.  Methamphetamine Sensitization in Young Adult and Mature Adult Mice Assessed by Ambulation , 1995 .

[2]  土田 和生 Ontogeny of enhanced striatal dopamine release in rats with methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization , 1994 .

[3]  H. Ujike,et al.  Ontogeny of enhanced striatal dopamine release in rats with methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization , 1994, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[4]  G. Chiara,et al.  Quantitative autoradiographical analysis of the age-related modulation of central dopamine D1 and D2 receptors , 1990, Neuroscience.

[5]  S. Iversen,et al.  Effects of ageing on the behavioural responses to dopamine agonists: decreased yawning and locomotion, but increased stereotypy , 1989, Brain Research.

[6]  J. Waddington,et al.  Behavioural responses to the selective D1‐dopamine receptor agonist R‐SK&F 38393 and the selective D2‐agonist RU 24213 in young compared with aged rats , 1988, British journal of pharmacology.

[7]  W. Spirduso,et al.  Reaction time and nigrostriatal dopamine function: the effects of age and practice , 1988, Brain Research.

[8]  B. Jänicke,et al.  Adaptivity as a Paradigm for Age‐dependent Changes Exemplified by Motor Behavior , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[9]  T. Robinson,et al.  Enduring changes in brain and behavior produced by chronic amphetamine administration: A review and evaluation of animal models of amphetamine psychosis , 1986, Brain Research Reviews.

[10]  S. Otsuki,et al.  Acute exacerbation of paranoid psychotic state after long-term abstinence in patients with previous methamphetamine psychosis. , 1983, Biological psychiatry.

[11]  M. Hirabayashi,et al.  Enhancing effect of methamphetamine on ambulatory activity produced by repeated administration in mice , 1981, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[12]  R. Post,et al.  Conditioning as a critical determinant of sensitization induced by psychomotor stimulants. , 1990, NIDA research monograph.

[13]  H. Kuribara,et al.  Reverse tolerance to the ambulation-increasing effect of methamphetamine in mice as an animal model of amphetamine-psychosis. , 1986, Psychopharmacology bulletin.

[14]  B. McMillen CNS stimulants: two distinct mechanisms of action for amphetamine-like drugs , 1983 .