Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Oct 22;34(6):1482–1493. doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.192

The sigma receptor antagonist BD-1063 decreases ethanol intake and reinforcement in animal models of excessive drinking

Valentina Sabino 1,2,*, Pietro Cottone 1,2,*, Yu Zhao 1, Malliga R Iyer 3, Luca Steardo Jr 4, Luca Steardo 5, Kenner C Rice 3, Bruno Conti 2,6, George F Koob 1, Eric P Zorrilla 1,2
PMCID: PMC2669694  NIHMSID: NIHMS70473  PMID: 18946467

Abstract

Sigma receptors (SigRs) have been implicated in behavioral and appetitive effects of psychostimulants and may also modulate the motivating properties of ethanol. The present study tested the hypothesis that SigRs modulate ethanol reinforcement and contribute to excessive ethanol intake. The effects of subcutaneous treatment with the potent, selective Sig-1R antagonist BD-1063 on operant ethanol self-administration were studied in two models of excessive drinking - Sardinian alcohol-preferring (sP) rats and acutely-withdrawn ethanol-dependent Wistar rats – and compared to ethanol self-administration in non-dependent Wistar controls. To assess the specificity of action, the effects of BD-1063 on self-administration of an equally reinforcing saccharin solution were determined in Wistar and sP rats. Gene expression of Sig-1R in reward-related brain areas implicated in ethanol reinforcement was compared between ethanol-naïve sP and Wistar rats and withdrawn ethanol-dependent Wistar rats. BD-1063 dose-dependently reduced ethanol self-administration in sP rats (3.3–11 mg/kg) and withdrawn, dependent Wistar rats (4–11 mg/kg) at doses that did not modify mean ethanol self-administration in non-dependent Wistar controls. BD-1063 did not reduce concurrent water self-administration nor did it comparably suppress saccharin self-administration, suggesting selectivity of action. BD-1063 also reduced the breakpoints of sP rats to work for ethanol under a progressive-ratio reinforcement schedule. Ethanol-naive sP rats and 24-hr withdrawn, dependent Wistar rats showed reduced Sig-1R mRNA expression in the nucleus accumbens. The results suggest that SigR systems may contribute to innate or ethanol-induced increases in susceptibility to self-administer high ethanol levels, identifying a potential neuroadaptive mechanism contributing to excessive drinking and a therapeutic target for alcohol abuse and dependence.

INTRODUCTION

Alcoholism is a multifactorial, chronic disorder of compulsive alcohol use (McLellan et al, 2000). Animal models that mimic alcoholism are unattainable, but syndrome components can be modeled (Koob et al, 1998). Excessive ethanol self-administration has been observed in rodents selectively bred for ethanol intake and in outbred rats withdrawn from ethanol following induction of ethanol dependence (McBride and Li, 1998; Rimondini et al, 2002; Roberts et al, 2000; Rogers et al, 1979). Use of such procedures has identified a role of opioid peptide systems in the acute reinforcing effects of ethanol and excessive drinking (Lovinger and Crabbe, 2005). While much work has explored the role of opioid peptide systems and related peptides (e.g. nociceptin) on the reinforcing effects of ethanol, little work has examined the role of sigma receptors.

Sigma receptors (SigR) were originally categorized as members of the opiate receptor family (Martin et al, 1976) and a high-affinity phencyclidine (PCP) binding-site (Quirion et al, 1981). However, it is now known that SigRs have unique binding sites that differ from other known mammalian proteins (Gundlach et al, 1985; Walker et al, 1990). Two different SigR subtypes are known, Sig-1R and Sig-2R, differing in their binding profile and molecular weight (Hanner et al, 1996; Hellewell and Bowen, 1990; Moebius et al, 1993). The Sig-1R gene (Mei and Pasternak, 2001; Pan et al, 1998; Seth et al, 1998) encodes a 29 kDa polypeptide containing one or two putative transmembrane domains. Sig-1Rs are synthesized and expressed widely in rat brain, especially in areas throughout limbic systems and brainstem motor structures. The highest levels of immunoreactivity are observed in the olfactory bulb, hypothalamus and hippocampus, but the caudate putamen, septum, nucleus accumbens and amygdala showed moderately concentrated, intense labeling (Alonso et al, 2000; Bouchard and Quirion, 1997; Phan et al, 2003). The anatomical distribution of SigRs, which immunostain at synaptic contacts (Maurice et al., 2002; Alonso et al., 2000), suggests that SigRs may modulate motivationally-relevant synaptic transmission, including that of drugs of abuse.

Accordingly, SigRs are implicated in actions of psychostimulants. SigR antagonists block cocaine-induced c-Fos expression, locomotion, place preference conditioning, seizures and lethality in rodents (Maurice and Romieu, 2004; McCracken et al, 1999; Menkel et al, 1991; Witkin et al, 1993). Likewise, the SigR antagonists BD-1063 and/or BD-1047 attenuated the locomotor stimulatory effects of methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in mice (Brammer et al, 2006; Romieu et al, 2002), and MS-377 attenuated the development of behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine (Takahashi et al, 2000). A SigR antagonist also attenuated contextual reinstatement of cocaine-directed responding (Martin-Fardon et al, 2007). Many actions of SigR antagonists are shared by Sig-1R receptor antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (Brammer et al, 2006; Romieu et al, 2002). Repeated passive cocaine (Romieu et al, 2002) and methamphetamine exposure (Itzhak, 1993) increased Sig-1R mRNA expression in several discrete brain regions, as did daily methamphetamine self-administration (Stefanski et al, 2004). Accordingly, activation and overexpression of Sig-1Rs is a putative primary cellular response to psychostimulants proposed to underlie addiction-associated neuroadaptations (Maurice et al, 2004; Su and Hayashi, 2003; Takebayashi et al, 2002).

Few studies have examined SigR modulation of ethanol’s actions, however. While it often has been assumed that SigR antagonist-sensitive actions of cocaine and metamphetamine reflect direct molecular interactions, the psychostimulants bind with only micromolar affinity to SigRs (Brammer et al, 2006; Nguyen et al, 2005; Sharkey et al, 1988). Thus, indirect SigR-mediated effects may exist for substances of abuse, including ethanol. Indeed, the SigR antagonist BD1047 dose-dependently attenuated ethanol-induced locomotion and blocked ethanol-induced place and taste conditioning. Moreover, Sig-1R gene functional polymorphisms that correlate with alterations in receptor transcription were overrepresented in a Japanese population of alcoholic subjects (Miyatake et al, 2004). The purpose of the present study was therefore to test the hypothesis that SigRs modulate reinforcing effects of ethanol. For this, we examined the effects of systemic administration of the SigR antagonist BD-1063 on operant oral ethanol self-administration in dependent Wistar rats withdrawn from repeated, intermittent ethanol vapor exposure and in genetically selected Sardinian alcohol-preferring (sP) rats (Colombo, 1997; Colombo et al, 1995). To assess the selectivity of action against high (“excessive”) ethanol drinking, results were compared to those seen in non-dependent, outbred Wistar rats and against similar rates of saccharin self-administration. Finally, gene expression of Sig-1R in several reward-related brain areas putatively implicated in ethanol reinforcement (e.g., nucleus accumbens, ventral tegmental area, central amygdala, basolateral amygdala) (Vengeliene et al, 2008) were compared between ethanol-naïve sP and Wistar rats and acutely withdrawn, dependent Wistar rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals

Male Wistar rats (n = 61; Charles River; Raleigh, NC) and genetically selected TSRI Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats (TSRI sP; n = 34) were subjects. TSRI sP rats were generated from the 22nd–24th generations of intra-line breeding at The Scripps Research Institute from sP rats obtained after 32 generations of selection from Prof. G.L. Gessa (University of Cagliari). Rats, 300 g at study onset, were group-housed (2–3/cage) in a humidity- and temperature (22°C)-controlled vivarium on a 12-h light–dark cycle (lights off, 8:00 am) with water and chow (Harlan Teklad 7012) available ad libitum. Procedures adhered to the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of The Scripps Research Institute.

Drugs

Ethanol (10% v/v) and saccharin solutions were prepared in tap water using 95% ethyl alcohol and saccharin sodium salt hydrate (Sigma Aldrich, catalog number S1002), respectively. BD-1063 × 2 HBr salt (1-[2-(3,4-Dichlorophenyl)ethyl]-4-methylpiperazine dihydrobromide]) was synthesized according to the previously reported procedure (de Costa et al, 1993). BD-1063 was solubilized in isotonic saline and injected subcutaneously (s.c. 1 ml/kg), 15 min before testing.

Oral self-administration apparatus

The self-administration test chambers (Coulbourn Instruments, Allentown, PA) were located in sound-attenuating, ventilated environmental cubicles. Syringe pumps (Razel Scientific Instruments, Stamford, CT) dispensed ethanol or water into two stainless steel drinking cups mounted 4 cm above the grid floor in the middle of one side panel. Two retractable levers were located 4.5 cm to either side of the drinking cups. Fluid delivery and recording of operant responses were controlled by microcomputers.

Ethanol self-administration procedure

Outbred Wistar rats

Wistar rats were allowed to press a lever for ethanol on a fixed ratio-1 (FR-1) schedule of reinforcement via a modified Samson fading procedure (Funk et al., 2007). Briefly, rats first responded for 0.1 ml of a glucose (3% w/v)/saccharin (0.125% w/v) solution for 5 sessions. Then, ethanol self-administration was initiated by adding ethanol (10% v/v) to the sweet solution for 4–5 sessions, followed by 4–5 sessions of 10% ethanol + 0.125% saccharin only. Finally, rats received operant access to the 10% ethanol solution alone. During training, subjects received a 30-min self-administration session 5 days per week.

sP rats

sP rats were allowed to self-administer 10% v/v ethanol without a fading procedure under an FR1 reinforcement schedule, as previously described (Sabino et al, 2006). Lever presses had no scheduled consequences for 2.01 sec after the activation of the pumps to avoid double responses (Sabino et al, 2006). For training, rats received a daily 60-min self-administration session 5 days per week until stable (<15% across three consecutive sessions). For both Wistar and sP rats, responses at the opposite lever produced water, with the lever that produced water or ethanol alternated daily during training.

Separate animals were allowed to self-administer 10% v/v ethanol under a progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement in which the number of responses required to produce successive ethanol deliveries increased per the exponential progression: response ratio= 4 × (e# of reinforcer*0.1)−3.8, rounded to the nearest integer. Session began upon completion of the first ratio with a maximum duration of 2 hr. To avoid unintended session starts, the first reinforcement required 3 responses. Sessions ended when subjects did not complete a ratio for 15 min. The dependent measures were as follows: a) breakpoint, last ratio completed by a subject prior to the end of the session; b) total responses, total number of reinforced and non-reinforced responses; c) reinforcers, total number of reinforced responses. Testing, performed between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm twice per week, began when stable responding (<15% across three consecutive sessions) was observed.

Saccharin self-administration procedure

Rats were allowed 1–2 overnight (16-hr) operant, 2-choice access sessions during which lever responses led to delivery of 0.1 ml saccharin (0.1% w/v) or water solutions under an FR1 schedule, Food was available ad libitum. All subsequent FR1 sessions were 60-min in duration, without food present, with saccharin concentrations reduced progressively from 0.1% w/v to 0.0035% for Wistar rats and to 0.045% w/v for sP rats. These concentrations maintained response rates similar to those elicited by ethanol in dependent Wistar rats and sP rats, respectively.

Ethanol vapor exposure procedure

To induce dependence, Wistar rats were housed within sealed, clear plastic chambers into which ethanol vapor was intermittently introduced, as described previously (Sabino et al, 2006). The chambers were connected to a timer that turned the ethanol vapor on (8:00 pm) and off (10:00 am), for 14 hr of daily ethanol exposure. Tail blood (0.05 ml) was sampled at vapor offset for BAL determination twice during the first week and weekly thereafter. The plasma was extracted with trichloroacetic acid and assayed for ethanol content using the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide–alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme spectrophotometric method (Sigma). Target BALs were 150–200 mg% across a 6-week exposure period. This paradigm induces physical dependence and increases operant ethanol self-administration during withdrawal (Funk et al, 2006; O’Dell et al, 2004; Sabino et al, 2006); control rats were kept under similar conditions without ethanol vapor exposure.

After 6 weeks of exposure, rats in the self-administration experiment were tested for operant ethanol self-administration twice weekly, beginning 6 hr after vapor offset. The first 4 of these 30-min sessions allowed subjects to experience the potential negative reinforcing effects of ethanol during acute withdrawal, after which experimental testing was initiated. Rats in the qPCR experiment were instead anesthetized by isoflurane inhalation and sacrificed 6 hr or 24 hr after vapor offset. Brains were sectioned coronally (2 mm slices) in a rat brain matrix. Brain regions of interest (nucleus accumbens, ventral tegmental area, central nucleus of the amygdala), chosen for their role in reward and reinforcement and moderate-to-high SigR expression (Alonso et al, 2000; Bouchard et al, 1997), were punched using a 14-gauge needle, guided by atlas (Palkovits, 1988), and stored at −80°C until processing.

Effects of BD-1063 on ethanol self-administration

Outbred Wistar

Rats (controls, N=11; dependent, N=9) were pretreated with BD-1063 (0, 4.4, 7 and 11 mg/kg of body weight, free base weights, s.c.) using a within-subject Latin square design. sP rats: Rats (N=9) were pretreated with BD-1063 (0, 3, 4.4, 7 and 11 mg/kg of body weight, free base basis, s.c.) using a within-subject Latin square design.

Effects of BD-1063 on progressive-ratio ethanol self-administration

Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats (N=11) were pretreated with BD-1063 (0, 3, 4.4, 7 and 11 mg/kg, s.c.) using a within-subject Latin square design.

Effects of BD-1063 on saccharin self-administration

Rats were pretreated with BD-1063 (Wistar: 0, 4.4, 7, 11 mg/kg, N=8; sP: 0, 3, 4.4, 7, 11 mg/kg, N=7) using a within-subject Latin square design.

Sig-1R gene expression

Total RNA was prepared from each punch using the RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) as recommended for animal tissue. Total RNA (1 vg), quantified by Ribogreen reagent (Molecular Probes, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), was reverse transcribed with SuperScript First-Strand Synthesis System for RT-PCR (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) in the presence of Oligo (dT)12–18 per the manufacturer’s instructions. For quantitative real-time PCR, Roche Light Cycler 480 Master-plus SYBR Green mix (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN) was used. Reactions (20 μl) were carried out in a 96-well plate Realplex4 machine (Eppendorf). The primers (0.5 μM final concentration, Valuegene, San Diego, CA), synthesized with a standard desalting purification, were, for Cyclophilin A (Cyp), 5′-TAT CTG CAC TGC CAA GAC TGA GTG -3′ and 5′-CTT CTT GCT GGT CTT GCC ATT CC -3′ and, for Sig-1R, 5′-GCT GCA GTG GGT GTT TGT GAA CG -3′ and 5′-GGT GGA AAG TGC CAG AGA TGA TGG TA -3′. The Cyp sequence was amplified using a three-temperature protocol which included an initial 5 min at 94 °C to activate Taq polymerase, followed by 40 denaturation cycles at 95 °C for 20 sec, annealing at 58 °C for 15 sec, and extension at 72 °C for 10 sec. The Sig-1R sequence was amplified per a two-temperature protocol after an initial 5-min at 94 °C: 40 cycles at 94 °C for 15 sec and at 68 °C for 8 sec. The primers for Sig-1R hybridize to sequences within exons 3 and 4 of the Oprs-1 transcript and therefore amplify the “long” isoform of the protein, corresponding to the characterized receptor (Ganapathy et al, 1999). Standard curves were constructed using sequenced PCR products. Results were analyzed by second derivative methods and expressed in arbitrary units, normalized to Cyp expression levels. Standards and samples were run in duplicate, and all reactions for a given brain region were performed concurrently. Gene-specific amplification was determined by melt curve analysis as one peak at the expected melting temperature and by agarose gel electrophoresis.

Statistical analysis

Ethanol responding data were analyzed by analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and expressed as mean ± S.E.M., normalized for body weight (i.e., ethanol, g/kg; water and saccharin, ml/kg). The effects of BD-1063 on ethanol and saccharin responding in sP rats were analyzed by separate one-way ANOVAs with dose of BD-1063 as a within-subject factor. The effects of BD-1063 on ethanol responding in Wistar rats were analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with ethanol history (dependent vs. nondependent) as a between-subjects factor and dose of BD-1063 as a within-subject factor. Unless otherwise specified, Dunnett’s test was used for pairwise comparisons after significant omnibus tests. Quantitative PCR data were analyzed by Student’s t-test. The software package was Systat 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

Effect of BD-1063 on Ethanol Self-Administration in Nondependent and Withdrawn, Dependent Wistar Rats

As shown in Fig. 1 (top panel), treatment with the sigma receptor antagonist BD-1063 reduced ethanol responding [Treatment: F(3,54)= 5.41, P<0.01] in acutely withdrawn dependent Wistar rats, but not in non-dependent rats [Dependence × Treatment: F(3,54)= 2.92, P<0.05]. In dependent rats, BD-1063 reduced responding dose-dependently as reflected in linear trend analysis [log-linear Dose effect: F(1, 24)= 16.52, P<0.01]. Pairwise post hoc comparisons revealed that the doses of 7 and 11 mg/kg significantly reduced intake, and all 9 dependent rats self-administered less ethanol after treatment with 11 mg/kg BD-1063 than after vehicle treatment. In contrast, BD-1063 did not alter water responding in either group [Treatment: F(3,54)= 0.57, n.s.; Dependence × Treatment: F(3,54)= 0.39, n.s.] (Fig. 1, bottom panel).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Effect of acute subcutaneous pretreatment (-15 min) with the sigma receptor (SigR) antagonist BD-1063 on ethanol (panels A and B) and water (panels C and D) self-administration on a fixed ratio-1 schedule of reinforcement. Subjects were ethanol-dependent Wistar rats (n = 9), tested 6-hr into withdrawal from ethanol vapor, and non-dependent Wistar rats (n = 11). Data represent mean ± SEM intake, normalized for body weight (panels A and C), or number of lever press responses (panels B and D). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle-treated group (Dunnett’s test).

Among the non-dependent rats, subgroup analysis showed that BD-1063 (11 mg/kg) tended to decrease self-administration in high responders (38% reduction compared to vehicle, p = 0.08, n = 4, 0.80 + 0.06 g/kg), but not in low responders (n = 7, 0.19 + 0.05 g/kg). Among the dependent rats, median split subgroup analysis showed that BD-1063 treatment significantly and comparably reduced self-administration in lower responders (49% reduction, p = 0.0001; n = 5, 0.84 + 0.14 g/kg) vs. higher responders (34% reduction, p = 0.02; n = 5, 1.33 + 0.05 g/kg). Thus, BD-1063 reduced ethanol responding in non-dependent and dependent rodents that had high mean baseline ethanol self-administration (~0.8 g/kg of ethanol). Above this threshold of intake, the relative suppression of ethanol self-administration by BD-1063 was unrelated to baseline responding, arguing against a rate-dependent effect.

Effect of BD-1063 on Saccharin Self-Administration in Wistar Rats

As shown in Fig. 2, treatment with BD-1063 did not reliably affect responding for saccharin in Wistar rats [Treatment: F(3,21)= 0.65, n.s.]. Moreover, no significant linear contrast effect of dose was observed. As desired, the saccharin solution maintained levels of responding under vehicle conditions which did not differ from those observed in withdrawn, ethanol-dependent rats. BD-1063 treatment also did not affect concurrent responding for water [Treatment: F(3,21)= 0.13, n.s.], with no significant linear contrast effect of dose observed.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Effect of acute subcutaneous pretreatment (-15 min) with the sigma receptor (SigR) antagonist BD-1063 on saccharin (panel A) and water (panel B) self-administration on a fixed ratio-1 schedule of reinforcement in Wistar rats (n = 8). Data represent mean ± SEM number of lever press responses.

Effect of BD-1063 on Ethanol Self-Administration in sP rats

As shown in Fig. 3 (top panel), systemic treatment with the sigma receptor antagonist BD-1063 reduced ethanol responding of sP rats [Treatment: F(4,32)= 11.63, P<0.001], in a dose-dependent manner [log-linear Dose effect: F(1, 32)= 44.90, P<0.001]. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the 4.4, 7 and 11 mg/kg doses significantly reduced responding relative to vehicle conditions; all 9 sP rats showed reduced ethanol self-administration following the 11 mg/kg dose. In contrast, responding for water was not significantly affected by BD-1063 [Treatment: F(4,32)= 0.45, n.s.] (Fig. 3, bottom panel). Fig. 4 shows the time-course of BD-1063 action, with the drug reducing ethanol intake within the first 5 min of the session and the cumulative reduction persisting for the duration of the session (60 min). Median split analysis again showed that BD-1063 achieved a similar relative suppression of ethanol self-administration in lower responders (42% reduction, p = 0.04; n = 4, 0.92 + 0.05 g/kg) vs. higher responders (41% reduction, p < 0.01; n = 5, 1.30 + 0.11 g/kg).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Effect of acute subcutaneous pretreatment (-15 min) with the sigma receptor (SigR) antagonist BD-1063 on alcohol (panels A and B) and water (panels C and D) self-administration on a fixed ratio-1 schedule of reinforcement in sP rats (n = 9). Data represent mean ± SEM intake normalized for body weight (panels A and C), or number of lever press responses (panels B and D). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle-treated group (Dunnett’s test).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Time-course of the reduction of cumulative ethanol intake resulting from subcutaneous pretreatment with BD-1063 in sP rats (n = 9). Graph shows the cumulative ethanol intake at 5, 10, 15, 30 and 60 minutes into the session of subjects shown in Fig. 3. Data represent mean ± SEM. b= dose of 4.4 mg/kg, c= dose of 7 mg/kg, d= dose of 11 mg/kg, significantly different from vehicle (Dunnett’s test).

Effect of BD-1063 on Saccharin Self-Administration in sP rats

Treatment with BD-1063 did not reliably affect saccharin self-administration in sP rats [Treatment: F(4,24)= 1.90, n.s.], as shown in Fig. 5. Though a linear contrast effect of Dose was observed (F(1,24)= 5.24, P=0.03), pairwise comparisons showed that no dose reduced responding relative to vehicle conditions. Moreover, the relative reduction in ethanol responding in sP rats elicited by BD-1063 was greater in sP rats responding for ethanol than in those responding for saccharin (42 % vs. 15 %, respectively). As desired, the saccharin solution elicited similar levels of responding under vehicle conditions as were seen in sP rats responding for ethanol. BD-1063 treatment did not significantly affect water intake [F(4,24)= 1.42, n.s.], and no significant linear contrast effect of dose was observed.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Effect of acute subcutaneous pretreatment (-15 min) with the sigma receptor (SigR) antagonist BD-1063 on saccharin (panel A) and water (panel B) self-administration on a fixed ratio-1 schedule of reinforcement in sP rats (n = 8). Data represent the mean ± SEM number of lever press responses.

Effect of BD-1063 on Progressive Ratio Responding for Ethanol in sP rats

As shown in Fig. 6, systemic treatment with the sigma receptor antagonist BD-1063 reduced the break point of sP rats responding for ethanol under a PR schedule of reinforcement [Treatment: F(4,40)= 8.28, P<0.001], in a dose-dependent manner [log-linear Dose effect: F(1, 40)= 22.77, P<0.001]. BD-1063 treatment also dose-dependently reduced the total number of responses emitted for ethanol [Treatment: F(4,40)= 8.56, P<0.001; log-linear Dose effect: F(1, 40)= 23.46, P<0.001] as well as the total number of ethanol reinforcers earned [Treatment: F(4,40)= 7.88, P<0.001] (data not shown). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the 4.4, 7 and 11 mg/kg doses of BD-1063 significantly reduced each of the above measures. Responding at the inactive lever was not altered by BD-1063 treatment [F(4,40)= 2.57, n.s.].

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Effect of acute subcutaneous pretreatment (-15 min) with the sigma receptor (SigR) antagonist BD-1063 on break point (panel A) and total responses (panel B) for ethanol in sP rats (n = 11) tested under a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. Data represent mean ± SEM. ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle-treated group (Dunnett’s test).

Sig-1R gene expression in sP rats and in acutely-withdrawn dependent Wistar rats

Quantitative real-time PCR showed, as depicted in Fig. 7, that Sig-1R mRNA levels were significantly lower in the nucleus accumbens of ethanol-naïve sP rats (t(14)= 2.60, p < 0.05) and 24-hr withdrawn, ethanol-dependent rats (t(16)= 1.76, p < 0.05), as compared to ethanol-naïve outbred Wistar controls. No significant differences were observed in the nucleus accumbens of 6-hr withdrawn, ethanol-dependent rats (t(14)= 0.55, n.s.). No differences were observed among groups in expression of Sig-1R mRNA within the ventral tegmental area, central or basolateral amygdala (data not shown).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Sig-1R mRNA expression in the nucleus accumbens of ethanol-naïve Sardinian alcohol-preferring (sP) rats, ethanol-naïve outbred Wistar control rats, and acutely withdrawn (6-hr) Wistar rats previously made ethanol-dependent via intermittent exposure to ethanol vapors for 6 weeks (left panel, n = 7, 9 and 7, respectively) and ethanol-naïve outbred Wistar control rats, and acutely withdrawn (24-hr) Wistar rats (n = 9 and 7, respectively). Data represent mean ± SEM expressed as percent of the control group. * p < 0.05 vs. outbred control rats (Student’s t- test).

DISCUSSION

The present study shows that the preferential Sig-1R antagonist BD-1063 dose-dependently and selectively reduced oral ethanol self-administration in two animal models of excessive ethanol drinking -- acutely withdrawn, ethanol dependent outbred Wistar rats and genetically selected, alcohol-preferring sP rats. BD-1063 also reduced the motivation of sP rats to work to obtain alcohol. In contrast, BD-1063 did not reduce ethanol self-administration in nondependent control Wistar rats or comparably reduce self-administration of water or of an equally reinforcing saccharin solution. Both ethanol-naïve sP rats and acutely withdrawn (24 hr), ethanol-dependent Wistar rats showed decreased Sig-1R mRNA expression in the nucleus accumbens as compared to ethanol-naïve control Wistar rats. The results collectively support an endogenous role for brain Sig-1Rs in the modulation of excessive ethanol intake and reinforcement.

The highest dose of BD-1063 administered (11 mg/kg of free base) decreased fixed-ratio operant responding for ethanol, a measure of ethanol’s reinforcing properties with predictive validity for medications used to treat alcoholism (Altshuler et al, 1980; Czachowski et al, 2001; Johnson and Ait-Daoud, 2000), by 37% and 42% in dependent Wistar and sP rats, respectively. Several control measures demonstrated the specificity of Sig-1R antagonist action on excessive ethanol self-administration, including no effect on mean ethanol self-administration of non-dependent rats, on concurrent water self-administration, or on self-administration of an equally reinforcing saccharin solution. Also, arguing against a rate-dependent interpretation of BD-1063 action, median split analysis showed that BD-1063 similarly reduced ethanol self-administration of high vs. low responding ethanol-dependent and sP rats. Thus, BD-1063 did not reduce general behavior or produce rate-suppressant effects, consistent with previous reports showing lack of locomotor suppressant effect of BD-1063, as well as the chemically-related BD-1047, at doses up to 30 mg/kg (Brammer et al, 2006; Maurice et al, 2003; McCracken et al, 1999; Nguyen et al, 2005).

To address further the alternative explanation that the selective action of BD-1063 in models of excessive drinking was a rate-suppressive effect on the higher baseline responding of ethanol-dependent and sP rats, the effects of BD-1063 also were evaluated under a progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement. Under PR reinforcement schedules, ratio requirements increase with subsequent reinforcer deliveries and the influence of local response rates on performance are reduced. BD-1063 potently (4.4 mg/kg) reduced the break point, an objective measure of the effort an animal will expend to obtain a reinforcer that is sensitive both to the subjects’ incentive state and to the reinforcer’s stimulus properties (Walker et al, 2008). The ability of BD-1063 to reduce break point also counters the alternative explanation that the drug acted by altering ethanol absorption or metabolism because the total amount of ethanol self-administered by rats under this schedule (0.18 g/kg under vehicle treatment) would not result in significant blood alcohol levels (personal observation). Thus, the SigR antagonist reduced not only ethanol intake, but also the work that rats would emit in order to obtain ethanol.

The present results are broadly consistent with previous findings that the Sig-1R antagonist BD1047 attenuated several behavioral and motivational effects of acute passive ethanol administration in mice (Maurice et al, 2003) including ethanol-induced locomotor activation and ethanol-induced place preference and taste aversion conditioning. Here, a different Sig-1R antagonist selectively reduced responding for ethanol in two distinct models of excessive ethanol self-administration, supporting the hypothesis that endogenous SigR signalling contributes to oral ethanol’s reinforcing effects. However, BD-1063 did not reduce ethanol self-administration to control-like levels. Perhaps higher doses of BD-1063 could have eliminated the excess component of ethanol self-administration altogether. Alternatively, other transmitter systems likely independently contribute to the excess ethanol intake in these models (Funk et al, 2006; Walker et al, 2008); (Roberto et al, 2008).

Previous studies have demonstrated that SigR blockade can attenuate several neurobehavioral effects of cocaine and methamphetamine, including the drugs’ subjective (Katz et al, 2003), psychomotor stimulant (Liu and Matsumoto, 2008; Menkel et al, 1991; Ujike et al, 1992), rewarding (Romieu et al, 2000) and toxic (Matsumoto et al, 2001c; Maurice et al, 2002) effects. A recent study however observed that the SigR antagonist BD-1047 did not reduce non-dependent intravenous cocaine self-administration (Martin-Fardon et al, 2007), unlike the present study in which we observed suppression of oral ethanol self-administration by BD-1063. Several procedural differences may explain the discrepant findings, including major ones such as the substance of abuse under study, the antagonists and route of drug intake used, and the session duration. The subjects under study also may be critical because ethanol self-administration was only reduced here in models of excessive self-administration and not in non-dependent controls, a group more analogous to those of the previous cocaine self-administration study. Interestingly, BD-1047 did reduce reinstatement of cocaine-directed responding elicited by a drug-taking contextual stimulus (Martin-Fardon et al, 2007); it remains to be seen whether Sig-1R antagonists similarly suppress reinstatement of ethanol-directed responding.

The greater efficacy of the SigR antagonist in the two models of excessive drinking raises the possibility that withdrawn, ethanol-dependent rats and sP rats might both carry alterations in the expression or function of SigR sites or endogenous ligands, leading to an increased reinforcing efficacy of ethanol. In the present study, quantitative real-time PCR showed that Sig-1R mRNA levels were modestly (15%) but significantly lower in the nucleus accumbens of both sP rats and 24-hr withdrawn, dependent Wistar rats. Similar to previous studies (Economidou et al, 2008; Hansson et al, 2007), outbred Wistar rats were used as the control group for both sP rats and outbred Wistar dependent rats the present study to allow a more direct comparison between these two animal models of excessive drinking. Using alcohol non-preferring rats as a control group for sP rats also might have left it more ambiguous as to whether observed differences were associated with excessive drinking as opposed to ethanol aversion, which can be associated with molecular changes distinct from those which drive excess intake (Saba et al, 2001).

Reduced Sig-1R mRNA expression was not observed 6-hr after cessation of EtOH vapor suggesting that the decrease may be a delayed transcriptional consequence of ethanol withdrawal, rather than of the ethanol exposure history per se. A related question is why differences in Sig-1R mRNA levels were not observed between Wistar EtOH-naïve vs. EtOH-dependent rats during early withdrawal (6 hr), by when differences in ethanol self-administration and sensitivity to BD1063 already were present. Perhaps Sig-1R activity is already altered at the 6-hr time point at the ligand or receptor protein level due to the early stages or previous cycles of withdrawal, but a change in Sig-1R transcription takes longer to manifest. Such a delay might result if the decreased receptor mRNA expression occurs in response to heightened Sig-R ligand activity or per the slower time course of transcription vs. ligand release/binding. Testing this hypothesis in future studies could involve measuring Sig-1R protein or endogenous ligands (once identified) during intoxication and 6-hr withdrawal. In addition, differences in the experimental paradigms used for the behavioral vs. molecular studies may be relevant. Perhaps rats with a history of self-administering ethanol during withdrawal might show changes in Sig-1R mRNA levels at the earlier 6-hr time point. In order to identify innate differences in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats, we measured Sig-1R mRNA levels in ethanol-naïve rats in the present study, rather than in rats that were acutely or historically self-administering ethanol. Ethanol drinking can differentially affect ethanol-naïve alcohol-preferring rats, eliminating or introducing neurochemical and behavioral differences (Hansson et al, 2007; Katner and Weiss, 2001; Weiss et al, 1993), and it would be valuable in future studies also to examine differential changes in SigR systems that result from ethanol drinking in the groups studied here. As a first-priority study relevant to the current hypothesis, however, the present experiments identified the presence of innate differences in the SigR system of sP rats in relation to their outbred stock and showed that withdrawal from repeated ethanol exposure yielded an environmental phenocopy of this molecular correlate of the genetic propensity to drink ethanol.

Similar changes were not observed in the central or basolateral amygdala or ventral tegmental area, suggesting regional specificity. The nucleus accumbens, intimately related to reward-related processes, integrates limbic information related to memory, drive and motivation with the generation of goal-directed behaviors (Carelli and Wightman, 2004; Pecina et al, 2006; Pennartz et al, 1994). The nucleus accumbens also is implicated in excessive alcohol drinking and the pathophysiology of dependence (Koob, 2003; Tupala and Tiihonen, 2004). Further studies are needed to determine the functional significance of the molecular difference shared by sP and withdrawn dependent rats. The decreased Sig-1R mRNA expression might represent a compensatory response to a higher availability of neuroactive steroids, putative endogenous SigR ligands (for a review see (Maurice, 2004)). Such an interpretation is consistent with the observed higher sensitivity to pharmacological blockade of SigR by BD-1063. Studies that localize the decrease in Sig-1 mRNA to the shell or core accumbens subregions, that potentially relate observed mRNA differences to protein expression changes, that explore corresponding changes in putative endogenous SigR ligands, and that investigate the effects of brain site-specific administration of Sig-1R ligands on the reinforcing effects of ethanol will be required.

Ethanol has not been shown to interact directly with SigRs, but SigRs ligands may alter reinforcing actions of ethanol by indirectly modulating activity of other ethanol-sensitive transmitter systems; for example, SigR ligands affect synthesis, release and uptake of dopamine (Bastianetto et al, 1995; Booth and Baldessarini, 1991; Weatherspoon and Werling, 1999; Weiser et al, 1995). The SigR agonists (+)pentazocine, (+)-SKF 10,047 and DUP 734 increased extracellular dopamine concentration and dopamine metabolism in the striatum (Iyengar et al, 1990), facilitating release through a non-transporter-mediated mechanism. In addition (+)pentazocine enhanced amphetamine-stimulated DA release in striatal slices (Izenwasser et al, 1998). Electrophysiological studies also have shown a modulatory role of SigRs on the firing activity of both the A9 and the A10 dopaminergic pathways, with an activation of SigRs generally resulting in an increase in firing (Engberg and Wikstrom, 1991; Minabe et al, 1999; Sanchez-Arroyos and Guitart, 1999; Steinfels et al, 1989; Zhang et al, 1992). In addition, the SigR agonist PRE-084 dose-dependently increased the functional coupling of dopamine receptors with G-proteins in dopaminergic terminal brain areas (Peeters et al, 2004). Based on these observations, SigR antagonists might attenuate ethanol reinforcement by influencing dopaminergic transmission, directly or indirectly, within the mesolimbic pathway.

Alternatively, the drive to consume ethanol and other drugs of abuse may interfere with the activity of one of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) proteins recently shown to be associated with SigRs (Aydar et al, 2002; Hayashi and Su, 2001; Yamamoto et al, 2002). SigRs, subcellularly localized within perikarya and dendrites, are compartmentalized to lipid-enriched globular membranes (Alonso et al, 2000; Phan et al, 2003), such as mitochondria-associated membranes (MAM) of the smooth ER. In the ER, Sig-1Rs associate with proteins such as inositol 1,4,5 triphosphate receptor type 3 (IP3R3), K+ channel subunits or the ER chaperone BiP (GRP78) and serve as chaperone molecules in response to Ca++ depletion (Hayashi et al, 2001; Hayashi and Su, 2007). Sig-1Rs translocate following cellular stimuli, redistributing to the entire ER or to cell components, events which alter intracellular communication (Hayashi et al, 2000; Hayashi and Su, 2003a, b; Hayashi et al, 2007; Monnet et al, 2003; Morin-Surun et al, 1999). Thus, SigRs are putative sensors and/or modulators of neuronal intracellular Ca2+ mobilization, and consequently of extracellular Ca2+ influx. Such action could explain the broad neuromodulation of Sig R on several neurotransmitter systems (Maurice et al, 2002). Based on these observations, a SigR antagonist may attenuate ethanol reinforcement by interfering with the putative activation of intracellular calcium mobilization by the drive to excessively consume ethanol.

BD-1063 has preferential, nanomolar affinity for Sig-1Rs being 30-fold selective for Sig-1R versus Sig-2R sites (Brammer et al, 2006; Matsumoto et al, 2001b). Still, it is possible that at the systemic doses administered here, that BD-1063 binds both SigR subtypes. While most studies implicate the Sig-1R subtype in the actions of drugs of abuse, a few lines of pharmacological evidence suggest that some actions may also (or alternatively) involve Sig-2Rs (Mach et al, 1999; Matsumoto and Mack, 2001a; Matsumoto et al, 2001c; Matsumoto et al, 2007; Nuwayhid and Werling, 2006). Because the Sig-2R gene has not been cloned or predicted from homology, the present study could only investigate changes in Sig-1R mRNA, with the results pointing to a role for the Sig-1R subtype in excessive drinking. Further studies can better define the relative roles of each subtype in ethanol reinforcement. In summary, a selective SigR antagonist preferentially diminishes ethanol reinforcement in models of excessive drinking. Control procedures rule out a non-specific or rate-dependent suppression in responding or a generalized action on all reinforcers. The selective effects of blocking SigRs on excessive drinking suggest a potential mechanism for neuroadaptation that leads to excessive drinking and a potential target for medication development for treatment of alcoholism.

Acknowledgments

Research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA016731-01 and 2P60AA006420-25), by the Pearson Center for Alcoholism and Addiction Research and by the NIH Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. This is manuscript number 19646 from The Scripps Research Institute. The authors thank the excellent technical assistance of Molly Brennan, Jeanette Helfers and Robert Lintz and the editorial assistance of Mike Arends.

Footnotes

Disclosure/Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alonso G, Phan V, Guillemain I, Saunier M, Legrand A, Anoal M, et al. Immunocytochemical localization of the sigma(1) receptor in the adult rat central nervous system. Neuroscience. 2000;97(1):155–170. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(00)00014-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altshuler HL, Phillips PE, Feinhandler DA. Alteration of ethanol self-administration by naltrexone. Life sciences. 1980;26(9):679–688. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(80)90257-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aydar E, Palmer CP, Klyachko VA, Jackson MB. The sigma receptor as a ligand-regulated auxiliary potassium channel subunit. Neuron. 2002;34(3):399–410. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00677-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastianetto S, Rouquier L, Perrault G, Sanger DJ. DTG-induced circling behaviour in rats may involve the interaction between sigma sites and nigro-striatal dopaminergic pathways. Neuropharmacology. 1995;34(3):281–287. doi: 10.1016/0028-3908(94)00156-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Booth RG, Baldessarini RJ. (+)-6,7-benzomorphan sigma ligands stimulate dopamine synthesis in rat corpus striatum tissue. Brain research. 1991;557(1–2):349–352. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(91)90159-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouchard P, Quirion R. [3H]1,3-di(2-tolyl)guanidine and [3H](+)pentazocine binding sites in the rat brain: autoradiographic visualization of the putative sigma1 and sigma2 receptor subtypes. Neuroscience. 1997;76(2):467–477. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(96)00221-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brammer MK, Gilmore DL, Matsumoto RR. Interactions between 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and sigma1 receptors. European journal of pharmacology. 2006;553(1–3):141–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.09.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carelli RM, Wightman RM. Functional microcircuitry in the accumbens underlying drug addiction: insights from real-time signaling during behavior. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2004;14(6):763–768. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2004.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Colombo G. ESBRA-Nordmann 1996 Award Lecture: ethanol drinking behaviour in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats. Alcohol Alcohol. 1997;32(4):443–453. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.alcalc.a008279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Colombo G, Agabio R, Lobina C, Reali R, Zocchi A, Fadda F, et al. Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats: a genetic animal model of anxiety. Physiol Behav. 1995;57(6):1181–1185. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)00382-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Czachowski CL, Legg BH, Samson HH. Effects of acamprosate on ethanol-seeking and self-administration in the rat. Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research. 2001;25(3):344–350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. de Costa BR, He XS, Linders JT, Dominguez C, Gu ZQ, Williams W, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of conformationally restricted N-[2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)ethyl]-N-methyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)ethylamines at sigma receptors. 2. Piperazines, bicyclic amines, bridged bicyclic amines, and miscellaneous compounds. J Med Chem. 1993;36(16):2311–2320. doi: 10.1021/jm00068a007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Economidou D, Hansson AC, Weiss F, Terasmaa A, Sommer WH, Cippitelli A, et al. Dysregulation of nociceptin/orphanin FQ activity in the amygdala is linked to excessive alcohol drinking in the rat. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;64(3):211–218. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Engberg G, Wikstrom H. Sigma-receptors: implication for the control of neuronal activity of nigral dopamine-containing neurons. European journal of pharmacology. 1991;201(2–3):199–202. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(91)90345-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Funk CK, O’Dell LE, Crawford EF, Koob GF. Corticotropin-releasing factor within the central nucleus of the amygdala mediates enhanced ethanol self-administration in withdrawn, ethanol-dependent rats. J Neurosci. 2006;26(44):11324–11332. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3096-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ganapathy ME, Prasad PD, Huang W, Seth P, Leibach FH, Ganapathy V. Molecular and ligand-binding characterization of the sigma-receptor in the Jurkat human T lymphocyte cell line. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 1999;289(1):251–260. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gundlach AL, Largent BL, Snyder SH. Phencyclidine and sigma opiate receptors in brain: biochemical and autoradiographical differentiation. EurJPharmacol. 1985;113(3):465–466. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(85)90100-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanner M, Moebius FF, Flandorfer A, Knaus HG, Striessnig J, Kempner E, et al. Purification, molecular cloning, and expression of the mammalian sigma1-binding site. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(15):8072–8077. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.15.8072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hansson AC, Cippitelli A, Sommer WH, Ciccocioppo R, Heilig M. Region-specific down-regulation of Crhr1 gene expression in alcohol-preferring msP rats following ad lib access to alcohol. Addict Biol. 2007;12(1):30–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00050.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hayashi T, Maurice T, Su TP. Ca(2+) signaling via sigma(1)-receptors: novel regulatory mechanism affecting intracellular Ca(2+) concentration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;293(3):788–798. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hayashi T, Su TP. Regulating ankyrin dynamics: Roles of sigma-1 receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(2):491–496. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hayashi T, Su TP. Intracellular dynamics of sigma-1 receptors (sigma(1) binding sites) in NG108-15 cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003a;306(2):726–733. doi: 10.1124/jpet.103.051292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hayashi T, Su TP. Sigma-1 receptors (sigma(1) binding sites) form raft–like microdomains and target lipid droplets on the endoplasmic reticulum: roles in endoplasmic reticulum lipid compartmentalization and export. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003b;306(2):718–725. doi: 10.1124/jpet.103.051284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hayashi T, Su TP. Sigma-1 receptor chaperones at the ER-mitochondrion interface regulate Ca(2+) signaling and cell survival. Cell. 2007;131(3):596–610. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.08.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hellewell SB, Bowen WD. A sigma-like binding site in rat pheochromocytoma (PC12) cells: decreased affinity for (+)-benzomorphans and lower molecular weight suggest a different sigma receptor form from that of guinea pig brain. Brain Res. 1990;527(2):244–253. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(90)91143-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Itzhak Y. Repeated methamphetamine-treatment alters brain sigma receptors. EurJPharmacol. 1993;230(2):243–244. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(93)90810-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Iyengar S, Dilworth VM, Mick SJ, Contreras PC, Monahan JB, Rao TS, et al. Sigma receptors modulate both A9 and A10 dopaminergic neurons in the rat brain: functional interaction with NMDA receptors. Brain research. 1990;524(2):322–326. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(90)90709-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Izenwasser S, Thompson-Montgomery D, Deben SE, Chowdhury IN, Werling LL. Modulation of amphetamine-stimulated (transporter mediated) dopamine release in vitro by sigma2 receptor agonists and antagonists. European journal of pharmacology. 1998;346(2–3):189–196. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(98)00063-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson BA, Ait-Daoud N. Neuropharmacological treatments for alcoholism: scientific basis and clinical findings. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000;149(4):327–344. doi: 10.1007/s002130000371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Katner SN, Weiss F. Neurochemical characteristics associated with ethanol preference in selected alcohol-preferring and -nonpreferring rats: a quantitative microdialysis study. Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research. 2001;25(2):198–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Katz JL, Libby TA, Kopajtic T, Husbands SM, Newman AH. Behavioral effects of rimcazole analogues alone and in combination with cocaine. European journal of pharmacology. 2003;468(2):109–119. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(03)01638-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Koob GF. Alcoholism: allostasis and beyond. Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research. 2003;27(2):232–243. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000057122.36127.C2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Koob GF, Sanna PP, Bloom FE. Neuroscience of addiction. Neuron. 1998;21(3):467–476. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80557-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu Y, Matsumoto RR. Alterations in fra-2 and {sigma}-1 receptor gene and protein expression are associated with the development of cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization: time course and regional distribution studies. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 2008 doi: 10.1124/jpet.108.141051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lovinger DM, Crabbe JC. Laboratory models of alcoholism: treatment target identification and insight into mechanisms. NatNeurosci. 2005;8(11):1471–1480. doi: 10.1038/nn1581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mach RH, Wu L, West T, Whirrett BR, Childers SR. The analgesic tropane analogue (+/−)-SM 21 has a high affinity for sigma2 receptors. Life Sci. 1999;64(10):L131–L137. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3205(99)00014-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin-Fardon R, Maurice T, Aujla H, Bowen WD, Weiss F. Differential effects of sigma1 receptor blockade on self-administration and conditioned reinstatement motivated by cocaine vs natural reward. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32(9):1967–1973. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin WR, Eades CG, Thompson JA, Huppler RE, Gilbert PE. The effects of morphine-and nalorphine- like drugs in the nondependent and morphine-dependent chronic spinal dog. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1976;197(3):517–532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Matsumoto RR, Mack AL. (+/−)-SM 21 attenuates the convulsive and locomotor stimulatory effects of cocaine in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2001a;417(1–2):R1–R2. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(01)00891-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Matsumoto RR, McCracken KA, Friedman MJ, Pouw B, De Costa BR, Bowen WD. Conformationally restricted analogs of BD1008 and an antisense oligodeoxynucleotide targeting sigma1 receptors produce anti-cocaine effects in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2001b;419(2–3):163–174. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(01)00968-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Matsumoto RR, McCracken KA, Pouw B, Miller J, Bowen WD, Williams W, et al. N-alkyl substituted analogs of the sigma receptor ligand BD1008 and traditional sigma receptor ligands affect cocaine-induced convulsions and lethality in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2001c;411(3):261–273. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(00)00917-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Matsumoto RR, Pouw B, Mack AL, Daniels A, Coop A. Effects of UMB24 and (+/−)-SM 21, putative sigma2-preferring antagonists, on behavioral toxic and stimulant effects of cocaine in mice. Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior. 2007;86(1):86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.12.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Maurice T. Neurosteroids and sigma1 receptors, biochemical and behavioral relevance. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2004;37(Suppl 3):S171–182. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-832675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Maurice T, Casalino M, Lacroix M, Romieu P. Involvement of the sigma 1 receptor in the motivational effects of ethanol in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003;74(4):869–876. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(03)00002-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Maurice T, Martin-Fardon R, Romieu P, Matsumoto RR. Sigma(1) (sigma(1)) receptor antagonists represent a new strategy against cocaine addiction and toxicity. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(4):499–527. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00017-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Maurice T, Romieu P. Involvement of the sigma1 receptor in the appetitive effects of cocaine. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2004;37(Suppl 3):S198–S207. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-832678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. McBride WJ, Li TK. Animal models of alcoholism: neurobiology of high alcohol-drinking behavior in rodents. Critical reviews in neurobiology. 1998;12(4):339–369. doi: 10.1615/critrevneurobiol.v12.i4.40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McCracken KA, Bowen WD, De Costa BR, Matsumoto RR. Two novel sigma receptor ligands, BD1047 and LR172, attenuate cocaine-induced toxicity and locomotor activity. Eur J Pharmacol. 1999;370(3):225–232. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(99)00113-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O’Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689–1695. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.13.1689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mei J, Pasternak GW. Molecular cloning and pharmacological characterization of the rat sigma1 receptor. Biochem Pharmacol. 2001;62(3):349–355. doi: 10.1016/s0006-2952(01)00666-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Menkel M, Terry P, Pontecorvo M, Katz JL, Witkin JM. Selective sigma ligands block stimulant effects of cocaine. Eur J Pharmacol. 1991;201(2–3):251–252. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(91)90355-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Minabe Y, Matsuno K, Ashby CR., Jr Acute and chronic administration of the selective sigma1 receptor agonist SA4503 significantly alters the activity of midbrain dopamine neurons in rats: An in vivo electrophysiological study. Synapse (New York, NY. 1999;33(2):129–140. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2396(199908)33:2<129::AID-SYN3>3.0.CO;2-E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Miyatake R, Furukawa A, Matsushita S, Higuchi S, Suwaki H. Functional polymorphisms in the sigma1 receptor gene associated with alcoholism. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55(1):85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Moebius FF, Burrows GG, Hanner M, Schmid E, Striessnig J, Glossmann H. Identification of a 27-kDa high affinity phenylalkylamine-binding polypeptide as the sigma 1 binding site by photoaffinity labeling and ligand-directed antibodies. Mol Pharmacol. 1993;44(5):966–971. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Monnet FP, Morin-Surun MP, Leger J, Combettes L. Protein kinase C-dependent potentiation of intracellular calcium influx by sigma1 receptor agonists in rat hippocampal neurons. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 2003;307(2):705–712. doi: 10.1124/jpet.103.053447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Morin-Surun MP, Collin T, Denavit-Saubie M, Baulieu EE, Monnet FP. Intracellular sigma1 receptor modulates phospholipase C and protein kinase C activities in the brainstem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1999;96(14):8196–8199. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.14.8196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Nguyen EC, McCracken KA, Liu Y, Pouw B, Matsumoto RR. Involvement of sigma (sigma) receptors in the acute actions of methamphetamine: receptor binding and behavioral studies. Neuropharmacology. 2005;49(5):638–645. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2005.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Nuwayhid SJ, Werling LL. Sigma(2) (sigma(2)) receptors as a target for cocaine action in the rat striatum. Eur J Pharmacol. 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2005.12.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. O’Dell LE, Roberts AJ, Smith RT, Koob GF. Enhanced alcohol self-administration after intermittent versus continuous alcohol vapor exposure. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(11):1676–1682. doi: 10.1097/01.alc.0000145781.11923.4e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Palkovits MBMJ. Maps and guide to microdissection of the rat brain. Elsevier; New York: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pan YX, Mei J, Xu J, Wan BL, Zuckerman A, Pasternak GW. Cloning and characterization of a mouse sigma1 receptor. J Neurochem. 1998;70(6):2279–2285. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1998.70062279.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Pecina S, Smith KS, Berridge KC. Hedonic hot spots in the brain. Neuroscientist. 2006;12(6):500–511. doi: 10.1177/1073858406293154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Peeters M, Romieu P, Maurice T, Su TP, Maloteaux JM, Hermans E. Involvement of the sigma 1 receptor in the modulation of dopaminergic transmission by amantadine. The European journal of neuroscience. 2004;19(8):2212–2220. doi: 10.1111/j.0953-816X.2004.03297.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pennartz CM, Groenewegen HJ, Lopes da Silva FH. The nucleus accumbens as a complex of functionally distinct neuronal ensembles: an integration of behavioural, electrophysiological and anatomical data. Progress in neurobiology. 1994;42(6):719–761. doi: 10.1016/0301-0082(94)90025-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Phan VL, Urani A, Sandillon F, Privat A, Maurice T. Preserved sigma1 (sigma1) receptor expression and behavioral efficacy in the aged C57BL/6 mouse. Neurobiol Aging. 2003;24(6):865–881. doi: 10.1016/s0197-4580(02)00231-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Quirion R, Hammer RP, Jr, Herkenham M, Pert CB. Phencyclidine (angel dust)/sigma “opiate” receptor: visualization by tritium-sensitive film. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78(9):5881–5885. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.9.5881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Rimondini R, Arlinde C, Sommer W, Heilig M. Long-lasting increase in voluntary ethanol consumption and transcriptional regulation in the rat brain after intermittent exposure to alcohol. Faseb J. 2002;16(1):27–35. doi: 10.1096/fj.01-0593com. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Roberto M, Gilpin NW, O’Dell LE, Cruz MT, Morse AC, Siggins GR, et al. Cellular and behavioral interactions of gabapentin with alcohol dependence. J Neurosci. 2008;28(22):5762–5771. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0575-08.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Roberts AJ, Heyser CJ, Cole M, Griffin P, Koob GF. Excessive ethanol drinking following a history of dependence: animal model of allostasis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2000;22(6):581–594. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(99)00167-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rogers J, Wiener SG, Bloom FE. Long-term ethanol administration methods for rats: advantages of inhalation over intubation or liquid diets. Behav Neural Biol. 1979;27(4):466–486. doi: 10.1016/s0163-1047(79)92061-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Romieu P, Martin-Fardon R, Maurice T. Involvement of the sigma1 receptor in the cocaine-induced conditioned place preference. Neuroreport. 2000;11(13):2885–2888. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200009110-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Romieu P, Phan VL, Martin-Fardon R, Maurice T. Involvement of the sigma(1) receptor in cocaine-induced conditioned place preference: possible dependence on dopamine uptake blockade. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;26(4):444–455. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00391-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Saba L, Porcella A, Congeddu E, Colombo G, Peis M, Pistis M, et al. The R100Q mutation of the GABA(A) alpha(6) receptor subunit may contribute to voluntary aversion to ethanol in the sNP rat line. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2001;87(2):263–270. doi: 10.1016/s0169-328x(01)00003-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sabino V, Cottone P, Koob GF, Steardo L, Lee MJ, Rice KC, et al. Dissociation between opioid and CRF1 antagonist sensitive drinking in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;189(2):175–186. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0546-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Sanchez-Arroyos R, Guitart X. Electrophysiological effects of E-5842, a sigma1 receptor ligand and potential atypical antipsychotic, on A9 and A10 dopamine neurons. European journal of pharmacology. 1999;378(1):31–37. doi: 10.1016/s0014-2999(99)00440-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Seth P, Fei YJ, Li HW, Huang W, Leibach FH, Ganapathy V. Cloning and functional characterization of a sigma receptor from rat brain. J Neurochem. 1998;70(3):922–931. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1998.70030922.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sharkey J, Glen KA, Wolfe S, Kuhar MJ. Cocaine binding at sigma receptors. Eur J Pharmacol. 1988;149(1–2):171–174. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(88)90058-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Stefanski R, Justinova Z, Hayashi T, Takebayashi M, Goldberg SR, Su TP. Sigma1 receptor upregulation after chronic methamphetamine self-administration in rats: a study with yoked controls. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;175(1):68–75. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-1779-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Steinfels GF, Tam SW, Cook L. Electrophysiological effects of selective sigma-receptor agonists, antagonists, and the selective phencyclidine receptor agonist MK-801 on midbrain dopamine neurons. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1989;2(3):201–208. doi: 10.1016/0893-133x(89)90023-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Su TP, Hayashi T. Understanding the molecular mechanism of sigma-1 receptors: towards a hypothesis that sigma-1 receptors are intracellular amplifiers for signal transduction. Curr Med Chem. 2003;10(20):2073–2080. doi: 10.2174/0929867033456783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Takahashi S, Miwa T, Horikomi K. Involvement of sigma 1 receptors in methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization in rats. NeurosciLett. 2000;289(1):21–24. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(00)01258-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Takebayashi M, Hayashi T, Su TP. Nerve growth factor-induced neurite sprouting in PC12 cells involves sigma-1 receptors: implications for antidepressants. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002;303(3):1227–1237. doi: 10.1124/jpet.102.041970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Tupala E, Tiihonen J. Dopamine and alcoholism: neurobiological basis of ethanol abuse. Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry. 2004;28(8):1221–1247. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2004.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Ujike H, Okumura K, Zushi Y, Akiyama K, Otsuki S. Persistent supersensitivity of sigma receptors develops during repeated methamphetamine treatment. Eur J Pharmacol. 1992;211(3):323–328. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(92)90388-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Vengeliene V, Bilbao A, Molander A, Spanagel R. Neuropharmacology of alcohol addiction. British journal of pharmacology. 2008;154(2):299–315. doi: 10.1038/bjp.2008.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Walker BM, Rasmussen DD, Raskind MA, Koob GF. alpha1-noradrenergic receptor antagonism blocks dependence-induced increases in responding for ethanol. Alcohol (Fayetteville, NY. 2008;42(2):91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2007.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Walker JM, Bowen WD, Walker FO, Matsumoto RR, De CB, Rice KC. Sigma receptors: biology and function. Pharmacol Rev. 1990;42(4):355–402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Weatherspoon JK, Werling LL. Modulation of amphetamine-stimulated [3H]dopamine release from rat pheochromocytoma (PC12) cells by sigma type 2 receptors. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 1999;289(1):278–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Weiser SD, Patrick SL, Mascarella SW, Downing-Park J, Bai X, Carroll FI, et al. Stimulation of rat striatal tyrosine hydroxylase activity following intranigral administration of sigma receptor ligands. European journal of pharmacology. 1995;275(1):1–7. doi: 10.1016/0014-2999(94)00718-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Weiss F, Lorang MT, Bloom FE, Koob GF. Oral alcohol self-administration stimulates dopamine release in the rat nucleus accumbens: genetic and motivational determinants. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 1993;267(1):250–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Witkin JM, Terry P, Menkel M, Hickey P, Pontecorvo M, Ferkany J, et al. Effects of the selective sigma receptor ligand, 6-[6-(4-hydroxypiperidinyl)hexyloxy]-3-methylflavone (NPC 16377), on behavioral and toxic effects of cocaine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993;266(2):473–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Yamamoto H, Kametani F, Namiki Y, Yamamoto T, Karasawa J, Shen H, et al. Identification of GRP78 as a type-1 sigma receptor (SigmaR1)-associated protein. Society for Neuroscience Abstract Program. 2002 #833.839. [Google Scholar]
  93. Zhang J, Chiodo LA, Wettstein JG, Junien JL, Freeman AS. Acute effects of sigma ligands on the electrophysiological activity of rat nigrostriatal and mesoaccumbal dopaminergic neurons. Synapse (New York, NY) 1992;11(4):267–278. doi: 10.1002/syn.890110402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES