Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2013 Mar 12;2:84. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.2-84.v1

Positive or negative allosteric modulation of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) does not alter expression of behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine

Peter R Kufahl 1,a, Natali E Nemirovsky 1, Lucas R Watterson 1, Nicholas Zautra 1, M Foster Olive 1
PMCID: PMC3814922  PMID: 24358885

Abstract

We investigated the role of metabotropic glutamate receptor type 5 (mGluR5) in methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization. The mGluR5 positive allosteric modulator (3-cyano-N-(1,3-diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl) benzamide (CDPPB) and negative allosteric modulator fenobam were tested in separate experiments. Sprague-Dawley rats were repeatedly injected with 1 mg/kg methamphetamine or saline, and then given a locomotor challenge test using a dose of 0.5 mg/kg methamphetamine. Prior to the challenge test session, rats were injected with CDPPB, fenobam, or a vehicle.  Doses from previous studies showed reduced drug-conditioned behavior; however in this study neither CDPPB nor fenobam pretreatment resulted in an altered expression of behavioral sensitization, indicating a lack of mGluR5 involvement in sensitized methamphetamine-induced locomotion. Additionally, the high dose (30 mg/kg) of fenobam resulted in decreased methamphetamine-induced locomotion in rats regardless of drug exposure history, which suggests evidence of nonspecific behavioral inhibition.

Introduction

Compulsive drug use and associated maladaptive behaviors are cardinal features of methamphetamine (METH) addiction, and have been strongly associated with the neurochemical consequences of repeated METH abuse 13. Among the various neurotransmitter systems affected by METH exposure is the glutamate system, where long-lasting drug-induced changes are suspected factors underlying craving and persistent vulnerability to relapse 4. Due to their dual roles in mediating glutamatergic synaptic plasticity and control of synaptic glutamate release, the metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) have emerged as therapeutic targets of interest in the study of drug addiction 5. Antagonizing the excitatory postsynaptic metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) has been recently shown to attenuate the reinforcing effects of METH on a progressive ratio schedule, as well as attenuating drug-seeking behavior in rats previously trained to self-administer METH 6. Selective stimulation of mGluR5 has been found to improve the rate of extinction learning in rats previously conditioned to the reinforcing effects of cocaine. This study investigated the role of mGluR5 in the behavioral changes induced by repeated exposure to METH, using positive and negative allosteric modulators of mGluR5 function in separate experiments.

The consequences of chronic METH abuse are often studied in the rat model of behavioral sensitization, where chronic METH injections reliably induce an elevated locomotor response to a subsequent METH challenge, relative to rats with no prior history of METH exposure 811. Through their interactions with the dopaminergic projections of the medial forebrain, mGluRs have been found to have roles in both the development and expression of psychostimulant sensitization 12. mGluR5 has been associated with the locomotor response and reinforcement attributes of psychostimulants since mice lacking this receptor were found not to respond to or self-administer cocaine as wild-type mice 13. While antagonism of group I mGluRs, which includes mGluR5, in subsequent experiments has generally failed to convincingly affect locomotor sensitization to cocaine 14, the effects of positive allosteric modulation on psychostimulant sensitization have so far remained untested. We evaluated the effect of the mGluR5 positive allosteric modulator (PAM) 3-cyano-N-(1,3-diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)benzamide (CDPPB) and the mGluR5 negative allosteric modulator (NAM) fenobam on the expression of behavioral sensitization to METH. We utilized doses of CDPPB that have been shown to improve extinction learning after METH [30 mg/kg 15], and cocaine [60 mg/kg 7], self-administration training, and doses of fenobam (10–30 mg/kg) that have effectively reduced drug-seeking in METH-trained rats in our laboratory 16.

Methods and materials

Subjects

Eighty-eight male Sprague-Dawley rats (Harlan Laboratories, Livermore, CA), weighing 250–275 g, were pair-housed on arrival in a humidity-controlled colony room and maintained in a reversed light/dark cycle with free access to food and water throughout the experiment. All experimentation was conducted during the dark phase of the light/dark cycle. All procedures were conducted with the approval of the Institutional Care and Use Committee at Arizona State University and in accordance with the principles of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council) 17.

Drugs

3-cyano-N-(1,3-diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)benzamide (CDPPB, custom synthesized by Chemir Analytical Services, Maryland Heights, MO) was suspended in 10% v/v Tween 80 via sonication to form a 60 mg/ml concentration for intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration. Fenobam (1-(3-chlorophenyl)-3-3-methyl-5-oxo-4H-imidazol-2-yl) urea (custom synthesized by Chemir Analytical Services) was suspended in 0.3% v/v Tween 80 vehicle to form a 30 mg/ml concentration for i.p. administration. (+)Methamphetamine hydrochloride (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) was dissolved in sterile saline for i.p. administration.

Locomotor testing procedures

Locomotor activity was assessed in a Rotorat System apparatus (Med Associates, Mt. St Albans, VT) that measured rotational ambulation, quantified as quarter turns in both directions, within a bowl-shaped arena ( Figure 1A). The rats ( N=43 in the CDPPB experiment, N=45 in the fenobam experiment) were divided into groups where half of the rats received five injections of 1 mg/kg METH dissolved in saline (1 ml/kg, i.p.), separated by 48 hours, and the other half received injections of saline of matching volume ( Figure 1B). Each injection was immediately followed by a 90 min locomotor test session. After a 6-day waiting period in the colony room, all rats were given a saline injection (1 ml/kg, i.p.) and subjected to a locomotor test session. The next day, rats were injected with 0 ( N=7), 30 ( N=8) or 60 mg/kg ( N=6–7) CDPPB in one experiment; or 0 ( N=8), 10 ( N=8) or 30 mg/kg ( N=6–7) fenobam in the other experiment, and 30 min later given a challenge dose of 0.5 mg/kg METH and subjected to a 90 min locomotor test session.

Figure 1. Apparatus and experimental protocol.

Figure 1.

The locomotor apparatus ( A) consists of a rotating actuator anchored to a U-shaped bracket over a steel bowl-shaped arena (Med Associates; 18 in top diameter, 6 in bottom diameter, 6 in depth) containing a layer of Sani-chip bedding. The rat is attached to the actuator via 45 cm spring leash terminated with an alligator clip, which is hooked onto a cable tie around the neck for the duration of the test session. The apparatus registers rotational movements as the rat causes the actuator to pivot, accumulated by computer as quarter turns. The experimental procedure ( B) consisted of three days of acclimation sessions in the locomotor arenas, followed by five injections of METH (1.0 mg/kg, i.p.) or saline separated by 48 hr (Days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9). After each injection, rats were placed into the locomotor arenas for 90 min and their rotational data were recorded as quarter turns. Rats underwent locomotor testing following a saline injection on Day 15, and these data were balanced between groups assigned to mGluR5 treatment or vehicle treatment. On Day 16, the rats were given an injection of the mGluR5 ligand (CDPPB or fenobam) or vehicle, and tested 30 min later following a probe injection of METH (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.).

Additional experiments were conducted to examine the effects of mGluR5 modulation on baseline locomotion. Rats were acclimated to the apparatus in 90 min sessions for two consecutive days, and on the next day given a 90 min locomotor test session 30 min after treatment with 0, 30 or 60 mg/kg CDPPB in one experiment ( N=5); or 0, 10 or 30 mg/kg fenobam in another experiment ( N=5).

Data analysis

Data analysis procedures were performed using Prism 5 (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA). For the sensitization experiments, quarter turn data (in either direction, totaled over 90 min) taken during the five chronic treatment sessions were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA with METH history (naïve, METH-treated) as a between-subjects factor and day (1, 3, 5, 7 or 9) as a within-subjects factor. Locomotor behavior exhibited during the challenge sessions were quantified as quarter turns and analyzed using 2-way ANOVA with METH history and treatment (0, 30 or 60 mg/kg for the CDPPB experiment, and 0, 15 or 30 mg/kg for the fenobam experiment) as between-subjects factors. Significant interaction effects were followed by pairwise comparisons (Fisher’s LSD tests).

In the baseline locomotion experiments, quarter turn data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with CDPPB or fenobam treatment as the main factor.

Results

Elevated locomotion as a consequence of repeated METH treatment

In the CDPPB experiment, rats treated with repeated METH injections exhibited progressively increasing amounts of quarter turns, as confirmed by a significant main effect of METH history ( F 1,164 = 51.8, p < 0.0001) and a day × METH history interaction ( F 4,164 = 3.4, p < 0.05). In these rats, locomotion was significantly elevated from Day 1 levels (2110 ± 284) on Day 5 (3117 ± 401, p < 0.05, Fisher’s LSD test) and Day 7 (3432 ± 433, p < 0.01), but not Day 9 ( Figure 2A and Table S1Table S2). Similarly, in the fenobam experiment, repeated injections of METH but not saline resulted in elevated quarter turns, as confirmed by significant main effects of day ( F 4,172 = 4.1, p < 0.005) and METH history ( F 1,172 = 60.9, p < 0.0001) and a day × METH history interaction ( F 4,172 = 6.0, p < 0.0005). In these rats, locomotion was significantly elevated from Day 1 levels (2175 ± 320) on Day 5 (3136 ± 297, p < 0.05, Fisher’s LSD test), Day 7 (3548 ± 388, p < 0.01) and Day 9 (3469 ± 438, p < 0.05, Figure 2B and Table S3Table S4).

Figure 2. Effects of mGluR5 treatment by CDPPB (top row) or fenobam (bottom row) on locomotion and methamphetamine (METH) behavioral sensitization.

Figure 2.

In locomotor sessions prior to mGluR5-targeted treatment ( A-B), rats were chronically given 1 mg/kg METH (filled circles) or saline (open circles). In both the CDPPB ( A) and fenobam ( B) experiments, the reported quarter turns progressively increased above first-day levels in the METH-exposed groups. * P < 0.05 different from Day 1 levels. In the subsequent test using 0.5 mg/kg METH in all groups ( C), rats with a history of chronic METH exposure exhibited elevated locomotor behavior, but CDPPB pretreatment had no effect. In the fenobam experiment ( D), rats with a history of chronic METH exposure also exhibited elevated locomotor activity, and this behavioral sensitization was not affected by 10 mg/kg fenobam pretreatment. After 30 mg/kg fenobam treatment, the METH-sensitized locomotor response was reduced from the vehicle level. * P < 0.05 difference between METH history groups, regardless of mGluR5 ligand treatment. + P < 0.05 different from vehicle treated group with matching history of METH exposure. PAM stands for positive allosteric modulation, and NAM stands for negative allosteric modulation.

Effect of mGluR5 modulation on locomotor sensitization to METH

In the CDPPB experiment, rats with a history of repeated METH treatments exhibited a greater number of quarter turns following a probe injection of 0.5 mg/kg METH, evidence of locomotor sensitization ( Figure 2C and Table S5Table S6). This elevated response to METH was not attenuated by CDPPB pretreatment, as shown by the existence of a main effect of METH history ( F 1,37 = 10.7, p < 0.005) but no other main effects or interactions.

In the fenobam experiment, rats with a history of repeated METH treatments also exhibited elevated quarter turns following the 0.5 mg/kg METH probe ( Figure 2D and Table S7Table S8). Pretreatment with fenobam attenuated the locomotor response to METH, regardless of METH exposure history, as revealed by the presence of main effects of METH history ( F 1,39 = 20.1, p < 0.001) and treatment ( F 2,39 = 6.7, p < 0.005), but no METH history × treatment interaction. However, pretreatment with the large dose of fenobam (30 mg/kg) resulted in significantly reduced METH-induced locomotion in rats with a history of chronic 1 mg/kg METH injections (0 mg/kg fenobam: 1192 ± 105 quarter turns vs. 30 mg/kg fenobam: 597 ± 150 quarter turns, p < 0.01, two-sample t-test), and produced a trend toward a significant reduction in rats with a history of saline injections (0 mg/kg fenobam: 622 ± 493 quarter turns vs. 30 mg/kg fenobam: 405 ± 106 quarter turns, P = 0.08).

Effect of mGluR5 modulation on baseline locomotion

All of the tested doses of CDPPB and fenobam had negligible effects on baseline locomotion, measured 30 min after time of injection. Both the 60 mg/kg dose of CDPPB (300 ± 92 quarter turns, vs. 345 ± 43 for the vehicle) and the 30 mg/kg dose of fenobam (389 ± 59 quarter turns, vs. 407 ± 74 for the vehicle) produced slightly attenuated locomotor responses, but no significant effects were revealed by ANOVA in either experiment ( Figure 3 and Table S9Table S10).

Figure 3. Effects of mGluR5 treatment on baseline locomotion in previously drug-naïve rats.

Figure 3.

CDPPB ( A) or fenobam ( B) was injected 30 min prior to locomotor testing. No significant effects were reported from the quarter turns collected over 90 min sessions.

Discussion

As expected, rats repeatedly injected with 1 mg/kg METH exhibited greater locomotor activity than the saline-treated rats, and demonstrated more activity during the latter sessions than the initial session. Treatment with CDPPB did not significantly alter METH-induced rotational locomotion, and treatment with fenobam only significantly reduced rotational locomotion at its highest dose (30 mg/kg). Neither CDPPB nor fenobam significantly attenuated the baseline locomotor activity of drug-naïve animals, although the small effect found for 30 mg/kg fenobam in that experiment ( Figure 3B) could explain the moderate reduction of quarter turns exhibited by METH-challenged rats ( Figure 2D) as a non-specific phenomenon. Thus, locomotor effects of mGluR5 modulation were largely absent at the dose ranges that have been shown in earlier studies to reduce operant behavior motivated by METH or cocaine training 7, 15, 16, 18, 19.

These largely negative findings indicate that the maintenance of behavioral sensitization is likely mediated by neurobiological substrates other than mGluR5. These data are also in agreement with previous observations that mGluR5 function does not appear critical for the expression of locomotor sensitization to cocaine 14, 20, and extends them to include METH sensitization. Furthermore, the contribution of mGluR5 to initial locomotor responses to injected psychostimulants 13 appears to be replaced by other neurochemical substrates with chronic drug exposure.

While mGluR5 is an important therapeutic target in researching treatments for addiction to psychostimulants as well as other abused substances, there is building evidence that the role of this receptor in drug-related behaviors changes with increasing exposure. A recent study of rats chronically exposed to METH sufficient to induce measurable conditioned place preference found a reduction of surface expression of mGluR5 in the medial prefrontal cortex 21, an area known to contribute to the expression of behavioral sensitization 4. The current findings using the behavioral sensitization model therefore suggest that the changes in the degree to which mGluR5 mediates drug-stimulated and drug-conditioned behavior previously shown to occur with chronic cocaine exposure might also take place in rats with a history of chronic METH exposure. The possibility of the changing roles among the various mGluR subfamilies as a result of drug exposure merits further studies utilizing animal models of METH-induced activity and motivated behavior.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Angel Villa, Kaveish Sewalia, Elisabeth Moore, Casey Halstengard, Piroska Barabas and Lauren Hood of Arizona State University for providing valuable technical assistance.

Funding Statement

This work was completed with the support of NIH/NIDA grants DA025606 and DA024355 to MFO.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

v1; ref status: indexed

Supplementary tables

Table S1. CDPPB experiment – locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) after chronic METH treatments.

In locomotor sessions prior to mGluR5-targeted treatment, rats were chronically given 1 mg/kg METH i.p. In this experiment, the reported quarter turns progressively increased above first-day levels.

Rat Day of treatment (1 mg/kg METH)
1 3 5 7 9
203 2419 2269 3200 4701 1648
205 3840 3197 2640 6428 1867
213 2436 1520 3379 1243 2273
234 585 990 913 950 577
238 2119 1539 1046 2845 1151
242 1487 1825 1215 1412 1606
244 987 1063 3221 3230 1475
201 2907 2145 3695 5875 4264
207 1454 1568 3963 3442 2566
211 3581 2512 3086 3152 5037
215 1534 1727 3699 1804 1655
232 726 1229 1567 1737 1492
236 3436 7602 6724 7647 7239
246 2275 2439 6851 5386 4959
248 818 2449 1101 1434 2336
253 1016 1599 1306 1097 3678
254 415 3854 1492 4504 2005
255 4608 5091 3499 3836 3150
256 1672 1794 5353 4008 9378
257 1160 2158 5724 1625 1425
258 4639 6600 1770 5712 1024

Table S2. CDPPB experiment – locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) after saline treatments.

In locomotor sessions prior to mGluR5-targeted treatment, rats were chronically given 1 ml/kg saline i.p. The reported quarter turns did not significantly change from first-day levels.

Rat Day of treatment (saline)
1 3 5 7 9
202 397 248 181 301 359
206 2964 247 1240 969 1621
214 342 408 1202 539 557
235 644 1205 750 858 653
237 668 919 863 983 675
241 295 516 890 634 646
212 423 607 322 442 289
243 420 557 331 449 683
204 448 321 435 367 288
208 923 940 730 855 1098
216 2078 1246 1651 960 1563
231 653 895 711 604 494
233 1265 640 803 917 612
245 1488 1151 817 820 1138
247 477 549 723 1160 885
251 74 178 381 214 424
252 67 26 77 124 128
271 316 797 454 391 298
272 202 202 190 226 136
275 1288 495 642 1063 495
263 959 681 941 576 681
264 922 490 421 347 445

Table S3. Fenobam experiment – locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) after chronic METH treatments.

In locomotor sessions prior to mGluR5-targeted treatment, rats were chronically given 1 mg/kg METH i.p. In this experiment, the reported quarter turns progressively increased above first-day levels.

Rat Day of treatment (1 mg/kg METH)
1 3 5 7 9
362 315 1314 1818 1068 966
364 1691 1869 4040 3447 2381
366 3813 2074 3556 6491 7163
368 1261 2087 926 1961 2489
377 1888 3952 4491 3738 3905
383 1547 1065 3203 3511 2747
385 1989 1586 2476 3679 2865
387 1214 1960 536 1807 963
352 1983 1325 1693 1853 1865
354 2966 2963 4444 4726 5932
356 7984 5835 6043 6727 7125
358 1798 4432 3827 7331 6979
371 2167 2344 2538 2110 3273
373 2342 3220 1545 2069 2442
375 1796 3876 2117 3638 2653
381 1863 2059 3483 3319 3158
313 676 3157 2552 2467 5972
314 1868 5270 5345 2352 5141
315 3195 2660 3308 6766 951
316 1600 6267 3301 3516 3549
317 1741 3105 3223 1767 717
318 2154 2530 4528 3704 3091

Table S4. Fenobam experiment – locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) after saline treatments.

In locomotor sessions prior to mGluR5-targeted treatment, rats were chronically given 1 ml/kg saline i.p. The reported quarter turns did not significantly change from first-day levels.

Rat Day of treatment (1 mg/kg saline)
1 3 5 7 9
351 979 1042 670 763 727
357 2092 2047 1343 1656 1664
361 418 369 348 387 433
367 1309 1444 1751 1440 1480
372 345 244 486 430 359
374 1120 1177 847 1412 1195
384 1307 613 878 598 730
386 1216 1368 939 1246 633
353 852 701 466 528 636
355 452 452 320 1445 1010
363 735 1092 1185 1084 733
365 1308 2251 2095 1649 1018
376 1406 748 1147 1024 1078
378 1146 762 816 948 599
382 540 191 393 438 567
388 1338 1233 970 1146 678
311 225 378 219 390 362
312 192 255 152 297 161
323 959 1028 941 576 681
324 922 490 421 347 445
331 316 797 454 391 298
332 202 202 190 226 136
335 1288 1623 642 1063 495

Table S5. CDPPB (0, 30, 60 mg/kg) effects on METH locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) – rats with histories of saline injections.

In the Day 16 tests using 0.5 mg/kg METH in all groups, rats with a history of chronic saline injections exhibited elevated locomotor behavior, but CDPPB pretreatment had no effect.

Rat CDPPB Quarter turns
202 0 910
206 0 215
214 0 363
235 0 952
237 0 1001
241 0 871
212 0 135
243 30 1495
204 30 885
208 30 129
216 30 692
231 30 281
233 30 744
245 30 683
247 30 539
251 60 1117
252 60 358
271 60 668
272 60 127
275 60 1113
263 60 681
264 60 622

Table S6. CDPPB effects on METH locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) – rats with histories of METH injections.

In the Day 16 tests using 0.5 mg/kg METH in all groups, rats with a history of chronic METH exposure exhibited elevated locomotor behavior, but CDPPB pretreatment had no effect.

Rat CDPPB Quarter turns
203 0 1425
205 0 1767
213 0 1112
234 0 933
238 0 1100
242 0 653
244 0 1475
201 30 542
207 30 1674
211 30 1325
215 30 1701
232 30 904
236 30 1858
246 30 3808
248 30 210
253 60 345
254 60 397
255 60 1675
256 60 1414
257 60 1252
258 60 1662

Table S7. Fenobam (0, 10, 30 mg/kg) effects on METH locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) – history of saline injections.

In the Day 16 tests using 0.5 mg/kg METH in all groups, rats with a history of chronic saline injections exhibited elevated locomotor behavior, but fenobam pretreatment had no effect.

Rat Fenobam Quarter turns
351 0 257
357 0 770
361 0 661
367 0 909
372 0 449
374 0 587
384 0 693
386 0 656
353 10 748
355 10 181
363 10 394
365 10 725
376 10 298
378 10 910
382 10 480
388 10 207
311 30 315
312 30 101
323 30 274
324 30 219
331 30 955
332 30 465
335 30 508

Table S8. Fenobam (0, 10, 30 mg/kg) effects on METH locomotor response – history of METH injections.

In the Day 16 tests using 0.5 mg/kg METH in all groups, rats with a history of chronic METH exposure exhibited elevated locomotor behavior, and 30 mg/kg but not 10 mg/kg fenobam resulted in reduced quarter turns relative to vehicle-pretreated animals.

Rat Fenobam Quarter turns
362 0 1551
364 0 1190
366 0 1111
368 0 611
377 0 1509
383 0 1354
385 0 1050
387 0 1162
352 10 929
354 10 1263
356 10 1084
358 10 1391
371 10 861
373 10 614
375 10 281
381 10 1009
313 30 275
314 30 927
315 30 419
316 30 619
317 30 218
318 30 1129

Table S9. Locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) to CDPPB (0, 30, 60 mg/kg).

Rat CDPPB Quarter turns
101 0 304
104 0 171
107 0 490
110 0 353
113 0 407
102 30 353
105 30 401
108 30 198
111 30 384
114 30 307
103 60 650
106 60 120
109 60 245
112 60 199
115 60 285

Table S10. Locomotor response (total quarter turns over 90 min) to Fenobam (0, 10, 30 mg/kg).

Rat Fenobam Quarter turns
403 0 365
406 0 577
409 0 584
412 0 226
415 0 286
401 10 317
404 10 468
407 10 339
410 10 274
413 10 817
402 30 478
405 30 465
408 30 274
411 30 219
414 30 508

References

  • 1.McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O'Brien CP, et al. : Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284(13):1689–95 10.1001/jama.284.13.1689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO, Amphetamine-type stimulants : a report from the WHO meeting on amphetamines, MDMA and other psychostimulants. W. Substance Abuse Dept., Editor, World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva1996. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Barr AM, Panenka WJ, MacEwan GW, et al. : The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2006;31(5):301–13 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tzschentke TM, Schmidt WJ: Glutamatergic mechanisms in addiction. Mol Psychiatry. 2003;8(4):373–82 10.1038/sj.mp.4001269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gass JT, Olive MF: Glutamatergic substrates of drug addiction and alcoholism. Biochem Pharmacol. 2008;75(1):218–65 10.1016/j.bcp.2007.06.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gass JT, Osborne MP, Watson NL, et al. : mGluR5 antagonism attenuates methamphetamine reinforcement and prevents reinstatement of methamphetamine-seeking behavior in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009;34(4):820–33 10.1038/npp.2008.140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cleva RM, Hicks MP, Gass JT, et al. : mGluR5 positive allosteric modulation enhances extinction learning following cocaine self-administration. Behav Neurosci. 2011;125(1):10–9 10.1037/a0022339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fujiwara Y, Kazahaya Y, Nakashima M, et al. : Behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine in the rat: an ontogenic study. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1987;91(3):316–9 10.1007/BF00518183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fujiyama K, Kajii Y, Hiraoka S, et al. : Differential regulation by stimulants of neocortical expression of mrt1, arc, and homer1a mRNA in the rats treated with repeated methamphetamine. Synapse. 2003;49(3):143–9 10.1002/syn.10220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ohmori T, Abekawa T, Koyama T: Environment modifies the expression of behavioral sensitization produced by methamphetamine: behavioral and neurochemical studies. Behav Pharmacol. 1995;6(2):133–142 10.1097/00008877-199503000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ohmori T, Abekawa T, Koyama T: Scopolamine prevents the development of sensitization to methamphetamine. Life Sci. 1995;56(14):1223–9 10.1016/0024-3205(95)00062-B [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vezina P, Kim JH: Metabotropic glutamate receptors and the generation of locomotor activity: interactions with midbrain dopamine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999;23(4):577–89 10.1016/S0149-7634(98)00055-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chiamulera C, Epping-Jordan MP, Zocchi A, et al. : Reinforcing and locomotor stimulant effects of cocaine are absent in mGluR5 null mutant mice. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4(9):873–4 10.1038/nn0901-873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dravolina OA, Danysz W, Bespalov AY: Effects of group I metabotropic glutamate receptor antagonists on the behavioral sensitization to motor effects of cocaine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006;187(4):397–404 10.1007/s00213-006-0440-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kufahl PR, Hood LE, Nemirovsky NE, et al. : Positive Allosteric Modulation of mGluR5 Accelerates Extinction Learning but Not Relearning Following Methamphetamine Self-Administration. Front Pharmacol. 2012;3:194 10.3389/fphar.2012.00194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Watterson LR, Kufahl PR, Nemirovsky NE, et al. : Attenuation of reinstatement of methamphetamine-, sucrose-, and food-seeking behavior in rats by fenobam, a metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 negative allosteric modulator. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013;225(1):151–9 10.1007/s00213-012-2804-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Council NR Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. 8 ed, Washington, DC: National Acadamies Press2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gass JT, Olive MF: Positive allosteric modulation of mGluR5 receptors facilitates extinction of a cocaine contextual memory. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;65(8):717–20 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Widholm JJ, Gass JT, Cleva RM, et al. : The mGluR5 Positive Allosteric Modulator CDPPB Does Not Alter Extinction or Contextual Reinstatement of Methamphetamine-Seeking Behavior in Rats. J Addict Res Ther. 2011;S1(4). 10.4172/2155-6105.S1-004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Herzig V, Schmidt WJ: Effects of MPEP on locomotion, sensitization and conditioned reward induced by cocaine or morphine. Neuropharmacology. 2004;47(7):973–84 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.07.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Herrold AA, Voigt RM, Napier TC: Brain region-selective cellular redistribution of mGlu5 but not GABA(B) receptors following methamphetamine-induced associative learning. Synapse. 2011;65(12):1333–43 10.1002/syn.20968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2013 Jun 6.

Referee response for version 1

Sharon Rosenzweig-Lipson 1

The present studies investigated the effects of positive and negative allosteric modulation of mGluR5 receptors on methamphetamine sensitization. The authors conclude that “Positive or negative allosteric modulation of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) does not alter expression of behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine”. While the data, in part, support those conclusions; the presence of an effect of 30 mg/kg fenobam on methamphetamine sensitization suggests at least some role of mGlur5 NAM activity. Evaluation of an additional NAM or a higher dose of fenobam would allow for a firmer conclusion on this point.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2013 May 14.

Referee response for version 1

Bianca Jupp 1

The publication by Kufahl and colleagues presents an investigation into the effect of positive and negative allosteric modulators of mGluR5 on the expression of locomotor sensitization to the psychostimulant methamphetamine, the results of which apparently support previous data regarding a lack of involvement of this receptor in the expression of sensitized locomotion. While the study is well designed, a critical component of the results was omitted making the interpretation of the current data impossible, and severely undermines the author’s conclusions. 

Specifically, while the authors methodologically included a saline challenge when assessing the expression of sensitization, they failed to report these results. Without this it is not possible to determine if indeed the increase in locomotor activity observed in the METH pre-treatment group is due to expression of conditioned hyperactivity or locomotor sensitization. I suspect it may be the former due to the apparently reduced locomotor activity (approx 1200) observed during this challenge session even when compared to acute METH (approx 2000). Usually expression of locomotor sensitization is much greater than the final conditioning session. It is therefore unreasonable for the authors to conclude that PAM or NAM of mGluR5 has no effect on expression of sensitization as it is not even clear if the animals are expressing sensitized behaviour. Inclusion of the saline challenge data will clarify this point. 

Have the authors considered using a longer ‘waiting’ period between development and testing expression? A recent study by Timmer and Steketee, 2012 found that intra-prefrontal cortex injections of the mGluR5 PAM MTEP reduced the expression of locomotor sensitization to cocaine following 21 days but not 7 days. The authors should include this in the discussion of their results.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2013 Mar 18.

Referee response for version 1

David Triggle 1

Although this is a report of primarily negative findings it is not without value and should be published. The premise of the research is reasonable, the methods appropriate and the conclusions appropriate and not overreaching.  Essentially, the workers have demonstrated through behavioural studies in rats that allosteric modulation – either positive or negative – of the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 does not modify methamphetamine-induced behavioural sensitization. This adds to our knowledge of the effects of methamphetamine in its abuse.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.


Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

RESOURCES