Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
  • Other Publications
    • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
    • Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
    • Molecular Pharmacology
    • Pharmacological Reviews
    • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
    • ASPET
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Archive
  • Information
    • Instructions to Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • FAQs
    • For Subscribers
    • Terms & Conditions of Use
    • Permissions
  • Editorial Board
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Virtual Issues
  • Feedback
  • Visit jpet on Facebook
  • Follow jpet on Twitter
  • Follow jpet on LinkedIn
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Morphine Tolerance and Physical Dependence Are Altered in Conditional HIV-1 Tat Transgenic Mice

Sylvia Fitting, David L. Stevens, Fayez A. Khan, Krista L. Scoggins, Rachel M. Enga, Patrick M. Beardsley, Pamela E. Knapp, William L. Dewey and Kurt F. Hauser
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics January 2016, 356 (1) 96-105; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.115.226407
Sylvia Fitting
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David L. Stevens
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fayez A. Khan
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Krista L. Scoggins
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel M. Enga
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick M. Beardsley
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pamela E. Knapp
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William L. Dewey
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kurt F. Hauser
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology (S.F., D.L.S., F.A.K., K.L.S., R.M.E., P.M.B., P.E.K., W.L.D., K.F.H.), Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (P.E.K., K.F.H.), Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Despite considerable evidence that chronic opiate use selectively affects the pathophysiologic consequences of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in the nervous system, few studies have examined whether neuro-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (neuroAIDS) might intrinsically alter the pharmacologic responses to chronic opiate exposure. This is an important matter because HIV-1 and opiate abuse are interrelated epidemics, and HIV-1 patients are often prescribed opiates as a treatment of HIV-1–related neuropathic pain. Tolerance and physical dependence are inevitable consequences of frequent and repeated administration of morphine. In the present study, mice expressing HIV-1 Tat in a doxycycline (DOX)–inducible manner [Tat(+)], their Tat(−) controls, and control C57BL/6 mice were chronically exposed to placebo or 75-mg morphine pellets to explore the effects of Tat induction on morphine tolerance and dependence. Antinociceptive tolerance and locomotor activity tolerance were assessed using tail-flick and locomotor activity assays, respectively, and physical dependence was measured with the platform-jumping assay and recording of other withdrawal signs. We found that Tat(+) mice treated with DOX [Tat(+)/DOX] developed an increased tolerance in the tail-flick assay compared with control Tat(−)/DOX and/or C57/DOX mice. Equivalent tolerance was developed in all mice when assessed by locomotor activity. Further, Tat(+)/DOX mice expressed reduced levels of physical dependence to chronic morphine exposure after a 1-mg/kg naloxone challenge compared with control Tat(−)/DOX and/or C57/DOX mice. Assuming the results seen in Tat transgenic mice can be generalized to neuroAIDS, our findings suggest that HIV-1-infected individuals may display heightened analgesic tolerance to similar doses of opiates compared with uninfected individuals and show fewer symptoms of physical dependence.

Introduction

Opiates (derivatives of the opium poppy) such as morphine, which is the major bioactive metabolite of heroin in the brain, have considerable abuse liability but also have great therapeutic value for alleviating moderate to severe chronic pain. Chronic pain, including somatic pain, visceral pain, and headache, is often reported by patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) (Breitbart and Dibiase, 2002). Opiate drugs can accelerate the central nervous system (CNS) complications of HIV-1 (Bell et al., 1998; Fellin et al., 2006) and can increase the severity of HIV-1-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) (Attwell and Laughlin, 2001; Haughey and Mattson, 2002; Yang et al., 2007). In addition, opiates can exacerbate simian immunodeficiency virus progression in experimental models of AIDS (Park et al., 1996; Greenwood et al., 2007; Noel et al., 2008). The increases in HIV-1 pathogenesis caused by opioid abuse have largely been attributed to opioid suppression of immune function (Adler et al., 1993; Carr and Serou, 1995; Peterson et al., 1998), but more recent evidence suggests that opioid drugs additionally interact with neurons and glia directly and thereby worsen the CNS manifestations of HIV-1 (Gurwell et al., 2001; El-Hage et al., 2005; Hu et al., 2005; Turchan-Cholewo et al., 2006).

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that systemically administered morphine produces antinociception via actions at both spinal and supraspinal sites (Hernandez-Lopez et al., 2000), and that the repeated use of opiates induces tolerance, thus requiring escalating doses to produce pain relief. The neurobiological mechanisms underlying the development of opiate tolerance involve cellular and molecular adaptations, including the uncoupling of G-proteins from opioid receptors (desensitization), opiate agonist-induced receptor internalization, and/or opioid receptor down-regulation, leading to a decrease in the number of functional binding sites (Leshner and Koob, 1999; Hille, 2001; Ellis et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011). It has been demonstrated that G-protein-coupled opioid and chemokine coreceptors can undergo heterologous, bidirectional cross-desensitization (Rogers et al., 2000; Rogers and Peterson, 2003), including C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) and µ-opioid receptors (Rogers and Peterson, 2003; Chen et al., 2004). HIV-1 proteins such as the transactivator of transcription (Tat) have been shown to induce inflammation by elevating the production of CCL5/regulated on activation, normal T expressed and secreted (RANTES) and interleukin-6 (El-Hage et al., 2005, 2006, 2008). The interaction between Tat and morphine potentiates Tat-induced increases in CCL2/monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and CCL5/RANTES release in the striata of HIV-1 Tat transgenic mice (Fitting et al., 2010a).

In the present study, we used HIV-1 Tat inducible transgenic mice as a model of HIV-1–associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) to explore the effects of Tat on morphine tolerance and dependence after chronic exposure to an implanted placebo or 75-mg morphine pellet. Tolerance and physical dependence have been studied extensively using subcutaneous implantation of morphine pellets in rodents as a standard technique to produce opioid tolerance and dependence (Maggiolo and Huidobro, 1961; Way et al., 1968; Cicero and Meyer, 1973; Patrick et al., 1975). The results demonstrated that the development of tolerance to chronic morphine exposure is increased by Tat when assessed by tail flick but not by locomotor activity. In turn, symptoms of physical dependence to chronic morphine exposure are significantly decreased by Tat.

Material and Methods

Animals

Doxycycline (DOX)-inducible, brain-specific HIV-1IIIB Tat1–86 transgenic mice were developed on a C57BL/6J hybrid background as described in detail elsewhere (Bruce-Keller et al., 2008; Hahn et al., 2015). Tat expression, which is under the control of a tetracycline-responsive promoter controlled by glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) expression, was induced with a specially formulated chow containing 6 mg/g DOX (product TD.09282; Harlan, Indianapolis, IN). Inducible Tat(+) transgenic mice express both GFAP-rtTA and TRE-tat genes, while control Tat(−) transgenic mice express only the GFAP-rtTA genes. All transgenic mice (∼4 months of age, ∼25 g, males) were genotyped to confirm the presence of tat and/or rtTA transgenes. In addition, nontransgenic C57BL/6 mice (∼4 months of age, ∼25 g, males) from Harlan Laboratories (Indianapolis, IN) were used to control for the potential effects of the foreign tat and/or rtTA transgenes, as well as any possible effects of the C57BL/6 hybrid background (Bruce-Keller et al., 2008; Hahn et al., 2015). The nontransgenic C57BL/6 mice will be referred to as C57 mice throughout this report.

Half of all mice were fed normal chow, and the other half received DOX-supplemented food for 3 weeks before the beginning of the experiment. Mice were housed in groups (2 to 4 mice per cage) on a 12-hour light/dark cycle (lights on at 7:00 AM) and with free access to water and the specified food.

Placebo or Chronic Morphine Administration

Placebo or chronic morphine administration was achieved by the subcutaneous implantation of a placebo or 75-mg morphine pellet (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD) under aseptic conditions and 2.5% isoflurane anesthesia as previously described elsewhere (Ross et al., 2008). Using morphine pellets is a standard method for continuously administering morphine to prevent cycles of withdrawal in mice, and it produces brain drug levels considered to be similar to blood/tissue levels achieved in humans who are tolerant and dependent on opiates (Ozaita et al., 1998; Ghazi-Khansari et al., 2006), and therapeutic levels seen in patients maintained on chronic opiates/opiate pumps for intractable pain (Balch and Trescot, 2010).

Briefly, mice were anesthetized with 2.5% isoflurane before shaving the hair on the back of the neck. Adequate anesthesia was noted by the absence of the righting reflex and a lack of response to a toe pinch, according to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. The skin was cleaned with 10% povidone iodine (General Medical Corp., Prichard, WV) and rinsed with alcohol before making a 1-cm horizontal incision at the base of the skull. By using a sterile glass rod, the underlying subcutaneous space toward the dorsal flanks was opened. Maintenance of a stringent aseptic surgical field minimized any potential contamination of the pellet, incision, or subcutaneous space. A placebo or 75-mg morphine pellet was inserted in the space before closing the site with Clay Adams Brand, MikRon AutoClip 9 mm Wound Clips (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) and applying iodine to the skin surface.

Mice were allowed to recover in their home cages where they remained throughout the experiment. The sample size of each group was between 6–8 animals [C57/no DOX/placebo, n = 8; C57/no DOX/morphine, n = 7; C57/DOX/placebo, n = 8; C57/DOX/morphine, n = 8; Tat(−)/no DOX/placebo, n = 8; Tat(−)/no DOX/morphine, n = 7; Tat(−)/DOX/placebo, n = 8; Tat(−)/DOX/morphine, n = 8; Tat(+)/no DOX/placebo, n = 8; Tat(+)/no DOX/morphine, n = 8; Tat(+)/DOX/placebo, n = 8; and Tat(+)/DOX/morphine, n = 6].

Acute Cumulative Morphine Injections

For acute morphine injections, morphine sulfate was dissolved in pyrogen-free isotonic saline (Hospira, Lake Forest, IL). To test for tolerance, mice received cumulative, subcutaneous morphine injections in the subscapular region after 4 days of chronic exposure of placebo or morphine pellets. Placebo-pelleted mice received cumulative morphine doses of 2, 4, 8, and 16 mg/kg, whereas morphine-pelleted mice received cumulative morphine doses of 8, 16, 32, and 64 mg/kg. Mice were tested before and immediately after the acute cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections.

Testing Procedure

Experimental Design.

All animal procedures were approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and are in keeping with AAALAC guidelines. The experiments were performed between 9 AM and 6 PM (Fig. 1). Three weeks before the start of testing, the standard mouse chow was replaced with the specially formulated DOX chow for half of the animals. Body weight was recorded before pellet implants and at the 4th day after pellet implants on the day of testing. Mice chronically received placebo or 75-mg morphine subcutaneously via the time-release pellets for 4 days. To test for morphine tolerance, two different assessments were conducted: 1) the antinociceptive effects were determined using the warm-water tail-flick test assay; and 2) the increase in locomotor activity was determined using a photocell activity chamber. Baseline response for tail flick and locomotor activity were measured on the 4th day of pellet implants but before animals received acute cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections. The tail-flick response was recorded after a 20-minute waiting period after each injection, and after the last injection mice were additionally transferred to an activity chamber to assess locomotor activity.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Scheme showing the experimental design of the conducted study on a timeline. After mice received DOX-containing or normal chow for 3 weeks, body weight was measured, and a placebo or 75-mg morphine pellet was implanted subcutaneously. On day 4 after pellet implantation, body weight was assessed again, and the mice were tested for baseline activity in the tail-flick and locomotor activity (10-minute) tests. This was followed by four acute, cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections with a 20-minute wait period after each injection before tail-flick responses to warm-water were tested. After the last morphine injection, mice were tested in the tail-flick assay, and locomotor activity was assessed for 10 minutes. Finally, to induce precipitated withdrawal, all mice were given a naloxone (1 mg/kg) injection and were immediately tested for jumping off an elevated platform (10 minutes). They were observed for other withdrawal signs (5 minutes), including the number of wet-dog shakes, forepaw tremor, grooming, and jumping. Per group, n = 6 to 8 mice.

After assessing tolerance, morphine dependence was examined in response to a naloxone-precipitated withdrawal challenge. Precipitated withdrawal was measured immediately after subcutaneous naloxone (1 mg/kg) injection by using the platform jumping assay, as well as recording other somatic signs of morphine withdrawal, including the number of wet-dog shakes, jumps, and forepaw tremors.

Warm-Water Tail-Flick Test.

The tail-flick test was performed using a water bath with the temperature maintained at 56 ± 0.1°C. Each animal was gently wrapped in a cloth by the experimenter. For baseline latency, tail flick was measured before acute cumulative morphine injections. The distal one-third of the tail was immersed in a water bath set at 56°C, and mice rapidly removed their tail from the bath at the first sign of discomfort. The duration of time the tail remained in the water bath was counted as the baseline latency. Baseline latency reaction times in untreated mice were 2 to 4 seconds. Test latency was obtained after each cumulative morphine injection with the latency to remove the tail increasing proportionally to the analgesic potency of the drug. A 10-second maximum cutoff latency was used to prevent any tissue damage. Antinociception was quantified as the percentage of maximal possible effect (%MPE), which was calculated as %MPE = [(Test latency − Control latency) (10 − Control latency)−1] × 100 (Harris and Pierson, 1964). The %MPE value was calculated for each mouse using 6 to 8 mice per group.

Locomotor Activity.

Spontaneous motor activity was assessed using activity chambers (Med Associates, St. Albans, VT). Mice were habituated to the chamber for 10 minutes before drug administration. Ambulatory counts for spontaneous activity were obtained over a 10-minute time period. Each individual activity chamber has closeable doors and a ventilation system. The interior of the chamber consists of a 27 × 27 cm Plexiglas enclosure that is wired with photo-beam cells connected to a computer console that counts the activity of the animal contained within the enclosure. Ambulatory counts were generated, and the difference between baseline activity and activity after acute cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections was calculated for each mouse using 6 to 8 mice per group.

Antagonist-Precipitated Withdrawal Assessment.

The main withdrawal symptom assessed was jumping from an elevated platform at a height of 32 cm and diameter of 17 cm. The number of mice that jumped off their individual platforms was recorded, and a 10-minute maximal cutoff time was used. This was followed by evaluating additional withdrawal signs during a period of 5 minutes. Mice were placed in a rectangular clear plastic observation box (16 × 16 × 30 cm; maximum of three mice in one box) and observed for 5 minutes. The number of wet-dog shakes, forepaw tremors, and jumps was counted for each mouse using 6 to 8 mice per group.

Statistical Analysis

All data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (S.E.M.). In the behavioral experiments, continuous variables including body weight, warm-water tail flick, and locomotor activity were subjected to statistical analyses using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc analyses if necessary to determine statistical significance (SPSS Statistics 22; IBM, Chicago, IL). The dose-response data for %MPE were additionally analyzed for ED50 and potency ratios. ED50 values were calculated using sigmoidal curvilinear analysis with a variable slope model fixing bottom and top value constraints of 0 and 100, respectively (Prism 6 for Mac OS X; GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA). The ED50 values were considered significantly different if the upper and lower 95% confidence interval (CI) between the dose-response curves did not overlap.

Potency ratio values (specifically, EC50 shifts) were calculated using nonlinear regression fixing bottom and top value constraints of 0 and 100, respectively (Prism 6 for Mac OS X). A potency-ratio value of greater than 1.0 with a lower 95% CI >1.0 was considered a significant difference in potency between two dose-response curves (placebo versus morphine groups for the corresponding mouse group). GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA) was used to plot data and regression curves. Jumping off an elevated platform, a nominal scaled measure, was presented as the incidence of jumping (yes/no). Thus, the percentage of mice that jumped off the platform was compared by the z-test of two proportions. Additional noncontinuous variables, including number of wet-dog shakes, forepaw tremors, and jumps and grooming are presented as counted observations (ordinal scaled measure) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Differences of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Body Weight.

Body weight was unaffected by DOX when comparing the three mouse groups before pellet implantation (C57/no DOX: 28.00 ± 0.38 g; C57/ DOX: 27.18 ± 0.43 g; Tat(−)/no DOX: 27.20 ± 0.74 g; Tat(−)/DOX: 26.57 ± 0.71 g; Tat(+)/no DOX: 25.44 ± 0.61 g; Tat(+)/ DOX: 26.27 ± 0.53 g). The data presented in Fig. 2 illustrate the percentage change in body weight after pellet implantation represented by the mean ± S.E.M. with 100% indicating no change in body weight. An ANOVA indicated a statistically significant effect of DOX [F(1, 80) = 6.6, P < 0.05], with a significant ∼3% decrease in body weight for animals receiving the normal chow (97.1 ± 1.02%) compared with DOX animals (100.10 ± 1.00%).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Percentage of change in body weight after 4 days of morphine pellet implantation as a function of feeding condition for each test group. No significant change in body weight before or after pellet implantation was noted when conducting post hoc tests, except for the Tat transgenic mice that expressed the tat gene. Data are expressed as the mean change in body weight. Capped bars indicate ± S.E.M. Per group, n = 6 to 8 mice. Dotted line indicates no change at 100%. ¶P < 0.05 versus Tat(+)/no DOX/morphine.

Further, a main effect for pellet implant was noted [F(1, 80) = 13.0, P < 0.001], and DOX × pellet implant interaction [F(1, 80) = 6.4, P < 0.05]. The DOX × pellet implant interaction indicated that the greatest loss of body weight was shown by the morphine-pelleted group that did not receive DOX food (92.8 ± 0.94%) compared with the DOX/morphine-pelleted group (99.2 ± 1.87%), whereas the placebo-pelleted mice that received DOX (101.0 ± 0.90%) or normal (100.9 ± 1.34%) chow showed no change. It should be noted that there were no statistically significant effects when conducting post hoc tests, except for a statistically significant difference between morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/no DOX and Tat(+)/DOX mice (P < 0.05, Fig. 2).

Morphine Antinociceptive and Locomotor Activity Tolerance in Tat(+) and Tat(−) Mice.

As depicted in Fig. 3, all groups demonstrated antinociceptive tolerance after chronic morphine pellet exposure compared with groups that received placebo pellets. This is indicated by chronic morphine exposure shifting the morphine dose-response curve to the right for all groups compared with the placebo condition with potency ratio values varying between 3.43- and 11.24-fold (Table 1). Further, the ANOVA results indicate that acute, cumulative morphine injections of 8 and 16 mg/kg significantly increased %MPE in placebo-implanted mice compared with mice receiving chronic morphine via 75-mg pellet implants (P < 0.05).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Percentage of maximal possible effect in the warm-water, tail-flick assay. Each data point represents the mean of the percentage of maximal latency of tail withdrawal relative to baseline as a function of morphine dose (mg/kg). Bars through the data points represent ± S.E.M. PR is the potency ratio, as determined by the EC50 shift between the placebo and morphine-pelleted groups (see the text for details). *P < 0.05, indicating a statistically significant difference at a dose comparing placebo- versus morphine-pelleted groups. †P< 0.05, indicating an overall statistically significant difference between Tat(−)/DOX versus Tat(+)/DOX groups across all morphine injections. §P < 0.05, indicating an overall statistically significant difference between Tat(−)/DOX versus Tat(+)/DOX groups. Chronic exposure to morphine produced tolerance in all mouse groups (C57, Tat(−), and Tat(+) mice in the presence or absence of DOX chow) compared with groups exposed to placebo pellets as indicated by the 3.4- to 11.2-fold increases in the potency ratios. No statistically significant differences are noted between C57/No DOX or C57/DOX and Tat(−)/no DOX or Tat(−)/DOX mice. Importantly, Tat(+)/DOX mice show increased tolerance when chronically exposed to morphine compared with Tat(−)/DOX mice †P < 0.05, with an approximately 11.2-fold increase in potency compared with a 4.7-fold increase in potency for Tat(−)/DOX mice (P < 0.05). Bonferroni’s test indicated a statistically significant difference between Tat(−)/DOX and Tat(+)/DOX mice in response to an acute morphine injection of 32 mg/kg (§P < 0.05). Per group, n = 6 to 8 mice MPE, maximal possible effect.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Morphine analgesic tolerance in the warm-water tail-flick assay (%MPE)

ED50 values (mg/kg) and potency ratio values are derived from acute cumulative dose-response curves obtained for placebo- and morphine-pelleted mice.

Importantly, in Tat(+)/DOX mice, there was a significant shift (based on nonoverlapping 95% CI) in morphine sensitivity revealed by an approximately 11.24-fold increase in morphine ED50 values, from 3.78 (3.28–4.34) mg/kg for placebo-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX to 44.01 (25.87–74.89) mg/kg for morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX mice. The significant 11.24-fold shift for Tat(+)/DOX mice was markedly higher compared to the significant 4.68-fold shift observed for Tat(−)/DOX mice (see Table 1). The ED50 value for morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX mice was significantly different from all other morphine-pelleted groups, except for the Tat(−)/no DOX and C57/no DOX mouse groups (based on nonoverlapping 95% CI), suggesting Tat induction increased morphine tolerance.

Tat(+)/DOX mice displayed a decreased %MPE (31.7 ± 10.47%) compared with Tat(−)/DOX mice (61.2 ± 8.81%) across all acute morphine injections [F(1, 12) = 4.7, P ≤ 0.05], supporting the observation that Tat increased the tolerance to chronic morphine. Post hoc tests demonstrated that the Tat-induced increases in tolerance were specifically revealed in response to an acute injection of 32 mg/kg morphine (P < 0.05, Fig. 3, bottom right panel). No other statistically significant effects were noted.

Additionally, tolerance was examined by assessing changes of locomotor activity after acute and cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections (Fig. 4). A main effect was noted for mouse group C57, Tat(−), Tat(+) [F(2, 80) = 5.9, P < 0.01], pellet implant [placebo, morphine; F(1, 80) = 177.1, P < 0.001], mouse group × DOX food interaction [F(2, 80) = 8.1, P < 0.01], and mouse group × pellet implant interaction [F(2, 80) = 9.6, P < 0.001]. Post hoc tests demonstrated the development of tolerance as indicated by less stimulatory activity after chronic morphine pellet exposure compared to placebo pellet exposure in all groups, except for the C57/no DOX mice. (P < 0.05). Additionally, for the placebo-pelleted groups, C57/DOX resulted in significantly less locomotor activity compared with Tat(−)/DOX (P < 0.05) or Tat(+)/DOX (P < 0.05) mice. Thus, no significant differences were noted in the development of tolerance between any of the morphine-pelleted groups, indicating that Tat did not alter development of tolerance when assessed by locomotor activity.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Mean changes in locomotor activity counts before and after the four cumulative morphine-dosing regimens. Capped bars indicate ± S.E.M. Changes in locomotor activity after acute, cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections indicate the development of tolerance in chronic morphine-pelleted mice compared with placebo-pelleted mice with no effects of Tat on tolerance. *P < 0.05 versus corresponding placebo-pelleted group. §P < 0.05 versus placebo-pelleted C57/DOX mice. Per group, n = 6 to 8 mice.

Naloxone-Precipitated Withdrawal Assessment to Test for Dependence.

Experiments were conducted to determine the development of physical dependence to morphine in Tat(−) and Tat(+) mice (Fig. 5). Physical dependence as quantified by naloxone-induced jumping was not observed for any of the placebo-pelleted transgenic mice, although some jumping was observed in the placebo-pelleted C57/no DOX mice after they received four acute cumulative doses of morphine (2, 4, 8, and 16 mg/kg) (P < 0.05). In contrast, most of the morphine-pelleted mice jumped off the elevated platform within the 10-minute time period, indicating physical dependence.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Tat significantly altered the development of physical dependence to chronic morphine exposure as assessed by platform jumping. Data are expressed as the percentage of mice jumping off the elevated platform, represented as individual points as well as the mean ± S.E.M. Per group, n = 6 to 8 mice. *P < 0.05 versus corresponding placebo condition; ¶P < 0.05 versus Tat(−)/no DOX and Tat(+)/no DOX; §P < 0.05 versus Tat(−)/DOX and Tat(+)/DOX. Chronic morphine-exposed mice were physically dependent, as shown by their jumping off the elevated platform in contrast with the placebo-pelleted groups. Interestingly, morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX mice, in which Tat has been induced, jump off the elevated platform significantly less compared with their C57/DOX and Tat(−)/DOX counterparts.

Chi-square tests (corrected for multiple comparisons) indicated statistically significant differences between the corresponding placebo- versus morphine-pelleted mice (P < 0.05), except for C57/no DOX and Tat(+)/DOX mice. Whereas the placebo-pelleted C57/no DOX group indicated dependence, probably due to the acute cumulative subcutaneous morphine injections, the morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX group indicated significantly less physical dependence to morphine than the C57/DOX or Tat(−)/DOX morphine-pelleted mice (P < 0.05). These findings indicate that: 1) C57 mice appear to be more sensitive to morphine (Fig. 5, top left panel); and 2) the development of dependence was significantly altered/decreased by Tat induction (Fig. 5, bottom right panel).

Additional somatic signs of withdrawal to morphine were assessed, including number of wet-dog shakes, jumps, and forepaw tremors (Fig. 6). Incidences of wet-dog shakes were higher in chronic morphine-exposed mice compared with placebo-pelleted mice (P < 0.05), except for Tat(+)/DOX mice, indicating Tat(+)/DOX mice showed no morphine-induced physical dependence (Fig. 6A). The alteration of physical dependence by Tat induction is supported by the finding that morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/no DOX mice showed increased wet-dog shakes compared with morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX mice (P < 0.05). The number of jumps indicated the presence of physical dependence in morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/no DOX (P < 0.05) as well as C57/DOX (P < 0.05) mice compared to placebo-pelleted mice, again indicating less physical dependence with Tat induction. There were no differences in forepaw tremors except for in the placebo-pelleted Tat(−)/DOX mice, which displayed statistically significant more forepaw tremors compared with chronic morphine-exposed Tat(−)/DOX mice (P < 0.05).

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

Physical signs of withdrawal (wet-dog shakes, jumps, and forepaw tremors) indicate that the sensitivity to morphine-induced physical dependence was reduced by Tat induction. The incidence of selected somatic signs of withdrawal are presented as the mean ± S.E.M., n = 6 to 8 mice/group. Lines lacking error bars indicate no response. *P < 0.05 versus corresponding placebo condition; §P < 0.05 versus C57/DOX morphine; ¶P < 0.05 versus Tat(+)/no DOX morphine. (A) Wet-dog shakes indicate physical dependence for the chronic morphine exposed groups compared with the groups that received placebo pellets, except for the Tat(+)/DOX group which did not show significant increases in wet-dog shakes for the chronic morphine-pelleted condition. (B) Incidence of jumps indicates some physical dependence for morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/no DOX and C57/DOX mice compared with placebo-pelleted mice. Additionally, chronic, morphine-exposed Tat(+)/DOX mice showed fewer jumps compared with C57/DOX mice. None of the placebo-pelleted mice jumped. (C) The placebo-pelleted Tat(−)/DOX group was the only group showing more forepaw tremors compared with chronic morphine-exposed Tat(−)/DOX.

Discussion

In this study tolerance and dependence were observed in mice being continuously exposed to morphine via a 75-mg pellet implant for 4 days. Physical dependence on and tolerance to narcotics have been produced in animals by a variety of techniques, including intravenous self-administration, oral self-administration, systemic injection, and intraventricular injections. The most widely used method, however, is the implantation of morphine pellets in rodents (Maggiolo and Huidobro, 1961; Way et al., 1968; Cicero and Meyer, 1973). With this procedure the CNS is continuously exposed to morphine (Way et al., 1968), and a marked degree of tolerance and physical dependence can be produced in a very short period of time (Way et al., 1969). The 75-mg morphine pellets result in initial blood levels of 2 μg/ml of morphine and in sustained blood levels (0.6 μg/ml morphine) by 48 hours that last 2–5 days (Bryant et al., 1988). The levels of opiates in the blood of addicts who had died of an opiate overdose indicate an average level of opiates in the blood of 0.8 ± 0.1 μg/ml (Ozaita et al., 1998), similar to that seen in 75-mg morphine-pelleted mice (Bryant et al., 1988). We realize that the use of a pellet to administer morphine chronically to mice differs from how humans chronically abuse the drug, but in both cases sufficiently high morphine brain levels are achieved to develop tolerance. Perhaps more importantly, the pellet method has been the method of choice for the chronic administration of morphine to mice for decades, and we chose this method to better relate our findings to the decades of work performed using pellets.

Morphine tolerance was assessed by measuring antinociception and locomotor activity in mice chronically exposed to placebo or morphine pellets. Physical dependence was determined by quantitating different withdrawal signs elicited by naloxone after chronic administration of the opiate. Importantly, morphine tolerance and physical dependence were differently affected by HIV-1 Tat expression in a transgenic mouse model of neuro-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (neuroAIDS). Tat induction enhanced the development of tolerance, whereas a decrease in physical dependence by Tat was noted after 1 mg/kg naloxone injection.

We used different control conditions to test for morphine, DOX, and Tat effects. First, the induction of tolerance and physical dependence to morphine was clearly shown in the behavioral measures assessed in this study, when comparing placebo groups with their morphine-pelleted counterparts. It should be noted that even though the ED50 values for C57/no DOX and Tat(−)/no DOX mice were not significantly different between placebo- and morphine-pelleted conditions, the potency ratios showed significant 5.5- and 5.18- fold increases, respectively. Further, based on the platform-jumping assay after precipitated withdrawal, the placebo-pelleted C57/no DOX mice were more sensitive to morphine as they developed some physical dependence after acute cumulative morphine injections compared with the transgenic mice bred on a C57BL/6J hybrid background. Strain differences in morphine tolerance and dependence are consistent with previous reports (Kest et al., 2002a,b; Liu et al., 2011), which also have reported increased IL-1β expression in C57BL/6 mice after morphine treatment (Liu et al., 2011). However, more detailed experiments with more appropriate controls are necessary to support the notion that C57 mice show higher sensitivity to morphine.

Second, as our conditional HIV-1 Tat transgenic mouse model requires DOX administration to induce the tat transgene, we also wanted to determine whether chronic DOX exposure might intrinsically affect opiate tolerance or dependence. Although the effect was not significant, it was noticed that there was a tendency for DOX treatment to affect the %MPE response in placebo-pelleted C57 mice receiving an acute 2 mg/kg morphine injection, compared with similarly treated mice that were not administered DOX. Furthermore, a significant DOX effect was noted for platform jumping, with the sensitivity of placebo-pelleted C57 mice to acute morphine being reduced after DOX administration. It is possible that chronic morphine-induced inflammatory effects, such as increases in IL-1β or other cytokines (Liu et al., 2011; Merighi et al., 2013) might be reduced by DOX itself because DOX is reported to have modest anti-inflammatory effects at high doses (Chen et al., 2009; Chaudhry et al., 2010). Further, DOX increased the ED50 on the %MPE in the tail-flick assay for all morphine-pelleted groups (no increase was noted in placebo-pelleted mice). Importantly, however, a statistically significant effect of DOX on the ED50 was noted only in the Tat(+) mice (morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/no DOX versus morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX groups). This indicates that the effect is not due to DOX itself, but rather to the induction of Tat expression.

Third, testing the effects of Tat induction by DOX, Tat(−)/DOX mice are considered the most valid control for their Tat(+)/DOX counterparts, as both mouse groups were developed on the same genetic background and both express the foreign rtTA transgene. The only distinction is that the Tat(−) control mice do not express the tat transgene. The increased tolerance noted in morphine-pelleted Tat(+)/DOX mice on %MPE compared with Tat(−)/DOX mice, indicate that Tat is altering the underlying mechanism involved in the development of antinociceptive tolerance, which is confirmed by the finding that no differences were noted between Tat(−)/no DOX and Tat(+)/no DOX mice.

Cytotoxicity after prolonged morphine or Tat exposure has been previously demonstrated in vitro in glial-restricted precursors isolated from spinal cord (Buch et al., 2007). Interestingly, Tat did not affect tolerance to the effects of morphine in the locomotor activity assay, suggesting that Tat does not interact with morphine’s actions at supraspinal sites governing locomotor activity including the striatum. This was somewhat unexpected because prior studies have shown that Tat and morphine interactions have pronounced neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative effects on the striatum (Bruce-Keller et al., 2008; Fitting et al., 2010a,b, 2014; Zou et al., 2011; Hauser et al., 2012), and prolonged Tat induction was found to disrupt locomotor activity (Hahn et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it has been noted that the effects of Tat on locomotor activity can vary depending on the duration of Tat induction using DOX (Fitting et al., 2012; Hahn et al., 2015).

It is clear that, depending on the parameter measured, tolerance to morphine as well as other opiates develops at different rates and to differing degrees in the same individual. For instance, tolerance develops to respiratory depression and euphoria but not to constipation in humans and animals (Freye and Latasch, 2003). Furthermore, the spinal versus supraspinal mechanisms underlying the development of morphine tolerance differ in regard to which opioid or other receptor types are involved (Porreca et al., 1987; Xu et al., 2014). It has been shown that the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) mediates the induction and maintenance of tolerance to morphine’s antinociceptive effects in the tail-flick assay, but mTOR does not affect morphine tolerance as related to locomotor function (Xu et al., 2014). The interaction of mTOR and Tat has been previously reported, with mTOR being involved in Tat-induced neurotoxicity (Fields et al., 2015). Assuming that Tat modulates morphine tolerance via mTOR, this might explain why Tat expression affects morphine tolerance in the tail-flick assay (spinal level), but not in the locomotor activity test (supraspinal level). Although the reasons for the discrepancy are uncertain, our laboratory recently reported differences in the onset and in the levels of Tat mRNA expression in the spinal cord and striatum (Fitting et al., 2012). Whether the differential effects of Tat on tolerance are related to regional differences in the effects of Tat within the CNS, such as discrepancies in spinal versus supraspinal actions or the duration of DOX administration, needs to be further investigated.

Importantly, HIV-1 Tat decreased physical dependence despite increasing tolerance to morphine. It should be noted that a dissociation between tolerance and dependence is not new and has been previously reported when comparing protein kinase C and protein kinase A inhibitors, which reversed tolerance but failed to block dependence as assessed by naloxone-precipitated withdrawal (Smith et al., 2002; Gabra et al., 2008). Protein kinase C and protein kinase A activation has been demonstrated to modulate G protein-coupled receptors and cause heterologous desensitization (Kelly et al., 1999), which is suggested to be one of the molecular adaptations underlying the development of opiate tolerance. The increased tolerance seen with Tat induction might be attributable to the up-regulation of heterologous, bidirectional cross-desensitization of opioid and chemokine coreceptors (Rogers et al., 2000; Rogers and Peterson, 2003), as increased CCL2/monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and CCL5/RANTES levels have been reported in our HIV-1 Tat transgenic mice (Fitting et al., 2010a). In contrast, Tat has been reported to attenuate adenylyl cyclase activity (Shpakov et al., 2004), a cellular marker of dependence, thus leading to a decrease in physical dependence with Tat induction.

It should be noted that a recent study demonstrated no effects of gp120 on withdrawal-induced weight loss associated with the discontinuation of buprenorphine (Palma et al., 2015). Whether this is specific to buprenorphine as argued by the authors or specific to gp120 needs to be further investigated.

The increase in antinociceptive tolerance and decrease in physical dependence with Tat induction could also be accounted for by the dose of 1 mg/kg naloxone being insufficient to induce precipitated withdrawal symptoms in Tat(+)/DOX. Previous studies from our laboratory have used this dose routinely to induce opioid withdrawal, but others have reported the use of 10 mg/kg naloxone to maximize the number and intensity of withdrawal symptoms elicited (Wei, 1981; Smith and Yancey, 2003). The reason for a decrease in naloxone’s effect (efficacy and/or potency) by Tat induction is unclear. One speculation is the reported up-regulation of the endogenous opioid peptide transport system by Tat (Hu et al., 2003), may differentially alter and change the cellular signaling and expression levels of individual opioid receptor types.

In conclusion, the present study used a conditional HIV-1 Tat transgenic mouse model to examine the effects of HIV-1 Tat1–86 on morphine tolerance assessed by tail-flick and locomotor activity assays and by dependence as measured by naloxone-precipitated withdrawal. We found that Tat induced an increase in antinociceptive tolerance but decreased physical dependence to chronic morphine exposure. To the extent that Tat expression underlies significant aspects of neuroAIDS in the post-cART era (Olney et al., 1986), these findings in Tat transgenic mice suggest that HIV-infected individuals may display increased tolerance and decreased symptoms of physical dependence to opiates compared with uninfected individuals, and that these effects are mediated by Tat.

Authorship Contributions

Participated in research design: Fitting, Hauser, Knapp, Dewey.

Conducted experiments: Fitting, Stevens, Khan, Scoggins.

Performed data analysis: Fitting, Beardsley, Enga.

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Fitting, Hauser, Dewey, Knapp, Beardsley.

Footnotes

    • Received June 9, 2015.
    • Accepted November 4, 2015.
  • ↵1 Current affiliation: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

  • This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA018633, R01 DA033200, R01 DA024661, K02 DA027374, K99 DA033878].

  • dx.doi.org/10.1124/jpet.115.226407.

Abbreviations

ANOVA
analysis of variance
CCR
C-C chemokine receptor
CNS
central nervous system
DOX
doxycycline
GFAP
glial fibrillary acidic protein
HIV-1
human immunodeficiency virus type 1
IL
interleukin
MPE
maximal possible effect
mTOR
mammalian target of rapamycin
neuroAIDS
neuro-acquired immune deficiency syndrome
RANTES
regulated on activation, normal T expressed and secreted
Tat
transactivator of transcription
  • Copyright © 2015 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    1. Adler MW,
    2. Geller EB,
    3. Rogers TJ,
    4. Henderson EE, and
    5. Eisenstein TK
    (1993) Opioids, receptors, and immunity. Adv Exp Med Biol 335:13–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Attwell D and
    2. Laughlin SB
    (2001) An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 21:1133–1145.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Balch RJ and
    2. Trescot A
    (2010) Extended-release morphine sulfate in treatment of severe acute and chronic pain. J Pain Res 3:191–200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bell JE,
    2. Brettle RP,
    3. Chiswick A, and
    4. Simmonds P
    (1998) HIV encephalitis, proviral load and dementia in drug users and homosexuals with AIDS. Effect of neocortical involvement. Brain 121:2043–2052.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Breitbart W and
    2. Dibiase L
    (2002) Current perspectives on pain in AIDS. Oncology (Williston Park) 16:818–829, 834–835.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Bruce-Keller AJ,
    2. Turchan-Cholewo J,
    3. Smart EJ,
    4. Geurin T,
    5. Chauhan A,
    6. Reid R,
    7. Xu R,
    8. Nath A,
    9. Knapp PE, and
    10. Hauser KF
    (2008) Morphine causes rapid increases in glial activation and neuronal injury in the striatum of inducible HIV-1 Tat transgenic mice. Glia 56:1414–1427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bryant HU,
    2. Yoburn BC,
    3. Inturrisi CE,
    4. Bernton EW, and
    5. Holaday JW
    (1988) Morphine-induced immunomodulation is not related to serum morphine concentrations. Eur J Pharmacol 149:165–169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Buch SK,
    2. Khurdayan VK,
    3. Lutz SE,
    4. Knapp PE,
    5. El-Hage N, and
    6. Hauser KF
    (2007) Glial-restricted precursors: patterns of expression of opioid receptors and relationship to human immunodeficiency virus-1 Tat and morphine susceptibility in vitro. Neuroscience 146:1546–1554.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Carr DJ and
    2. Serou M
    (1995) Exogenous and endogenous opioids as biological response modifiers. Immunopharmacology 31:59–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Chaudhry K,
    2. Rogers R,
    3. Guo M,
    4. Lai Q,
    5. Goel G,
    6. Liebelt B,
    7. Ji X,
    8. Curry A,
    9. Carranza A,
    10. Jimenez DF,
    11. et al.
    (2010) Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) expression and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) activation in exercise-reduced neuronal apoptosis after stroke. Neurosci Lett 474:109–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chen C,
    2. Li J,
    3. Bot G,
    4. Szabo I,
    5. Rogers TJ, and
    6. Liu-Chen LY
    (2004) Heterodimerization and cross-desensitization between the μ-opioid receptor and the chemokine CCR5 receptor. Eur J Pharmacol 483:175–186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Hartman R,
    3. Ayer R,
    4. Marcantonio S,
    5. Kamper J,
    6. Tang J, and
    7. Zhang JH
    (2009) Matrix metalloproteinases inhibition provides neuroprotection against hypoxia-ischemia in the developing brain. J Neurochem 111:726–736.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Cicero TJ and
    2. Meyer ER
    (1973) Morphine pellet implantation in rats: quantitative assessment of tolerance and dependence. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 184:404–408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. El-Hage N,
    2. Bruce-Keller AJ,
    3. Knapp PE, and
    4. Hauser KF
    (2008) CCL5/RANTES gene deletion attenuates opioid-induced increases in glial CCL2/MCP-1 immunoreactivity and activation in HIV-1 Tat-exposed mice. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 3:275–285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. El-Hage N,
    2. Gurwell JA,
    3. Singh IN,
    4. Knapp PE,
    5. Nath A, and
    6. Hauser KF
    (2005) Synergistic increases in intracellular Ca2+, and the release of MCP-1, RANTES, and IL-6 by astrocytes treated with opiates and HIV-1 Tat. Glia 50:91–106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. El-Hage N,
    2. Wu G,
    3. Ambati J,
    4. Bruce-Keller AJ,
    5. Knapp PE, and
    6. Hauser KF
    (2006) CCR2 mediates increases in glial activation caused by exposure to HIV-1 Tat and opiates. J Neuroimmunol 178:9–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Ellis R,
    2. Langford D, and
    3. Masliah E
    (2007) HIV and antiretroviral therapy in the brain: neuronal injury and repair. Nat Rev Neurosci 8:33–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Fellin T,
    2. Sul JY,
    3. D’Ascenzo M,
    4. Takano H,
    5. Pascual O, and
    6. Haydon PG
    (2006) Bidirectional astrocyte-neuron communication: the many roles of glutamate and ATP. Novartis Found Symp 276:208–217; discussion 217–221, 233–207, 275–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Fields J,
    2. Dumaop W,
    3. Eleuteri S,
    4. Campos S,
    5. Serger E,
    6. Trejo M,
    7. Kosberg K,
    8. Adame A,
    9. Spencer B,
    10. Rockenstein E,
    11. et al.
    (2015) HIV-1 Tat alters neuronal autophagy by modulating autophagosome fusion to the lysosome: implications for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. J Neurosci 35:1921–1938.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Fitting S,
    2. Knapp PE,
    3. Zou S,
    4. Marks WD,
    5. Bowers MS,
    6. Akbarali HI, and
    7. Hauser KF
    (2014) Interactive HIV-1 Tat and morphine-induced synaptodendritic injury is triggered through focal disruptions in Na⁺ influx, mitochondrial instability, and Ca²⁺ overload. J Neurosci 34:12850–12864.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Fitting S,
    2. Scoggins KL,
    3. Xu R,
    4. Dever SM,
    5. Knapp PE,
    6. Dewey WL, and
    7. Hauser KF
    (2012) Morphine efficacy is altered in conditional HIV-1 Tat transgenic mice. Eur J Pharmacol 689:96–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Fitting S,
    2. Xu R,
    3. Bull C,
    4. Buch SK,
    5. El-Hage N,
    6. Nath A,
    7. Knapp PE, and
    8. Hauser KF
    (2010a) Interactive comorbidity between opioid drug abuse and HIV-1 Tat: chronic exposure augments spine loss and sublethal dendritic pathology in striatal neurons. Am J Pathol 177:1397–1410.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Fitting S,
    2. Zou S,
    3. Chen W,
    4. Vo P,
    5. Hauser KF, and
    6. Knapp PE
    (2010b) Regional heterogeneity and diversity in cytokine and chemokine production by astroglia: differential responses to HIV-1 Tat, gp120, and morphine revealed by multiplex analysis. J Proteome Res 9:1795–1804.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Freye E and
    2. Latasch L
    (2003) [Development of opioid tolerance—molecular mechanisms and clinical consequences]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 38:14–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Gabra BH,
    2. Bailey CP,
    3. Kelly E,
    4. Smith FL,
    5. Henderson G, and
    6. Dewey WL
    (2008) Pre-treatment with a PKC or PKA inhibitor prevents the development of morphine tolerance but not physical dependence in mice. Brain Res 1217:70–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Ghazi-Khansari M,
    2. Zendehdel R,
    3. Pirali-Hamedani M, and
    4. Amini M
    (2006) Determination of morphine in the plasma of addicts in using Zeolite Y extraction following high-performance liquid chromatography. Clin Chim Acta 364:235–238.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Greenwood SM,
    2. Mizielinska SM,
    3. Frenguelli BG,
    4. Harvey J, and
    5. Connolly CN
    (2007) Mitochondrial dysfunction and dendritic beading during neuronal toxicity. J Biol Chem 282:26235–26244.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Gurwell JA,
    2. Nath A,
    3. Sun Q,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Martin KM,
    6. Chen Y, and
    7. Hauser KF
    (2001) Synergistic neurotoxicity of opioids and human immunodeficiency virus-1 Tat protein in striatal neurons in vitro. Neuroscience 102:555–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hahn YK,
    2. Podhaizer EM,
    3. Farris SP,
    4. Miles MF,
    5. Hauser KF, and
    6. Knapp PE
    (2015) Effects of chronic HIV-1 Tat exposure in the CNS: heightened vulnerability of males versus females to changes in cell numbers, synaptic integrity, and behavior. Brain Struct Funct 220:605–623.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Harris LS and
    2. Pierson AK
    (1964) Some narcotic antagonists in the benzomorphan series. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 143:141–148.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Haughey NJ and
    2. Mattson MP
    (2002) Calcium dysregulation and neuronal apoptosis by the HIV-1 proteins Tat and gp120. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 31 (Suppl 2):S55–S61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Hauser KF,
    2. Fitting S,
    3. Dever SM,
    4. Podhaizer EM, and
    5. Knapp PE
    (2012) Opiate drug use and the pathophysiology of neuroAIDS. Curr HIV Res 10:435–452.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Hernandez-Lopez S,
    2. Tkatch T,
    3. Perez-Garci E,
    4. Galarraga E,
    5. Bargas J,
    6. Hamm H, and
    7. Surmeier DJ
    (2000) D2 dopamine receptors in striatal medium spiny neurons reduce L-type Ca2+ currents and excitability via a novel PLC[β]1-IP3-calcineurin-signaling cascade. J Neurosci 20:8987–8995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Hille B
    (2001) Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
  35. ↵
    1. Hu H,
    2. Miyauchi S,
    3. Bridges CC,
    4. Smith SB, and
    5. Ganapathy V
    (2003) Identification of a novel Na+- and Cl−-coupled transport system for endogenous opioid peptides in retinal pigment epithelium and induction of the transport system by HIV-1 Tat. Biochem J 375:17–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Hu S,
    2. Sheng WS,
    3. Lokensgard JR, and
    4. Peterson PK
    (2005) Morphine potentiates HIV-1 gp120-induced neuronal apoptosis. J Infect Dis 191:886–889.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Kelly MJ,
    2. Lagrange AH,
    3. Wagner EJ, and
    4. Rønnekleiv OK
    (1999) Rapid effects of estrogen to modulate G protein-coupled receptors via activation of protein kinase A and protein kinase C pathways. Steroids 64:64–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Kest B,
    2. Hopkins E,
    3. Palmese CA,
    4. Adler M, and
    5. Mogil JS
    (2002a) Genetic variation in morphine analgesic tolerance: a survey of 11 inbred mouse strains. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 73:821–828.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Kest B,
    2. Palmese CA,
    3. Hopkins E,
    4. Adler M,
    5. Juni A, and
    6. Mogil JS
    (2002b) Naloxone-precipitated withdrawal jumping in 11 inbred mouse strains: evidence for common genetic mechanisms in acute and chronic morphine physical dependence. Neuroscience 115:463–469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Kim HJ,
    2. Shin AH, and
    3. Thayer SA
    (2011) Activation of cannabinoid type 2 receptors inhibits HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp120-induced synapse loss. Mol Pharmacol 80:357–366.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Leshner AI and
    2. Koob GF
    (1999) Drugs of abuse and the brain. Proc Assoc Am Physicians 111:99–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Liu L,
    2. Coller JK,
    3. Watkins LR,
    4. Somogyi AA, and
    5. Hutchinson MR
    (2011) Naloxone-precipitated morphine withdrawal behavior and brain IL-1β expression: comparison of different mouse strains. Brain Behav Immun 25:1223–1232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Maggiolo C and
    2. Huidobro F
    (1961) Administration of pellets of morphine to mice; abstinence syndrome. Acta Physiol Lat Am 11:70–78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Merighi S,
    2. Gessi S,
    3. Varani K,
    4. Fazzi D,
    5. Stefanelli A, and
    6. Borea PA
    (2013) Morphine mediates a proinflammatory phenotype via μ-opioid receptor-PKCɛ-Akt-ERK1/2 signaling pathway in activated microglial cells. Biochem Pharmacol 86:487–496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Noel RJ Jr.,
    2. Rivera-Amill V,
    3. Buch S, and
    4. Kumar A
    (2008) Opiates, immune system, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and nonhuman primate model. J Neurovirol 14:279–285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Olney JW,
    2. Price MT,
    3. Samson L, and
    4. Labruyere J
    (1986) The role of specific ions in glutamate neurotoxicity. Neurosci Lett 65:65–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Ozaita A,
    2. Escribá PV,
    3. Ventayol P,
    4. Murga C,
    5. Mayor F Jr., and
    6. García-Sevilla JA
    (1998) Regulation of G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 in brains of opiate-treated rats and human opiate addicts. J Neurochem 70:1249–1257.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Palma J,
    2. Abood ME, and
    3. Benamar K
    (2015) HIV-gp120 and physical dependence to buprenorphine. Drug Alcohol Depend 150:175–178.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Park JS,
    2. Bateman MC, and
    3. Goldberg MP
    (1996) Rapid alterations in dendrite morphology during sublethal hypoxia or glutamate receptor activation. Neurobiol Dis 3:215–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Patrick GA,
    2. Dewey WL,
    3. Spaulding TC, and
    4. Harris LS
    (1975) Relationship of brain morphine levels to analgesic activity in acutely treated mice and rats and in pellet implanted mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 193:876–883.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Peterson PK,
    2. Molitor TW, and
    3. Chao CC
    (1998) The opioid-cytokine connection. J Neuroimmunol 83:63–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Porreca F,
    2. Heyman JS,
    3. Mosberg HI,
    4. Omnaas JR, and
    5. Vaught JL
    (1987) Role of mu and delta receptors in the supraspinal and spinal analgesic effects of [D-Pen2, D-Pen5]enkephalin in the mouse. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 241:393–400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Rogers TJ and
    2. Peterson PK
    (2003) Opioid G protein-coupled receptors: signals at the crossroads of inflammation. Trends Immunol 24:116–121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Rogers TJ,
    2. Steele AD,
    3. Howard OM, and
    4. Oppenheim JJ
    (2000) Bidirectional heterologous desensitization of opioid and chemokine receptors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 917:19–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Ross GR,
    2. Gabra BH,
    3. Dewey WL, and
    4. Akbarali HI
    (2008) Morphine tolerance in the mouse ileum and colon. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 327:561–572.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Shpakov AO,
    2. Gur’ianov IA,
    3. Avdeeva EV,
    4. Vorob’ev VI, and
    5. Vlasov GP
    (2004) [Molecular mechanisms of action of dendrons, containing 48–60 sequence of HIV-1 TAT-protein, on the functional activity of the adenylyl cyclase signaling systems]. Tsitologiia 46:1011–1022.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Smith FL,
    2. Javed R,
    3. Elzey MJ,
    4. Welch SP,
    5. Selley D,
    6. Sim-Selley L, and
    7. Dewey WL
    (2002) Prolonged reversal of morphine tolerance with no reversal of dependence by protein kinase C inhibitors. Brain Res 958:28–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Smith MA and
    2. Yancey DL
    (2003) Sensitivity to the effects of opioids in rats with free access to exercise wheels: mu-opioid tolerance and physical dependence. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 168:426–434.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Turchan-Cholewo J,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Gartner S,
    4. Reid R,
    5. Jie C,
    6. Peng X,
    7. Chen KC,
    8. Chauhan A,
    9. Haughey N,
    10. Cutler R,
    11. et al.
    (2006) Increased vulnerability of ApoE4 neurons to HIV proteins and opiates: protection by diosgenin and l-deprenyl. Neurobiol Dis 23:109–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Way EL,
    2. Loh HH, and
    3. Shen F
    (1968) Morphine tolerance, physical dependence, and synthesis of brain 5-hydroxytryptamine. Science 162:1290–1292.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Way EL,
    2. Loh HH, and
    3. Shen FH
    (1969) Simultaneous quantitative assessment of morphine tolerance and physical dependence. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 167:1–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Wei ET
    (1981) Enkephalin analogs and physical dependence. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 216:12–18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Xu JT,
    2. Zhao JY,
    3. Zhao X,
    4. Ligons D,
    5. Tiwari V,
    6. Atianjoh FE,
    7. Lee CY,
    8. Liang L,
    9. Zang W,
    10. Njoku D,
    11. et al.
    (2014) Opioid receptor-triggered spinal mTORC1 activation contributes to morphine tolerance and hyperalgesia. J Clin Invest 124:592–603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Fukui K,
    3. Koike T, and
    4. Zheng X
    (2007) Induction of autophagy in neurite degeneration of mouse superior cervical ganglion neurons. Eur J Neurosci 26:2979–2988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Zou S,
    2. Fitting S,
    3. Hahn YK,
    4. Welch SP,
    5. El-Hage N,
    6. Hauser KF, and
    7. Knapp PE
    (2011) Morphine potentiates neurodegenerative effects of HIV-1 Tat through actions at μ-opioid receptor-expressing glia. Brain 134:3616–3631.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics: 356 (1)
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Vol. 356, Issue 1
1 Jan 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Morphine Tolerance and Physical Dependence Are Altered in Conditional HIV-1 Tat Transgenic Mice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Morphine Tolerance and Dependence in HIV Tat Transgenic Mice

Sylvia Fitting, David L. Stevens, Fayez A. Khan, Krista L. Scoggins, Rachel M. Enga, Patrick M. Beardsley, Pamela E. Knapp, William L. Dewey and Kurt F. Hauser
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics January 1, 2016, 356 (1) 96-105; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.115.226407

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Morphine Tolerance and Dependence in HIV Tat Transgenic Mice

Sylvia Fitting, David L. Stevens, Fayez A. Khan, Krista L. Scoggins, Rachel M. Enga, Patrick M. Beardsley, Pamela E. Knapp, William L. Dewey and Kurt F. Hauser
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics January 1, 2016, 356 (1) 96-105; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.115.226407
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Material and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Authorship Contributions
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Behavioral Battery for Testing Candidate Analgesics in Mice
  • Behavioral Battery for Testing Candidate Analgesics II
  • Pharmacology of Mitragynine at μ-Opioid Receptors
Show more Behavioral Pharmacology

Similar Articles

  • Home
  • Alerts
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   RSS

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Fast Forward by date
  • Fast Forward by section
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive
  • Search for Articles
  • Feedback
  • ASPET

More Information

  • About JPET
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions to Authors
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Customized Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Subscriptions
  • Permissions
  • Terms & Conditions of Use

ASPET's Other Journals

  • Drug Metabolism and Disposition
  • Molecular Pharmacology
  • Pharmacological Reviews
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
ISSN 1521-0103 (Online)

Copyright © 2021 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics