Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Fast Forward
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Sections
    • 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
  • Submit
  • 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
    • Special Sections
    • 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
  • Submit
  • Visit jpet on Facebook
  • Follow jpet on Twitter
  • Follow jpet on LinkedIn
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

Reinforcing and Stimulant-Like Effects of Methamphetamine Isomers in Rhesus Macaques

David S. Jacobs, Bruce E. Blough and Stephen J. Kohut
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics August 2021, 378 (2) 124-132; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.121.000548
David S. Jacobs
McLean Hospital - Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts (D.S.J., S.J.K.), and Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (B.E.B.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce E. Blough
McLean Hospital - Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts (D.S.J., S.J.K.), and Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (B.E.B.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen J. Kohut
McLean Hospital - Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts (D.S.J., S.J.K.), and Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (B.E.B.)
  • 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

Monoamine releasers such as d-methamphetamine (d-MA) can reduce cocaine use in laboratory studies and have been forwarded for the management of cocaine use disorder (CUD). However, the proven abuse liability of d-MA has limited enthusiasm for clinical use. The levorotatory isomer of MA, l-MA, appears to have lesser stimulant effects, possibly due to its preferential norepinephrine-releasing properties compared with dopamine. The present study evaluated the abuse potential of l-MA by comparing its reinforcing effects with known stimulant drugs of abuse in nonhuman primates. Adult rhesus macaques (N = 4) responded for intravenous injections of cocaine, d-MA, methcathinone (MCAT), or l-MA under a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule of reinforcement; reinforcing effectiveness was evaluated using behavioral economic demand procedures. In a separate cohort (N = 9), daily activity and food-reinforced responding were assessed during 100 days of treatment with daily dosages of l-MA (2.3 mg/kg per day, i.v.) or d-MA (0.74 mg/kg per day, i.v.) previously shown to decrease cocaine self-administration. Results show that all drugs maintained self-administration, with peak injections reaching ∼100 inj per session for cocaine, MCAT, and d-MA and ∼50 inj per session for l-MA . In demand studies, self-administration of each drug gradually decreased as FR size increased. The exponential model of demand indicated that the reinforcing effectiveness of l-MA was significantly less than the other drugs studied. Chronic l-MA treatment did not appreciably alter daily activity and only transiently suppressed food-reinforced responding. These data, coupled with previous findings that l-MA effectively reduces stimulant self-administration, suggest that l-MA, or other norepinephrine-preferring releasers, may serve as agonist medication for CUD with lesser abuse liability than common psychostimulants.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Development of pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder remains a formidable challenge. Agonist-based therapies show promise, but enthusiasm is tempered by the abuse liability of previously proposed medications. This study evaluated the abuse liability and chronic treatment effects of methamphetamine’s levorotatory isomer (l-MA). l-MA demonstrated lower abuse liability compared with commonly abused stimulants and produced few untoward effects. In the context of recent studies demonstrating that l-MA attenuates stimulant self-administration, these findings support l-MA’s potential as a pharmacotherapy for stimulant addiction.

Introduction

The agonist replacement approach for medications development has been successfully employed for the management of both opioid and nicotine use disorders but has not yet resulted in a Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for cocaine use disorder (CUD) (Grabowski et al., 2004; Rush and Stoops, 2012; Kohut and Bergman, 2017). This approach is predicated on the idea that illicit drug use and harm will be decreased by treatment with a drug that shares pharmacological properties with the illicit drug but with lesser abuse-related and unwanted effects (Rothman et al., 2008). Several pharmacologically similar compounds, all with prominent dopaminergic actions, have been found to effectively decrease cocaine intake in preclinical and/or clinical studies [reviewed by Czoty et al. (2016)]. In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that prescription psychostimulants, particularly amphetamines, significantly increase rates and duration of abstinence as well as cocaine-negative urines (Tardelli et al., 2020), adding additional support for the clinical benefit of utilizing agonist medications for CUD. However, identifying compounds that meet the criteria for agonist medication with reduced abuse liability has remained a formidable challenge.

We have previously suggested that the levo isomer of methamphetamine, l-methamphetamine (l-MA), which is available over the counter as the active ingredient in the nonprescription nasal decongestant Vick’s VapoInhaler may be a promising candidate medication for CUD, in part, because of its unique pharmacological profile (Kohut and Bergman, 2016, 2017; Kohut et al., 2016; Bardo et al., 2019). Both isomers—l-MA and the dextro isomer, d-methamphetamine (d-MA)—show similar time courses of distribution throughout the brain (Fowler et al., 2007) and are relatively equipotent for releasing norepinephrine (NE) (Kuczenski et al., 1995; Melega et al., 1999). However, l-MA is approximately 15- to 20-fold less potent than d-MA and other stimulant drugs of abuse for releasing dopamine (DA), which may be important in determining stimulant-like abuse-related effects (Kuczenski et al., 1995; Melega et al., 1999; Rothman et al., 2001; Kohut et al., 2017).

These pharmacological differences, although subtle, may underlie the mix of overlapping and distinct behavioral effects reported between the two isomers. In preclinical behavioral studies, treatment with either d- or l-MA similarly reduced cocaine self-administration in nonhuman primates (c.f., Negus et al., 2007; Kohut et al., 2016) and d-MA self-administration in rats (Bardo et al., 2019). Both d-MA and l-MA produce cocaine-like discriminative stimulus effects (Kohut et al., 2017), and l-MA substitutes for d-MA in drug discrimination studies (Yasar and Bergman, 1994; Bondareva et al., 2002; Desai and Bergman, 2010). Further, l-MA treatment has been shown to induce cross-sensitization to d-MA in rats (Xue et al., 2019). However, unlike d-MA, l-MA does not stimulate locomotor activity, nor does it induce locomotor sensitization with repeated dosing in rats (Nishimura et al., 2017; Siemian et al., 2017), suggesting that l-MA has lesser stimulant-like effects compared with d-MA. Taken together, these results indicate that although there are shared mechanisms, both drugs produce divergent behavioral and stimulant effects related to abuse potential.

We recently reported that l-MA is less reinforcing than d-MA in drug-naïve rats and attenuates self-administration of cocaine and d-MA in primates and rats, respectively (Kohut and Bergman, 2016; Bardo et al., 2019). The present studies were conducted to characterize the abuse-related reinforcing and stimulant-like behavioral effects of l-MA in rhesus monkeys with histories of stimulant self-administration. First, well validated drug self-administration procedures were used to compare the reinforcing effects of l-MA with standard monoaminergic drugs of abuse: d-MA, cocaine, and the substituted cathinone, methcathinone (MCAT). Behavioral economic procedures were then used to quantify the reinforcing strength of l-MA relative to the same standard stimulants. Second, because medication for the management of cocaine or other stimulant use disorders is likely to require long-term treatment in clinical populations, behavioral effects (daily activity and food-maintained responding) and the safety of chronic dosing were monitored while subjects were treated for 100 days with d- or l-MA at doses that produce comparable decreases in cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys (Negus et al., 2007; Kohut et al., 2016). Results indicate that l-MA is less reinforcing compared with common psychostimulants with minimal unwanted effects, strengthening its consideration as an agonist therapy for stimulant use disorders.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

Adult male and female rhesus macaques (Macacca mulatta) with histories of cocaine self-administration served as subjects. Monkeys had continuous access to water and were fed High Protein Monkey Diet (Purina Mills International, Brentwood, MO), fresh fruit, and vegetables daily in addition to 1 g banana-flavored food pellets (Formula 4TUR banana flavor, Purina Mills Test Diet, Richmond, IN) earned during experimental sessions. A 12-hour light/dark cycle was in effect, except during experimental sessions, as noted below. Subjects lived in stainless steel cages with side and front visual access to other subjects in the vivarium. Environmental enrichment was provided through access to mirrors, toys, and foraging boards; music during nonexperimental periods; and interactions with technical staff.

Animal husbandry was conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources - National Research Council (2010) as adopted and promulgated by the US National Institutes of Health. The facility is licensed by the US Department of Agriculture, and all experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at McLean Hospital. Animal health and well being were monitored daily by trained technical staff and by the attending veterinarian.

Apparatus

Monkeys responded on custom operant panels containing three square translucent response keys (5.1 × 5.1 cm) arranged 3.5 cm apart in a horizontal row 9 cm from the top of the panel. Each key could be transilluminated with red or green stimulus lights (SuperBright LEDs; Fairchild Semiconductor, San Jose, CA). A pellet dispenser (Gerbrands model G5210, Arlington, MA) was positioned above the cage next to two syringe pumps (model 981210; Harvard Apparatus, Inc., South Natick, MA), one for each lumen of the double-lumen catheter. A plastic food cup was located near the bottom of the operant panel and provided access to response-contingent food pellets earned during experimental sessions. In self-administration experiments, two subjects sat in standard primate chairs (Primate Products, Immokalee, FL) within a custom-built sound-attenuating chamber and faced the operant panel—all other events/equipment were as described above. Experimental events were controlled by a desktop computer running Med Associates (Georgia, VT) software.

Surgery

Silicone catheters (i.d. 0.028 inches, o.d. 0.088 inches; Saint Gobain, Beaverton, MI) were surgically implanted in an internal or external jugular or femoral vein under aseptic conditions. Monkeys were initially administered atropine (0.05 mg/kg, i.m.) and then sedated with ketamine (5–10 mg/kg, i.m.). After intubation, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane (1%–2% mixed with oxygen) throughout the procedure. After surgery, monkeys were given a single dose of penicillin G at 20,000 units/kg, i.m., and cephalexin 20 mg/kg, oral, twice daily for 5 days. Analgesic doses of buprenorphine (0.018 mg/kg, i.m.) and Metacam (meloxicam; 0.1 mg/kg, s.c. or oral) were administered twice daily for 3 days.

The intravenous catheter exited at the midscapular region. Subjects wore custom-fitted nylon jackets to protect the catheter. In tethered experiments, jackets were connected to a flexible stainless steel cable and fluid swivel (Lomir Biomedical, Malone, NY) that permitted monkeys to move freely within the home cage. Catheter patency was evaluated periodically by intravenous administration of methohexital sodium (3 to 4 mg/kg).

Drug Self-Administration

Two male and two female subjects were trained to respond for food pellets and drug injections per previously published methods (Kohut et al., 2013, 2016). Each daily 110-minute behavioral session consisted of two response components separated by a 5-minute time-out (TO) period. During the first component, a red light illuminating the center response key signaled the availability of 1 g banana-flavored food pellets under a fixed-ratio 10 (FR10):TO 10-second schedule of reinforcement for 10 minutes. During the second component, green lights illuminating the center response key signaled the availability of intravenous injections of drug or saline for 100 minutes under an FR10:TO 30-second schedule. This component was immediately preceded by illumination of a yellow light for 10 seconds and the noncontingent delivery of a single injection of saline or drug (i.e., cocaine, d-MA, MCAT, or l-MA) at the dose that was subsequently available. During the TO after each reinforcer delivery (food or drug), the center response key was illuminated with yellow lights. During the intercomponent TO period, all lights were off, and responding had no scheduled consequences.

During training sessions, saline or a unit dose of cocaine was typically available under a double alternation schedule that varied irregularly between subjects. Once responding was stable, dose-response functions for cocaine (0.001–0.1 mg/kg per inj), d-MA (0.001–0.1 mg/kg per inj), MCAT (0.001–0.1 mg/kg per inj), and l-MA (0.01–0.32 mg/kg per inj) were determined in a mixed order by substituting the various doses of each drug for cocaine. In general, each drug dose was studied for 2 to 3 days, and responding was considered stable if the number of injections over that period was within 15% of the 2- to 3-day mean before switching to another dose. Complete dose-effect functions for a single drug were obtained before moving to the next one. Subjects could earn an unlimited number of drug injections during each daily session, and sessions were monitored by technical staff.

Behavioral Economic Demand Curves

The relative reinforcing strengths of cocaine, d-MA, MCAT, and l-MA were determined using behavioral economic demand procedures (Hursh, 1993; Hursh and Silberberg, 2008). These studies were identical to dose-effect determinations, except that, after 3 days of stable self-administration under the FR10:TO30-second schedule of reinforcement, the response requirement for drug delivery was increased across successive sessions (i.e., 10, 32, 56, 100, 320, 560, 1000, 3200) until subjects failed to earn a single injection at a given ratio. Two doses of each drug were studied: the dose that maintained peak levels of responding during dose-effect determinations and a one-half log dose higher than the peak (+1/2-log peak; i.e., first dose on the descending limb). The doses used were as follows: cocaine = 0.01 and 0.032 mg/kg per inj, d-MA = 0.0032 and 0.01 mg/kg per inj, MCAT = 0.01 and 0.032 mg/kg per inj, and l-MA = 0.1 and 0.32 mg/kg per inj. Drug availability remained unlimited during this procedure.

Chronic Treatment

The effects of 100-day chronic treatment with saline, d-MA (0.032 mg/kg per hour; 0.74 mg/kg per day), or l-MA (0.1 mg/kg per hour; 2.3 mg/kg per day) on food-maintained responding, daily activity, and complete blood count (CBC)/chemistry profile were evaluated. These doses of d- and l-MA were chosen because previous studies have shown that 7–10 days of continuous treatment produces similar decreases in ongoing cocaine self-administration (by approximately 50%) in rhesus monkeys with minimal effects on food-maintained responding (Negus et al., 2007; Kohut et al., 2016). Nine subjects (two males and one female per condition) with histories of cocaine self-administration were studied; age and body weight were matched across conditions prior to the initiation of these studies. Each subject was drug-free for >3 months prior to the onset of chronic dosing procedures. Saline, d-MA, or l-MA was administered intravenously every 20 minutes for 23 hours each day (1100–0700 hours), as in our previous reports (Kohut et al., 2016).

Operant sessions to measure food-maintained responding consisted of four 1-hour periods of banana-flavored food pellet access each day: 1100, 1500, 1900, and 0600 hours the following morning. During response components, a red light illuminating the center response key signaled the availability of 1 g banana-flavored food pellets under a fixed ratio 2, variable ratio 16 second-order schedule of reinforcement. A 10-second TO period followed delivery of each food pellet, during which stimulus lights were turned off. This schedule of reinforcement was used for consistency with our previous studies of chronic treatment with d- or l-methamphetamine on cocaine and food-maintained responding in rhesus monkeys (Negus et al., 2007; Kohut et al., 2016). If 25 food pellets were delivered before the end of the 1-hour session, then all stimulus lights were turned off, and responding had no scheduled consequences for the remainder of that session.

Daily activity was measured using a commercially available three-way accelerometer (FitBit Zip; FitBit, San Francisco, CA) attached to the back of each subject’s nylon jacket. The accelerometer used has been shown to produce reliable activity data in human studies (Imboden et al., 2018) and was used here to measure total daily activity counts, as we have previously reported from macaque subjects (Jacobs et al., 2017). Data were downloaded at least twice weekly through Bluetooth technology.

CBC/chemistry profiles were determined in each subject prior to (baseline) and at approximately 30, 60, 90, and 100 days of chronic treatment to monitor blood electrolytes, cholesterol, triglycerides, and liver and kidney function. Blood samples were collected under ketamine anesthesia during monthly health checks via a temporary catheter placed in a saphenous or tibial vein. To collect samples, subjects were anesthetized with 10 mg/kg ketamine, and the site was thoroughly cleaned with a chlorhexidine solution and wiped with alcohol. Samples were analyzed using a standard CBC/chemistry panel by a commercial laboratory (IDEXX laboratories, Westbrook, ME).

Drugs

Cocaine HCl and racemic methcathinone HCl were obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Drug Supply program. d-Methamphetamine HCl was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO) and l-methamphetamine HCl was provided by B. Blough. All drug solutions were dissolved in sterile saline and filtered using a 0.22-micron syringe-driven filter (Millipore Corporation, Billerica, MA). All drug doses were calculated using the salt weights.

Data Analysis

Data were collected according to a preset plan for assessment of drug self-administration and chronic treatment. The number of responses and reinforcement deliveries were averaged for the last 2 days for each dose of drug or FR value and used for further analysis. The primary dependent variables for self-administration were total injections earned per session, and, for behavioral economic analysis, demand intensity and elasticity derived from demand curves (see below).

One-way ANOVA for repeated measures with Dunnett’s post hoc tests were used to compare the number of injections of various doses of each drug to identify those doses that were self-administered at levels higher than those observed for saline.

The demand curve analysis employed the exponential model of demand (Hursh and Silberberg, 2008; Hursh, 2014). Non-normalized consumption (Q; injections earned) and price (P; FR value) for each drug were fit to the exponential model of demand equation: log Q = log Q0 + k(e−αP− 1); k denotes the range of the exponential model and was experimentally derived and shared across all conditions, α represents a free parameter to quantify the elasticity of each drug from the demand curve, and Q0 represents a free parameter to quantify the maximum intensity of demand. Significant differences for each drug were determined when 95% confidence intervals did not overlap between drugs for a given parameter, in accordance with previous studies (Kohut and Bergman, 2016).

Activity data were downloaded from FitBit servers using custom software and organized as total activity counts per day. Mean daily activity (total activity counts/24 hours) was determined over a 7- to 10-day period under baseline conditions for each subject prior to chronic treatment, and daily activity was normalized to their own baseline. The primary dependent variable in food-maintained responding experiments was the total number of food pellets earned per day. Activity counts and food-maintained responding data were binned in 5-day epochs prior to statistical analysis. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA with factors of treatment and day were followed by Dunnett’s post hoc tests, when appropriate, to determine whether food-maintained responding, activity, or CBC/chemistry values during treatment with d- or l-MA differed from the saline control group at any time point during chronic treatment. All figures and statistical analyses were carried out using GraphPad Prism 6.0 for Mac (GraphPad Software Inc.) and used a critical P < 0.05.

Results

Drug Self-Administration

Initially, control values were established for the self-administration of intravenous saline and several doses of intravenous cocaine. When saline was available for self-administration, subjects generally responded for <20 injections per session. When cocaine was available for self-administration, the cocaine dose-effect curve described an inverted U-shaped function in all monkeys: the number of injections per session increased in a dose-dependent manner [FDose(5,15) = 8.41; P < 0.001], with 0.01 mg/kg cocaine producing peak levels of responding at the group level (107.4 ± 18.6 inj per session), which decreased as the unit dose increased further. Responding for unit doses of 0.0032–0.032 mg/kg per inj was significantly greater than saline vehicle (all P < 0.05; Fig. 1).

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

Self-administration of cocaine (circles), MCAT (squares), d-MA (downward triangles), and l-MA (upward triangles). Abscissa, drug dose in milligrams per kilogram per injection (log scale). Ordinate, total drug injections for a given dose earned per session. All data points represent mean ± S.E.M. of four subjects. Filled symbols indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences from saline self-administration.

When d-MA [FDose(5,15) = 5.88; P < 0.001], MCAT [FDose(5,15) = 15.7; P < 0.0001], and l-MA [FDose(4,12) = 4.86; P = 0.02] were substituted for cocaine, self-administration of each drug followed a similar inverted U-shaped dose-effect function, but with varying maximal levels of responding (see Fig. 1). Peak levels of self-administration for d-MA and MCAT were similar to cocaine, with subjects earning, on average, 93.8 (± 8.5) and 100.3 (± 10.7) inj per session at 0.003 mg/kg d-MA and 0.01 mg/kg MCAT, respectively. Doses of 0.0032 and 0.01 mg/kg per inj d-MA and 0.0032–0.032 mg/kg per inj MCAT elicited responding greater than saline (all P < 0.05). The peak number of injections of l-MA earned during self-administration sessions (50.0 ± 6.6 inj at 0.1 mg/kg) was approximately 50% of that earned when cocaine, d-MA, or MCAT were available, and only intake of the peak dose of l-MA was significantly different from saline self-administration (P = 0.01).

Figure 2 shows representative cumulative records for self-administration of cocaine, d-MA, MCAT, and l-MA during dose-effect determinations at the peak and +1/2-log peak dose of each drug. The within-session pattern of responding for cocaine and MCAT at both doses was characterized by relatively consistent responding throughout the session with injections earned at regular intervals. This pattern of responding was also evident during the first half of d-MA sessions but with longer “break” periods during the second half of sessions in which bouts of injections were more spaced, likely reflecting the accumulation of drug due to d-MA’s longer duration of effects and half-life relative to cocaine (Newton et al., 2005). In contrast to cocaine, MCAT, and d-MA, the within-session pattern of responding for l-MA was almost exclusively restricted to the first 60 minutes of the session and more spaced injections (i.e., 10–30 minutes) at the higher unit dose. This pattern was consistent in all subjects studied—i.e., >80% of all injections earned of 0.1 mg/kg l-MA were earned in the first half of the session.

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

Representative cumulative records for administration of peak and +1/2-log peak doses of cocaine, MCAT, d-MA, or l-MA. Abscissa, total time of session in minutes. Ordinate, number drug reinforcers earned. Ticks represent reinforcer delivery. Most stimulants (A–C) engendered consistent and robust self-administration patterns, except for l-MA (D), which was lesser and more erratically administered.

Behavioral Economic Demand Curves

Demand curves in Fig. 3, A and B show self-administration of 0.01 and 0.032 mg/kg cocaine and MCAT, 0.0032 and 0.01 mg/kg d-MA, and 0.1 and 0.32 mg/kg l-MA as a function of increasing response requirements (i.e., price). During demand procedures, responding for each drug decreased as the response requirement for drug delivery increased. The exponential model of demand provided a good fit for all data sets (R2 range: 0.95–0.99). Overlapping confidence intervals were observed for intensity (Q0) across all drugs at the peak dose, but the 1/2-log increase in dose resulted in a lower Q0 for l-MA compared with MCAT. Comparison of demand elasticity (α) for the peak and +1/2-log peak dose of each drug indicated that l-MA, at both doses, was more elastic than that of cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT, as confidence intervals did not overlap. Cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT did not differ from each other, and no change in elasticity was observed with dose (Fig. 3, C and D).

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

Demand curves and parameter estimates for the peak dose (white symbols) and +1/2-log peak doses (filled symbols) of cocaine (Coc), MCAT, d-MA, and l-MA observed in self-administration. Doses are milligrams per kilogram per injection. (A and B) Each data point represents the mean number of injections earned as a function of price for n = 4 subjects. Abscissa, FR requirement for an injection (log scale). Ordinate, total drug injections earned for a given session. Lines represent the best fit for each data point determined using the exponential model of demand (Hursh and Silberberg, 2008). (C and D) Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for demand intensity [(C) Q0] and elasticity [(D) α] parameters for each drug. Abscissa, estimated parameter value. Ordinate, drug available for self-administration. *95% CIs do not overlap with cocaine, #95% CIs do not overlap with MCAT.

Chronic Treatment

A clinical treatment regimen of chronic exposure to l-MA was modeled by continuously administering l-MA (0.1 mg/kg per hour, i.v.) or, for comparison, d-MA (0.032 mg/kg per hour, i.v.) or saline vehicle for 23 hours per day over approximately 100 consecutive days. Baseline levels of activity did not differ between the three chronic treatment groups [FTreatment(2,6) = 0.714; P = 0.53]; however, as expected, there were considerable individual differences among subjects (overall mean = 4364 counts, minimum = 57, maximum = 26,387). As such, total daily activity count was transformed to a percentage of each individual’s baseline level of activity for statistical analysis. Daily activity varied as an interaction between treatment and day across the chronic treatment period [FTreatmentXDay(36,108) = 2.13; P = 0.002; Fig. 4, A–C]. In the saline- and l-MA–treated groups, mean daily activity was primarily maintained within 20% of baseline levels throughout the entire treatment period. In contrast, daily activity was markedly decreased in the d-MA–treated group to about 50% of baseline levels. This decrease was evident in the first week of treatment, maintained for approximately 30 days, and then steadily returned to baseline after about 45 days of treatment. Baseline levels of activity in the d-MA–treated group were then maintained for the remainder of the treatment period.

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

Effects of chronic 100-day treatment with saline, d-MA (0.032 mg/kg per hour), or l-MA (0.1 mg/kg per hour) on locomotor activity and food self-administration. Abscissa, treatment day. Ordinate, daily activity expressed as a percentage of pretreatment baseline or daily food pellets earned. (A–C) d-MA but not l-MA or saline resulted in multiweek suppression of behavioral activity by 20% of baseline (shaded gray area). (D–F) d-MA and l-MA transiently disrupted food-reinforced responding during chronic treatment, whereas the effect of d-MA demonstrated a faster onset and offset than l-MA. *P < 0.05 vs. saline; all data points represent mean ± S.E.M. of three subjects.

Subjects generally earned the maximal number of food pellets available each day (i.e., 100) prior to the onset of the 100-day treatment period. Food-maintained responding, however, varied among the treatment conditions as a function of day of treatment [FTreatmentXDay(36,108) = 1.912; P = 0.006; Fig. 4, D–F]. Saline-treated subjects earned near the maximal number of daily food pellets available during the entire treatment period. In contrast, both d-MA and l-MA treatment decreased the number of pellets earned, but with different patterns of disruption. Food-maintained responding in d-MA–treated monkeys decreased to approximately 50% of the maximal number available at the 5- and 10-day time points (both P < 0.02). Responding then increased to 75% over the next two time points before returning to near baseline levels of food intake for the remainder of the treatment period, but with more variability than saline-treated subjects. Like the d-MA group, food-maintained responding was decreased to about 50% of the maximal number of pellets available in l-MA–treated subjects; however, this disruption occurred gradually and was observed later in treatment than the disruption seen with d-MA. That is, responding decreased to about 75% of baseline levels over the first 5 days of treatment (P = 0.21) but then further decreased to 50% between days 5 and 10, which lasted approximately 30 days (P < 0.02; except for days 10–15, P = 0.06). Food intake then steadily returned to baseline by about day 45 of treatment, which was maintained for the remainder of the treatment period.

Blood samples were collected prior to and at approximately 30, 60, 90, and 100 days of the chronic treatment period to examine changes in CBC/chemistry profile consequent to long-term treatment with d- or l-MA. There was no evidence for changes in any CBC measure between any of the treatment groups (all F values < 1.8; P > 0.05). Measures of alanine transaminase [FDay(4,24) = 8.383; P = 0.0002], albumin [FDay(4,24) = 3.47; P = 0.023], and bicarbonate [FDay(4,24) = 4.808; P = 0.0054] showed time-dependent changes; alanine transaminase and bicarbonate levels increased, and albumin levels decreased in all groups during the treatment period.

Discussion

The present study compared the abuse-related effects of l-MA with stimulant drugs of abuse—cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT—and assessed the effects of chronic l-MA treatment. l-MA has been shown to produce sustained decreases in cocaine and d-MA self-administration (Kohut et al., 2016; Bardo et al., 2019) and shares several behavioral and pharmacological effects with other monoamine releasers that have been proposed as candidate medications for cocaine and other stimulant use disorders (Herin et al., 2010; Czoty et al., 2016; Kohut and Bergman, 2016, 2017; Siemian et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019). However, unlike previous candidates, l-MA is considered to have less prominent dopaminergic and stimulant-like behavioral effects, which may make it a more suitable agonist medication. The present study found that l-MA was self-administered to a lesser extent and showed lower reinforcing effectiveness than cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT in nonhuman primates with histories of stimulant self-administration. Further, chronic l-MA treatment was well tolerated, producing minimal disruptions in daily activity and transient effects on food-maintained responding. These results support l-MA’s potential as an agonist therapy for stimulant use disorder.

The present finding that cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT maintained high rates of self-administration behavior and were similarly reinforcing is consistent with previous studies. For example, self-administration of MCAT in baboons was comparable in peak injections earned and total intake with cocaine (Kaminski and Griffiths, 1994), and progressive-ratio breakpoints were similar between d-MA and cocaine in rhesus monkeys (Lile et al., 2013). These findings are not surprising given the well documented abuse liability (schedule I or II compounds) and prominent dopaminergic mechanism of action of these compounds (Rothman and Baumann, 2003; Simmler et al., 2013). In contrast, l-MA engendered approximately half the number of injections at the peak dose and was 10- to 30-fold less potent than cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT. These data in rhesus monkeys with histories of stimulant self-administration extend previous findings in drug-naïve rats showing similar potency and effectiveness differences between d-MA and l-MA self-administration (Yokel and Pickens, 1973; Bardo et al., 2019). A previous study in rhesus monkeys, however, found that l-MA maintained rates of self-administration comparable to cocaine using a cumulative dosing procedure (Winger et al., 1994). Although this may appear to be at odds with the data presented here, procedural variations between the studies may explain these differences. Whereas Winger et al. (1994) used a self-administration procedure in which total injections were limited to 20 during 25-minute components, the present study permitted 100 minutes of unlimited access. Inspection of the cumulative records from the present study revealed that although cocaine, MCAT, and d-MA were robustly self-administered throughout the session, only l-MA engendered patterned responding for about 25 minutes before becoming slowed and infrequent. Importantly, these data suggest that although l-MA maintains self-administration behavior, it may be limited in a way not seen with dopamine-preferring psychomotor stimulants.

Simple FR schedules of reinforcement, such as those used in the present study, have been employed to study the relative abuse potential of investigational compounds but are not designed to directly measure reinforcing effectiveness (Kohut and Bergman, 2016, 2018; de Moura et al., 2021). Behavioral economic analysis applied to simple FR schedules of reinforcement is a powerful complement, providing a quantitative metric of demand for a reinforcer that can be compared across studies with various reinforcers, doses, and treatment regimens (Strickland and Lacy, 2020). Such claims are supported by results from the current study, as the elasticity of consumption for each drug studied was found to be dose-independent, highlighting the potential utility of this approach for generalizations of reinforcer essential value across factors that influence drug intake (Bickel et al., 1990; Strickland and Lacy, 2020). Maximum intensity, however, showed dose-dependent differences; although the maximum intensity for l-MA overlapped with the other stimulants at the peak dose, a 1/2-log increase in dose resulted in a lesser maximum intensity for l-MA compared with MCAT. This divergence is to be expected, as maximum intensity is sensitive to differences in size of commodities, such as reinforcer magnitude or dose (Hursh and Silberberg, 2008).

Cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT showed comparable reinforcing effectiveness in nonhuman primates as demand elasticity values were similar for peak and peak + 1/2-log doses. This result is consistent with findings in rats in which several schedule I monoaminergic drugs of abuse demonstrated equal or greater reinforcing effectiveness compared with cocaine or racemic MA (Huskinson et al., 2017; Gannon et al., 2018). Importantly, l-MA exhibited the lowest reinforcing effectiveness in the present study, as demand elasticity was greater for l-MA (i.e., less resistant to increases in price) than cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT. Thus, the lower abuse-related behavioral profile of l-MA compared with monoaminergic stimulants with prominent dopaminergic effects spans across fixed ratio and behavioral economic self-administration procedures.

The lower rates of l-MA self-administration and greater demand elasticity are unlikely to be explained by pharmacokinetic differences, as d- and l-MA have similar onset, elimination half-life, and distribution in brain (Melega et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 2006; Fowler et al., 2007; Mendelson et al., 2008; Li et al., 2010). Rather, the different pharmacodynamic profiles at monoamine systems—specifically dopamine and norepinephrine—between d- and l-MA likely underlie these differences. Cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT each show a preference or near equal potency for either dopamine transporter inhibition or DA release compared with NE, whereas l-MA shows the greatest (∼15-fold) NE:DA selectivity ratio of these compounds (Rothman et al., 2001; Simmler et al., 2013; Kohut et al., 2013; 2017). Thus, the role of more prominent noradrenergic mechanisms by l-MA is likely a key contributor to the differences in reinforcing effects reported here. Few studies have been conducted with NE-preferring releasers, but previous reports have shown drugs that primarily increase NE in the synapse, via NE transporter inhibition, do not support self-administration in rhesus monkeys (Woolverton, 1987) or increase measures of drug reward in conditioned place preference procedures in rodents [Martin-Iverson et al., 1985; but see Weinshenker and Schroeder (2007) for review]. Rather, evidence suggests that elevated NE signaling within the mesolimbic pathway promotes aversive states (Schank et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2009, 2010; Vranjkovic et al., 2014), an effect which may limit drug intake. In support of this, attenuating cocaine’s noradrenergic effects by genetic knockout of norepinephrine transporter in mice enhances cocaine reward in conditioned place preference (Xu et al., 2000; Sora et al., 2001). Further, cocaine, l-MA, and d-MA each produce subjective ratings of “drug-liking,” but l-MA’s drug-liking effects are weaker, and l-MA fails to elicit increases in positive mood compared with d-MA in human MA users (Rush and Baker, 2001; Mendelson et al., 2006). Further, l-MA’s self-reported drug effects have been shown to dissipate quicker than d-MA in experienced drug users [Mendelson et al., 2006; see also Kohut et al. (2017) for cocaine-like discriminative stimulus effects in monkeys]. These data, along with the differences observed in within-session pattern of responding shown in cumulative records, may suggest that the 15-fold greater release of NE over DA produced by l-MA serves to limit l-MA self-administration after a threshold of NE activity is reached. Once that threshold is met, the increased brain NE levels produce an aversive state that diminishes the DA-mediated reinforcing effects. This effect is not seen with standard stimulants because they are typically nonselective NE/DA releasers/uptake inhibitors and synaptic NE and DA levels are highly coupled. Thus, l-MA’s favorable profile as an agonist medication is based, in part, on its reinforcing effects, which would maintain compliance, but that excessive use may be limited by the emergence of aversive effects at higher doses.

d-MA–induced disruptions in food-reinforced responding during 100 days of chronic dosing were immediate and lasted for about a week, similar to those seen with 28-day treatment of d-amphetamine in nonhuman primates and 7-day d-MA treatment in drug-naïve rats (Negus and Mello, 2003; Bardo et al., 2019). Utilizing a 0.1 mg/kg per hour l-MA treatment regimen, which is sufficient to decrease cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys (Kohut et al., 2016), l-MA produced a gradual disruption in food-reinforced responding, with tolerance to these effects emerging after 4 weeks of treatment. This finding is intriguing because 5–10 days of treatment with the same l-MA dose produced no significant effect on food-reinforced responding in primates with a recent cocaine self-administration history (Kohut et al., 2016). Rather, the present results, in subjects that were drug-free for several months prior to chronic l-MA treatment, more closely align with recent results from drug-naïve rats showing that l-MA potently decreased food-maintained responding (Bardo et al., 2019). Taken together, these findings suggest that cross-tolerance between the disruptive effects on food-reinforced behavior from l-MA and cocaine occurs, which could be clinically relevant for body weight changes seen in cocaine dependence and abstinence in humans (Cowan and Devine, 2008; Ersche et al., 2013). Given the overlapping but unique effects of l-MA compared with d-MA in behavioral responses outlined earlier, the divergent temporal pattern in the disruption of food-reinforced responding by d- and l-MA could similarly suggest different mechanisms. It is worth noting that changes in daily chow consumption or body weight were not observed during the treatment period. Previous studies suggest that the effects of NE on satiety are mediated in part by α-adrenergic receptors in the hypothalamus, and functionality of these receptors is documented to be altered by chronic cocaine administration (Wellman, 2000; Baumann et al., 2004). However, these suggestions are speculative, and additional studies designed to investigate the underlying pharmacological mechanisms responsible for d- and l-MA–induced decreases in food-maintained responding are needed to fully address this question.

Similar to the vehicle-treated group, chronic l-MA treatment did not alter daily activity across the entirety of the 100-day treatment period. This finding suggests l-MA may be better tolerated than d-MA, as d-MA suppressed activity for several weeks after treatment onset.d-MA’s more pronounced suppression of daily activity may be related to its prominent dopaminergic effects, as dopamine agonists have been shown to increase stationary posture in primates (Rosenzweig-Lipson et al., 1994). Further, no appreciable changes in any standard biomarkers measured through CBC or metabolic panels were observed during treatment with l-MA or d-MA, which corroborates previous reports in humans whereby acute l-MA administration was considered safe with limited cardiovascular risk (Mendelson et al., 2006, 2008; Dufka et al., 2009). These data highlight that, under these experimental conditions, chronic treatment with l-MA does not produce overt changes in standard health biomarkers, despite concern for the effects of monoaminergic drugs on metabolic and peripheral processes (Bakir and Dunea, 1996; Matsumoto et al., 2014).

Conclusions

The present study demonstrates that l-MA exhibits a lesser abuse liability profile relative to common stimulants (i.e. cocaine, d-MA, and MCAT). Further, a dose of l-MA known to decrease cocaine self-administration was well tolerated during chronic dosing with fewer unwanted effects compared with d-MA. This, combined with l-MA’s shared cocaine and d-MA–like subjective effects, suggest that it may be a promising candidate as an agonist therapy that would maintain treatment compliance. Future work aimed at clarifying the pharmacological mechanisms underlying l-MA’s distinct behavioral profile and the extent of tolerance to its therapeutic effects over extended treatment will be crucial for optimizing its use as an agonist therapy for stimulant use disorders.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Olga Smirnova, Nathaniel Osiris, and Kevin Costa for assistance with conducting these studies. The authors thank Drs. Fernando B. de Moura and Alison Wakeford for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Dr. Jack Bergman for thoughtful discussions about medications for substance use disorder.

Authorship Contributions

Participated in research design: Blough, Kohut.

Conducted experiments: Jacobs, Kohut.

Contributed new reagents or analytic tools: Blough.

Performed data analysis: Jacobs, Kohut.

Wrote or contributed to the writing of the manuscript: Jacobs, Blough, Kohut.

Footnotes

    • Received February 2, 2021.
    • Accepted May 10, 2021.
  • This work was funded by National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse [Grants DA002519, DA039306, DA12970, and DA048150].

  • None of the authors have actual or perceived conflicts of interests with the contents of the article.

  • https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.121.000548.

Abbreviations

CBC
complete blood count
CUD
cocaine use disorder
DA
dopamine
d-MA
d-methamphetamine
FR
fixed ratio
inj
injection
l-MA
l-methamphetamine
MCAT
methcathinone
NE
norepinephrine
TO
time-out
  • Copyright © 2021 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bakir AA
    2. Dunea G
    (1996) Drugs of abuse and renal disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 5:122–126 10.1097/00041552-199603000-00004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Baumann MH
    2. Milchanowski AB
    3. Rothman RB
    (2004) Evidence for alterations in α2-adrenergic receptor sensitivity in rats exposed to repeated cocaine administration. Neuroscience 125:683–690 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.02.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bardo MT
    2. Denehy ED
    3. Hammerslag LR
    4. Dwoskin LP
    5. Blough BE
    6. Landavazo A
    7. Bergman J
    8. Kohut SJ
    (2019) Effects of methamphetamine isomers on d-methamphetamine self-administration and food-maintained responding in male rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 236:3557–3565 10.1007/s00213-019-05327-8.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Bickel WK
    2. DeGrandpre RJ
    3. Higgins ST
    4. Hughes JR
    (1990) Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. I. Functional equivalence of response requirement and drug dose. Life Sci 47:1501–1510 10.1016/0024-3205(90)90178-T.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bondareva TS
    2. Young R
    3. Glennon RA
    (2002) Central stimulants as discriminative stimuli. Asymmetric generalization between (-)ephedrine and S(+)methamphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 74:157–162 10.1016/S0091-3057(02)00963-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Cowan J
    2. Devine C
    (2008) Food, eating, and weight concerns of men in recovery from substance addiction. Appetite 50:33–42 10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Czoty PW
    2. Stoops WW
    3. Rush CR
    (2016) Evaluation of the “pipeline” for development of medications for cocaine use disorder: a review of translational preclinical, human laboratory, and clinical trial research. Pharmacol Rev 68:533–562 10.1124/pr.115.011668.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. de Moura FB
    2. Sherwood A
    3. Prisinzano TE
    4. Paronis CA
    5. Bergman J
    6. Kohut SJ
    (2021) Reinforcing effects of synthetic cathinones in rhesus monkeys: dose-response and behavioral economic analyses. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 202:173112 10.1016/j.pbb.2021.173112.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Desai RI
    2. Bergman J
    (2010) Drug discrimination in methamphetamine-trained rats: effects of cholinergic nicotinic compounds. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 335:807–816 10.1124/jpet.110.173773.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Dufka F
    2. Galloway G
    3. Baggott M
    4. Mendelson J
    (2009) The effects of inhaled L-methamphetamine on athletic performance while riding a stationary bike: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Br J Sports Med 43:832–835 10.1136/bjsm.2008.048348.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Ersche KD
    2. Stochl J
    3. Woodward JM
    4. Fletcher PC
    (2013) The skinny on cocaine: insights into eating behavior and body weight in cocaine-dependent men. Appetite 71:75–80 10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Fowler JS
    2. Kroll C
    3. Ferrieri R
    4. Alexoff D
    5. Logan J
    6. Dewey SL
    7. Schiffer W
    8. Schlyer D
    9. Carter P
    10. King P, et al.
    (2007) PET studies of d-methamphetamine pharmacokinetics in primates: comparison with l-methamphetamine and ( --)-cocaine. J Nucl Med 48:1724–1732 10.2967/jnumed.107.040279.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Gannon BM
    2. Baumann MH
    3. Walther D
    4. Jimenez-Morigosa C
    5. Sulima A
    6. Rice KC
    7. Collins GT
    (2018) The abuse-related effects of pyrrolidine-containing cathinones are related to their potency and selectivity to inhibit the dopamine transporter. Neuropsychopharmacology 43:2399–2407 10.1038/s41386-018-0209-3.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Grabowski J
    2. Shearer J
    3. Merrill J
    4. Negus SS
    (2004) Agonist-like, replacement pharmacotherapy for stimulant abuse and dependence. Addict Behav 29:1439–1464 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.06.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Herin DV
    2. Rush CR
    3. Grabowski J
    (2010) Agonist-like pharmacotherapy for stimulant dependence: preclinical, human laboratory, and clinical studies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1187:76–100 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05145.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Hursh SR
    (1993) Behavioral economics of drug self-administration: an introduction. Drug Alcohol Depend 33:165–172 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90058-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hursh SR
    2. Silberberg A
    (2008) Economic demand and essential value. Psychol Rev 115:186–198 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. McSweeney FK
    2. Murphy ES
    1. Hursh SR
    (2014) Behavioral economics and the analysis of consumption and choice, in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning (McSweeney FK Murphy ES, eds) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford, UK.
  19. ↵
    1. Huskinson SL
    2. Naylor JE
    3. Townsend EA
    4. Rowlett JK
    5. Blough BE
    (2017) Self-administration and behavioral economics of second-generation synthetic cathinones in male rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 10.1007/s00213-016-4492-6.
  20. ↵
    1. Imboden MT
    2. Nelson MB
    3. Kaminsky LA
    4. Montoye AH
    (2018) Comparison of four Fitbit and Jawbone activity monitors with a research-grade ActiGraph accelerometer for estimating physical activity and energy expenditure. Br J Sports Med 52:844–850 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096990.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Jacobs DS
    2. Barkin CE
    3. Kohut MR
    4. Bergman J
    5. Kohut SJ
    (2017) Effects of lorcaserin (Belviq®) on nicotine- and food-maintained responding in non-human primates. Drug Alcohol Depend 181:94–101 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.008.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Jones JD
    2. Hall FS
    3. Uhl GR
    4. Rice K
    5. Riley AL
    (2009) Differential involvement of the norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine reuptake transporter proteins in cocaine-induced taste aversion. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 93:75–81 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.04.009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Jones JD
    2. Hall FS
    3. Uhl GR
    4. Riley AL
    (2010) Dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin transporter gene deletions differentially alter cocaine-induced taste aversion. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 94:580–587 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.11.014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Kaminski BJ
    2. Griffiths RR
    (1994) Intravenous self-injection of methcathinone in the baboon. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 47:981–983 10.1016/0091-3057(94)90307-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Fivel PA
    3. Blough BE
    4. Rothman RB
    5. Mello NK
    (2013) Effects of methcathinone and 3-Cl-methcathinone (PAL-434) in cocaine discrimination or self-administration in rhesus monkeys. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 16:1985–1998 10.1017/S146114571300059X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Bergman J
    (2016) Reinforcing effectiveness of nicotine in nonhuman primates: effects of nicotine dose and history of nicotine self-administration. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 233:2451–2458 10.1007/s00213-016-4293-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Bergman J
    3. Blough BE
    (2016) Effects of L-methamphetamine treatment on cocaine- and food-maintained behavior in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 233:1067–1075 10.1007/s00213-015-4186-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Bergman J
    (2017). Medication strategies for the management of cocaine use disorder, in The Neuroscience of Cocaine Ed. V.R. Preedy. pp 627–637. Academic Press. London, UK.
  29. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Jacobs DS
    3. Rothman RB
    4. Partilla JS
    5. Bergman J
    6. Blough BE
    (2017) Cocaine-like discriminative stimulus effects of “norepinephrine-preferring” monoamine releasers: time course and interaction studies in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 234:3455–3465 10.1007/s00213-017-4731-5.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Kohut SJ
    2. Bergman J
    (2018) Lorcaserin decreases the reinforcing effects of heroin, but not food, in rhesus monkeys. Eur J Pharmacol 840:28–32 10.1016/j.ejphar.2018.09.025.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Kuczenski R
    2. Segal DS
    3. Cho AK
    4. Melega W
    (1995) Hippocampus norepinephrine, caudate dopamine and serotonin, and behavioral responses to the stereoisomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. J Neurosci 15:1308–1317 10.1523/jneurosci.15-02-01308.1995.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Li L
    2. Everhart T
    3. Jacob Iii P
    4. Jones R
    5. Mendelson J
    (2010) Stereoselectivity in the human metabolism of methamphetamine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 69:187–192 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03576.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Lile JA
    2. Charnigo RJ
    3. Nader MA
    (2013) The relative reinforcing strength of methamphetamine and D-amphetamine in monkeys self-administering cocaine. Behav Pharmacol 24:482–485 10.1097/FBP.0b013e3283644d44
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Martin-Iverson MT
    2. Ortmann R
    3. Fibiger HC
    (1985) Place preference conditioning with methylphenidate and nomifensine. Brain Res 332:59–67 10.1016/0006-8993(85)90389-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Matsumoto RR
    2. Seminerio MJ
    3. Turner RC
    4. Robson MJ
    5. Nguyen L
    6. Miller DB
    7. O’Callaghan JP
    (2014) Methamphetamine-induced toxicity: an updated review on issues related to hyperthermia. Pharmacol Ther 144:28–40 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2014.05.001.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Melega WP
    2. Cho AK
    3. Schmitz D
    4. Kuczenski R
    5. Segal DS
    (1999) l-methamphetamine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for assessment of in vivo deprenyl-derived l-methamphetamine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 288:752–758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Mendelson JE
    2. McGlothlin D
    3. Harris DS
    4. Foster E
    5. Everhart T
    6. Jacob P 3rd
    7. Jones RT
    (2008) The clinical pharmacology of intranasal l-methamphetamine. BMC Clin Pharmacol 8:4 10.1186/1472-6904-8-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Mendelson J
    2. Uemura N
    3. Harris D
    4. Nath RP
    5. Fernandez E
    6. Jacob P 3rd.,
    7. Everhart ET
    8. Jones RT
    (2006) Human pharmacology of the methamphetamine stereoisomers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 80:403–420 10.1016/j.clpt.2006.06.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Negus SS
    2. Mello NK
    3. Blough BE
    4. Baumann MH
    5. Rothman RB
    (2007) Monoamine releasers with varying selectivity for dopamine/norepinephrine versus serotonin release as candidate “agonist” medications for cocaine dependence: studies in assays of cocaine discrimination and cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320:627–636 10.1124/jpet.106.107383.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Negus SS
    2. Mello NK
    (2003) Effects of chronic d-amphetamine treatment on cocaine- and food-maintained responding under a second-order schedule in rhesus monkeys. Drug Alcohol Depend 70:39–52 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00339-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. Newton, T. F., La Garza, De, R., Kalechstein, A. D., & Nestor, L. (2005). Cocaine and methamphetamine produce different patterns of subjective and cardiovascular effects. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 82(1), 90–97 10.1016/j.pbb.2005.07.012.
  42. ↵
    1. Nishimura T
    2. Takahata K
    3. Kosugi Y
    4. Tanabe T
    5. Muraoka S
    (2017) Psychomotor effect differences between l-methamphetamine and d-methamphetamine are independent of murine plasma and brain pharmacokinetics profiles. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 124:519–523 10.1007/s00702-017-1694-y.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Rosenzweig-Lipson S
    2. Hesterberg P
    3. Bergman J
    (1994) Observational studies of dopamine D1 and D2 agonists in squirrel monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 116:9–18 10.1007/BF02244865.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Rothman RB
    2. Baumann MH
    3. Dersch CM
    4. Romero DV
    5. Rice KC
    6. Carroll FI
    7. Partilla JS
    (2001) Amphetamine-type central nervous system stimulants release norepinephrine more potently than they release dopamine and serotonin. Synapse 39:32–41 10.1002/1098-2396(20010101)39:1<32:AID-SYN5>3.0.CO;2-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Rothman RB
    2. Baumann MH
    (2003) Monoamine transporters and psychostimulant drugs. Eur J Pharmacol 479:23–40 10.1016/j.ejphar.2003.08.054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Rothman R
    2. Blough B
    3. Baumann M
    (2008). Dopamine/serotonin releasers as medications for stimulant addictions. Prog Brain Res 172:385–406 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)00919-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Rush CR
    2. Baker RW
    (2001) Behavioral pharmacological similarities between methylphenidate and cocaine in cocaine abusers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 9:59–73 10.1037/1064-1297.9.1.59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Rush CR
    2. Stoops WW
    (2012) Agonist replacement therapy for cocaine dependence: a translational review. Future Med Chem 4:245–265 10.4155/fmc.11.184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Schank JR
    2. Liles LC
    3. Weinshenker D
    (2008) Norepinephrine signaling through β-adrenergic receptors is critical for expression of cocaine-induced anxiety. Biol Psychiatry 63:1007–1012 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.10.018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Siemian JN
    2. Xue Z
    3. Blough BE
    4. Li JX
    (2017) Comparison of some behavioral effects of d- and l-methamphetamine in adult male rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 234:2167–2176 10.1007/s00213-017-4623-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Simmler LD
    2. Buser TA
    3. Donzelli M
    4. Schramm Y
    5. Dieu LH
    6. Huwyler J
    7. Chaboz S
    8. Hoener MC
    9. Liechti ME
    (2013) Pharmacological characterization of designer cathinones in vitro. Br J Pharmacol 168:458–470 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02145.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Sora I
    2. Hall FS
    3. Andrews AM
    4. Itokawa M
    5. Li XF
    6. Wei HB
    7. Wichems C
    8. Lesch KP
    9. Murphy DL
    10. Uhl GR
    (2001) Molecular mechanisms of cocaine reward: combined dopamine and serotonin transporter knockouts eliminate cocaine place preference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5300–5305 10.1073/pnas.091039298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Strickland JC
    2. Lacy RT
    (2020) Behavioral economic demand as a unifying language for addiction science: Promoting collaboration and integration of animal and human models. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 28:404–416 10.1037/pha0000358.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Tardelli VS
    2. Bisaga A
    3. Arcadepani FB
    4. Gerra G
    5. Levin FR
    6. Fidalgo TM
    (2020) Prescription psychostimulants for the treatment of stimulant use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 237:2233–2255 10.1007/s00213-020-05563-3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Vranjkovic O
    2. Gasser PJ
    3. Gerndt CH
    4. Baker DA
    5. Mantsch JR
    (2014) Stress-induced cocaine seeking requires a beta-2 adrenergic receptor-regulated pathway from the ventral bed nucleus of the stria terminalis that regulates CRF actions in the ventral tegmental area. J Neurosci 34:12504–12514 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0680-14.2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Weinshenker D
    2. Schroeder JP
    (2007) There and back again: a tale of norepinephrine and drug addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:1433–1451 10.1038/sj.npp.1301263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Wellman PJ
    (2000) Norepinephrine and the control of food intake. Nutrition 16:837–842 10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00415-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Winger GD
    2. Yasar S
    3. Negus SS
    4. Goldberg SR
    (1994) Intravenous self-administration studies with l-deprenyl (selegiline) in monkeys. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:774–780 10.1038/clpt.1994.208.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Woolverton WL
    (1987) Evaluation of the role of norepinephrine in the reinforcing effects of psychomotor stimulants in rhesus monkeys. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 26:835–839 10.1016/0091-3057(87)90618-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Xu F
    2. Gainetdinov RR
    3. Wetsel WC
    4. Jones SR
    5. Bohn LM
    6. Miller GW
    7. Wang YM
    8. Caron MG
    (2000) Mice lacking the norepinephrine transporter are supersensitive to psychostimulants. Nat Neurosci 3:465–471 10.1038/74839.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Xue Z
    2. Siemian JN
    3. Zhu Q
    4. Blough BE
    5. Li JX
    (2019) Further pharmacological comparison of D-methamphetamine and L-methamphetamine in rats: abuse-related behavioral and physiological indices. Behav Pharmacol 30:422–428 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000453.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Yasar S
    2. Bergman J
    (1994) Amphetamine-like effect of l-deprenyl (selegiline) in drug discrimination studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:768–773 10.1038/clpt.1994.207.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Yokel RA
    2. Pickens R
    (1973) Self-administration of optical isomers of amphetamine and methylamphetamine by rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 187:27–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics: 378 (2)
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Vol. 378, Issue 2
1 Aug 2021
  • 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.
Reinforcing and Stimulant-Like Effects of Methamphetamine Isomers in Rhesus Macaques
(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

l-Methamphetamine Self-Administration in Nonhuman Primates

David S. Jacobs, Bruce E. Blough and Stephen J. Kohut
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics August 1, 2021, 378 (2) 124-132; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.121.000548

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Research ArticleBehavioral Pharmacology

l-Methamphetamine Self-Administration in Nonhuman Primates

David S. Jacobs, Bruce E. Blough and Stephen J. Kohut
Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics August 1, 2021, 378 (2) 124-132; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.121.000548
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Role of residues S426 and S430 in cannabinoid tolerance
  • DAT ligands on Cocaine-Food Choice in Monkeys
  • MDPV high-responders to evaluate candidate medications
Show more Behavioral Pharmacology

Similar Articles

Advertisement
  • 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 © 2023 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics