Thesis advisor: Jon C. Horvitz / Previous research has yielded conflicting results regarding the involvement of mesolimbic dopamine in Pavlovian and operant tasks. While there is abundant evidence that an operant lever press requires intact dopamine (DA) D1 transmission in the nucleus accumbens (ACB) and in the basolateral amygdala (BLA), there is conflicting evidence regarding the specific brain sites at which DA mediates a Pavlovian approach response. The present study was designed to compare the effects of ACB and BLA D1 receptor-blockade on an operant and Pavlovian task, while minimizing differences in behavioral response topography. Animals were trained on either a Pavlovian cued approach task or an operant cued nosepoke task. In the Pavlovian approach task, a tone signaled a pellet delivery to which animals responded with a head entry into a food compartment. In the operant nosepoke task, animals were trained to emit a nosepoke in response to the same tone, in order to trigger a pellet delivery. Bilateral microinfusions of the D1 antagonist SCH 23390 (0, 1 or 2 microgram/side) into either the ACB or the BLA produced a dose-dependent disruption of the operant nosepoke. In contrast, the Pavlovian cued approach response was unaffected by D1 antagonist microinfusions into either the ACB or the BLA. In addition, infusion of SCH 23390 into either site suppressed general locomotion. The results suggest a dissociation of the anatomical substrates mediating an operant nosepoke and a Pavlovian approach, despite similar response topographies. These findings are consistent with the notion that D1 activity at the ACB and BLA plays a role in the expression of operant responses, but not in the expression of Pavlovian approach responses. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Psychology.

No description available.

Thesis (M.Sc. (Pharmacology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

This study used the D2-preferring dopamine antagonist, haloperidol (3mg) and D1-D2 antagonist, fluphenazine (3mg) to investigate the roles of D1 and D2 receptors in d-amphetamine (20-mg) reinforcement in humans with (9 M; 7 F) and without (12 M; 4 F) an addictive disorder, in a placebo-controlled, between-within counterbalanced design. To preclude neurotoxicity, pathological gamblers served to evaluate effects of addiction status. Incentive motivation (e.g., Desire to Gamble), hedonic impact (e.g., Liking) and risky decision-making were assessed. Haloperidol reduced Desire to Gamble in controls, whereas fluphenazine reduced Desire in gamblers. Both antagonists reduced hedonic impact in both groups, with fluphenazine exhibiting stronger effects in gamblers. Both antagonists decreased risky decisions in controls but increased risky decisions in gamblers. Results suggest that D1 mediates amphetamine-induced motivation to gamble; D2 mediates amphetamine’s hedonic effects; D1 function is deficient in gamblers; and D2 blockade may reverse a restorative effect of amphetamine in addicted individuals.

This study used the D2-preferring dopamine antagonist, haloperidol (3mg) and D1-D2 antagonist, fluphenazine (3mg) to investigate the roles of D1 and D2 receptors in d-amphetamine (20-mg) reinforcement in humans with (9 M; 7 F) and without (12 M; 4 F) an addictive disorder, in a placebo-controlled, between-within counterbalanced design. To preclude neurotoxicity, pathological gamblers served to evaluate effects of addiction status. Incentive motivation (e.g., Desire to Gamble), hedonic impact (e.g., Liking) and risky decision-making were assessed. Haloperidol reduced Desire to Gamble in controls, whereas fluphenazine reduced Desire in gamblers. Both antagonists reduced hedonic impact in both groups, with fluphenazine exhibiting stronger effects in gamblers. Both antagonists decreased risky decisions in controls but increased risky decisions in gamblers. Results suggest that D1 mediates amphetamine-induced motivation to gamble; D2 mediates amphetamine’s hedonic effects; D1 function is deficient in gamblers; and D2 blockade may reverse a restorative effect of amphetamine in addicted individuals.

This study sought to determine the roles of D1 and D2 receptors in mediating gambling reinforcement in pathological gamblers and controls (n=24/group), and the influence of reward novelty on these effects. Subjects received D2 antagonist, haloperidol (3mg), or D1-D2 antagonist, fluphenazine (3mg) in a placebo-controlled, counterbalanced, two-session design. Incentive motivation and hedonic impact were assessed before and after a 15-min slot machine game. Haloperidol tended to increase pre-game motivation but reduce the priming effect of the slot machine, while fluphenazine increased positive mood ratings but reduced motivation to gamble. Haloperidol effects were stronger when it was received on the first session, while fluphenazine had stronger effects after prior drug-free exposure. Results suggest D1 signaling is central to reward expectancy and motivation to gamble, and that moderate stimulation increases positive affect while reducing motivation to gamble. D1 blockade may also enhance reinforcement of a familiar task by interfering with reward expectancy.

This study sought to determine the roles of D1 and D2 receptors in mediating gambling reinforcement in pathological gamblers and controls (n=24/group), and the influence of reward novelty on these effects. Subjects received D2 antagonist, haloperidol (3mg), or D1-D2 antagonist, fluphenazine (3mg) in a placebo-controlled, counterbalanced, two-session design. Incentive motivation and hedonic impact were assessed before and after a 15-min slot machine game. Haloperidol tended to increase pre-game motivation but reduce the priming effect of the slot machine, while fluphenazine increased positive mood ratings but reduced motivation to gamble. Haloperidol effects were stronger when it was received on the first session, while fluphenazine had stronger effects after prior drug-free exposure. Results suggest D1 signaling is central to reward expectancy and motivation to gamble, and that moderate stimulation increases positive affect while reducing motivation to gamble. D1 blockade may also enhance reinforcement of a familiar task by interfering with reward expectancy.

Thesis (M.Sc. (Pharmacology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Dopamine receptors belong to the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily and are classified into two families: D1-like (D1R and D5R) and D2-like (D2R, D3R and D4R), based on their ability to stimulate or inhibit adenylyl cyclase (AC). Classically, GPCRs (including D2R and D3R) are desensitized by the activation of the serine/threonine protein kinase C (PKC) upon phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA) treatment. Previous studies demonstrate that while human D5R (hD5R) is also strongly desensitized upon PMA treatment, the human D1R (hD1R) undergo a robust PMA-induced sensitization. The aim of this PhD thesis was to explore how the canonical PKC- or phorbol ester-linked pathway can control the responsiveness of two similar GPCRs like hD1R and hD5R in an opposite fashion. Our data indicate that hD1R sensitization and hD5R desensitization are not mediated by a direct modulation of AC activity by PKC. Using a chimeric approach, we identified the third intracellular loop (IL3) as the key structural determinant controlling in an opposite manner the PMA-mediated regulation of hD1R and hD5R. To delineate the potential PKC phosphorylation sites, a series of mutation of serine (Ser) and threonine (Thr) located into IL3 of hD1R and hD5R were used. No hD1R mutation decreased the PMA-mediated sensitization. This suggests that hD1R phosphorylation is not required for PMA-induced sensitization. In contrast, our results indicate that PMA-mediated hD5R desensitization occurs through a hierarchical phosphorylation of Ser260, Ser261, Ser271 and Ser274. Notably, these hD5R mutants exhibited a PMA-induced sensitization, reminiscent of the PMA-induced hD1R sensitization. Additionally, using short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs), we showed that PKCε is the potentiating PKC while the desensitizing isoform is δ. Overall, our work suggests the presence or absence of specific Ser residues on IL3 of hD1-like receptors dictate if phosphorylation-dependent desensitization (through PKCδ) or phosphorylation-independent potentiation (via PKCε) will occur.

Thesis (M.Sc. (Pharmacology))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.