Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hoffman 2001

Hoffman 2001

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
Uploaded from Google Docs
Uploaded from Google Docs

More info:

Published by: Matias Ceballos Guzman on Dec 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





This document contains text automatically extracted from a PDF or image file. Formatting may havebeen lost and not all text may have been recognized.
To remove this note, right-click and select "Delete table".
Direct Actions of Cannabinoids on Synaptic Transmission
in the Nucleus Accumbens: A Comparison With Opioids
ALEXANDER F. HOFFMAN AND CARL R. LUPICACellular Neurobiology Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Received 15 June 2000; accepted in final form 15 September 2000Hoffman, Alexander F. and Carl R. Lupica. Direct actions of cannabinoids on synaptic transmission in the nucleus accumbens: acomparison with opioids. J Neurophysiol 85: 72–83, 2001. The nu-cleus accumbens (NAc) represents a critical site for the rewarding andaddictive properties of several classes of abused drugs. The mediumspiny GABAergic projection neurons (MSNs) in the NAc receiveinnervation from intrinsic GABAergic interneurons and glutamatergicinnervation from extrinsic sources. Both GABA and glutamate releaseonto MSNs are inhibited by drugs of abuse, suggesting that this actionmay contribute to their rewarding properties. To investigate the ac-tions of cannabinoids in the NAc, we performed whole cell recordingsfrom MSNs located in the shell region in rat brain slices. The canna- binoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 (1 M) had no effect on the restingmembrane potential, input resistance, or whole cell conductance,suggesting no direct postsynaptic effects. Evoked glutamatergic exci-tatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) were inhibited to a much greater extent by [Tyr-D
Chiara and Imperato 1988; Koob 1992; Koob et al. 1998; Wiseand Bozarth 1987). However, recent evidence also suggeststhat many drugs of abuse have dopamine-independent interac-tions with NAc neuronal circuitry (Carlezon and Wise 1996;Chieng and Williams 1998; Koob 1992; Martin et al. 1997;Yuan et al. 1992).The majority ( 90%) of neurons within the NAc areGABAergic medium spiny neurons (MSNs) (Groenewegen etal. 1991) that send their output to several brain structures,including the ventral pallidum (Chang and Kitai 1985) and theventral tegmental area (VTA) (Steffensen et al. 1998). Thesecells receive dopaminergic input from the VTA and glutama-tergic inputs from the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontalcortex (Christie et al. 1985, 1987; Pennartz and Kitai 1991).
35%) than by WIN -Ala2, 55,212-2 N-CH3-Phe4, ( Gly-ol-enkephalin] (DAMGO,20%), and an analysis of miniatureEPSCs suggested that the effects of DAMGO were presynaptic,whereas those of WIN 55,212-2 were postsynaptic. However, electri-cally evoked GABAergic inhibitory postsynaptic currents (evIPSCs),were nM; 60% reduced maximal by WIN inhibition), 55,212-2 and in every the inhibition neuron tested of IPSCs (EC50 by WIN123
Previous work has suggested that the synaptic inhibition of striatal MSNs occurs via axon collaterals of the MSNs them-selves (Park et al. 1980; Wilson and Groves 1980). However,

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->